The rise in global temperatures since 1880 closely correlates with increases in postal charges, sparking alarm that CO2 has been usurped as the main driver of climate change.
SOURCES: NCDC global temperatures, Law Dome & Mauna Loa CO2 levels, US postal charges, Andrew Dart. The link to cite for this image.
Back in 1885 it cost 2 cents to post a letter. Who would have thought that as postal charges climbed by 40 cents through the next 120 years, that global temperatures would mirror that rise in timing and slope and gain almost one full degree?
Ominously, US Post is set to raise the charges 2c to 44c on May 11, 2009. Postal Action Network (PAN) has already sprung into existence this afternoon and plans to produce a boycott campaign of the new 44c Homer Simpson stamps. Overworked postal workers are enthusiastic. Homer Simpson is reported to have said “Give me the number for 911.”
Barbara Boxer, majority Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, immediately set up an inquiry, announcing that all future changes in price for US post must be approved by the EPA. “We’ll need a full environmental impact statement. We can’t just let global damage be done willy nilly on the basis of some arbitrary postal expenses committee’s need to balance the books. No other government service has to balance their budget, why should US Post?”
President Obama immediately convened a task force at the Federal Reserve to loan $450 billion to US Post to keep prices constant until 3400 A.D..
Tuvalu promptly announced they would cut their postal charges in half ‘just in case’. They are asking for donations in order to keep their postal service running, but are considering shifting to carrier pigeons.
The mechanism is far from clear. Professor Chrichton-Boots from the Chicago Schools of Economics, cautioned that US Post prices are a good proxy for inflation, and that it may be inflation that is really behind the recent change in climate. He admitted it was puzzling that there appears to have been global temperature changes for 3-5 billion years before the advent of either US Postal services, or inflation. “You would think the planetary climate would have been stable.” But Harvard social researchers are calling for funding for archaeological digs to find postage stamps from the precambrian. “It’s under-researched”. US Post said this type of finding would be very important but, if any stamps were found, they would be unable to honor them: “Since at the time, the US didn’t exist, in government, in theory, or even as a landmass”.
A spokesman from US Post pointed out that the ‘Forever’ series of stamps (which cost 41c, but are ‘good forever, regardless of price rises’) are anti-inflationary. They were issued in 2007 which “may explain the cooler weather since then”*.
Critics pointed out that correlation is not causation, and “you can produce a link between any two monotonically rising lines on a graph”. The newly formed UN Intergovernmental Panel on Postal Changes called them deniers, while Jim Hansen from NASA pronounced that executives from The Board of Governors of the U.S. Postal Service should be jailed henceforth and also retrospectively.
The Russians (Pochta Rossii) announced they would lift the cost of letters from 10 roubles to 100, effective from Monday. “Siberia is too cold”.
*(As a curious aside, the Forever stamps may have been the US Government’s most successful investment tool in recent times, gaining 14% in value since 2007, while the Dow and everything else, lost over 40%. Thus proving that the US Federal Reserve could better maintain US purchasing power parity if they switched the world’s Reserve Currency from US Dollars to “Forever Stamps”. )
I love it! Makes as much sense as CO2! 😉
60
Based upon popular, prevailing “wisdom”, such a correlation is nearly impossible to refute.
Too bad humans don’t live longer, because the correlation between increased climate temperature and Albert Gore’s waist line may also yield even more evidence. Wait — they’ve already linked global warming to fat people. Nevermind.
40
I am not entirely convinced by this as I notice that while postal charges are continuing to rise, temperatures are now beginning to fall. I think it is wrong to concentrate on just one variable. Sceptics unite!
30
I can see, er-a, hear it now, “Stamp out stamps!” Maybe the long term answer is to use “Partial Post.”
30
Thank you, JoAnne, for cheering me up, all of the AGW maelstrom has made me a bit blue of late, I must say.
I believe the Homer Simpson character creator, Mr Groening, is in fact an AGW sceptic – which, if true, comes as good news to me.
20
Very nice, Joanne. Thanks a lot, it is great to have a giggle.
40
This is a great observation! Think of all of the other synergistic issues this could be linked with. Federal Budget vs Temp, Number of Federal Laws vs Temp, and EPA Regulations vs Temp. The list could be endless.
Wouldn’t it be great if the EPA had a regulation limiting the number of regulations to combat global warming? Think of the infinite circles that loop would cause. Since science has been banished within the EPA no one would be educated enough to get them out of it. Why they would all starve to death from fear of doing something!
Keep up the good work.
20
If this were true and the answer to climate change were to lower postal rates, anyone want to bet that climate change would suddenly stop being a big deal?
10
Look at that “elbow” in the early 70’s…so it’s all the fault of Nixon and Ford???
10
From a quick eyeball of the graph, stamp prices appear to have risen faster than the temperature. The US Govt should put stamp prices on hold immediately, until temps catch up.
It would appear that it is the slower rise in CO2 which is keeping the temp response constrained. Emit more CO2 to keep temps down and prevent global warming/climate change!
Next graph: temp vs hog belly futures?
10
[…] Graph “proves” global warming is due to US Postal Service charges. CO2 is in the clear. […]
10
Well,go fish!! Maybe this is what the Alarmists will trying to say along but doing thru the “Fast Track” behind the scenes just like Congress just did with Health Care.
alert@grassfire.net>
Great Post Jo!
10
That settles it. I am using nothing but email from now on!
Unless it is only the price and not the usage of stamps, then I am powerless.
10
[…] by postage stamp increase May 2nd, 2009 Goto comments Leave a comment If you doubt it, see the proof, with statistics and all […]
10
Joanne, you have been remiss. There is a much more exact correlation than the mere price of postage stamps. The rise in global temperatures is directly proportional to the gas emitted by the saintly Albert Gore throughout his lifetime. On his demise, it will be immediately necessary to preserve his remains cryogenically or the fiery apocalypse will be upon us.
10
[…] OH SHIT! THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING! Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges | JoNova […]
10
A must read:
Climate Science in A Tornado by George F. Will
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022602906.html
10
The check is in the post.
10
This article raises a number of serious points. We know that correlation does not imply causation. The linkage between stamp prices and global temperatures may be causal (either or both ways), may be incidental, or may come from a common cause. The article suggests anything other than an incidental relationship is absurd. I beg to differ.
I suggest that there is a common cause acting here. Money supply. The quantity of money in circulation directly affects prices and also directly affects economic activity. The economic activity causes changes in the composition of the atmosphere (particulates/aerosols/CO2/etc). The US money supply was relatively stable prior to the establishment of central banking in 1913. The economy expanded rapidly through 1930 before The Depression. In 1980’s under Reagan, deficit spending expanded the money supply (and economy) much further. You will note that the postal charges and temperature graphs change gradients around these times. In short, postal prices and anthropogenic global warming have the common cause of monetary expansion.
10
The net scientific use of this article is nil. This is a straw-man argument at best, which does not refute the decades of scientific data, research and findings of this very real phenomenon.
If you were actually presenting something of scientific value, it is likely that it would be published in a scientific journal after passing through rounds of peer review. I’m sorry, but articles about Homer Simpson postage stamps will never be published by any serious journal as evidence, they will however entertain the credulous, dumbed-down intellects of armchair science sceptics.
19
We’re enjoying a net cooling here in Alabama and much of the rest of the US. Makes the whole man’s-CO2-is-causing-the-climate-to-warm seem like a joke. Tornadoes and severe storms, even seaons full of tornados and severe storms, are nothing unprecedented, but they usually happen a good bit earlier, or much later in the year. The empirical evidence suggests a substantial net cooling.
Given correlative argument constantly thrown in the mix, postal charges and other human activities have much correlations to a supposed “warming climate” than do man’s CO2 emissions.
10
Noun,
Delighted you could join us.
Really, seriously, you don’t think Nature or Science would go for this? I’m shocked.
Since you have such a good handle on scientific papers and the …“the decades of scientific data, research and findings of this very real phenomenon”. We’d be most grateful if you could post that ONE paper with observational evidence supporting the case for carbon that no one seems to be able to find.
JoNova
60
Splendid response, JoAnne Nova – I am very appreciative that that you maintain this web site and the “Skeptics Guide.”
Applause, applause.
By the way, who keeps posting items as in #16?
And whatever for?
(Perhaps the second question has no sensible answer.)
10
Delightful, but response #20 made my day. Noun must be algore, just look at how stately he refutes the well thought out logic of postal warming.
20
Oh please, Ron, Adelbert Gorp isn’t THAT eloquent.
10
[…] the Mises Economics blog, Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges. The rise in global temperatures since 1880 closely correlates with increases in postal charges, […]
10
[…] the years can be directly correlated to the rise in US Postage Stamp rates. Read the article, Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges, for proof of this alarming trend. (HT: Jeffrey Tucker) This entry was posted in posts and tagged […]
10
The real reason for Global Warming, is because of “ALL THE HOT AIR”, in Washington from the Politicians who speak from both sides of their mounts and say nothing, but hurt the American Taxpayers and our kids and grandkid as well as the Elderly who are unable to work anymore!!!!!
10
Thanks for your expedient response JoNova. I find it puzzling that you have the ability to write authoritatively about a scientific topic, yet are not able to perform the basic research to investigate the fundamental tenets of such a topic. This does not bode well for the credibility of your refutation!
Never mind, I will happily do your ground-work for you if it means putting you on the right path:
P. E. Martin and E. F. Barker (University of Michigan), 1932: The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide, American Physical Society.
Moeller, F. (University of Munich), 1963: THE INFLUENCE OF CHANGES IN THE CO2 CONCENTRATION IN AIR ON THE RADIATION BALANCE OF THE EARTH’S SURFACE AND ON THE CLIMATE, Journal of Geophysical Research.
Syukuro Manabe, Richard T. Wetherald (Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA, Princeton University, Princeton), 1974: The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model, Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.
Peter M. Cox, Richard A. Betts, Chris D. Jones, Steven A. Spall, Ian J. Totterdell, 2000: Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature, 184-187.
Cooke, W.F., C. Liousse, H. Cashier, and J. Feichter, 1999: Construction of a 1 x 1 fossil fuel emission dataset for carbonaceuous aerosol and implementation and radiative impact in the ECHAM-4 model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, 22137-22162.
Crowley, T.J., 2000: Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years. Science, 289(5477), 270-277.
Forest, D.J., P.H. Stone, and A.P. Sokolov, 2006: Estimated PDFs of climate system properties including natural and anthropogenic forcings. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01705.
13
Dear Noun:
Cool it.
JoAnne is obviously familiar with the references you cite and enough more to fill six quarto volumes.
Neither you, nor the humourless Al Gore doublessly, would find any more humour in what JoAnne has written than I would find edification in any references you list.
Therefore the efforts, then, have been wasted symmetrically on either.
A tragedy? No.
20
Dear Noun,
thanks for your quick reply.
Are you aware though that of the 7 papers, 1 is a lab test, and 5 are from models – (which is just a fancy form of ‘opinion’). Possibly Moeller et al contains the holy grail – observational evidence from studies of The Planet. But I can’t find it anywhere. Presumably – since it’s from 1963, there would be many repeats of it that are newer and more detailed? Surely the evidence of man-made climate change has been replicated since 1963, when the planet was cooling, despite the extra CO2?
Martin et al: LAB test
Moeller F. (University of Munich), 1963: THE INFLUENCE OF CHANGES IN THE CO2 CONCENTRATION IN AIR ON THE RADIATION BALANCE OF THE EARTH’S SURFACE AND ON THE CLIMATE, Journal of Geophysical Research.
I can’t find a copy of this paper anywhere. Please link us to the copy you’ve read. (You have read it haven’t you?)
Syukuro et al: MODEL
Cox et al: MODEL
Cooke et al: MODEL
Crowley,et al: MODEL -( Not only that, but they ‘rule out’ causes we know and figure the rest is all CO2. Argumentum ad ignorantium. There are possibly many other causes we don’t ‘know’. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5477/270)
Forest et al: MODEL
It seems my refutation, and my reputation as a researcher are quite intact. Thanks for your concern.
JoNova
50
For Heaven’s sake, models are every bit as good as (or better than) reality, for people who like the outcome.
Science fiction used to entertain the weak minded, until AGW became the rage, when numerous dubious “authorities” pronounced it valid.
Perhaps if the “Star Trek” series would return with some more plausible plots and characters with more than a single dimension this would solve the “climate crisis” in some people’s minds.
20
Oh come now Joanne, we tried that with ole Boris. What we’ll get is lots of handwaving, sidestepping, misdirection and studies that don’t support the assertions or of which Noun has only read the abstract.
These guys are very predictable. But you are very sweet to humor him.
BTW, the two US Air Force weather guys I work with (one of whom has a PhD in atmospheric physics) are still laughing about Boris’ clinging to MODTRAN radiative codes as proof of anything.
40
Krueger,
Boris will keep his faith in AGW until Captain Kirk proclaims it a joke.
20
Noun is polite, so I don’t mind answering his points at all. And there are undoubtedly new people reading this thread who are not aware of how powerful the question “Where’s the evidence” can be.
I mean, really, we can’t get angry at the thousands of people out there who: 1/ assume that well funded government departments have looked thoroughly at the evidence; AND 2/ expect that these governments also know what evidence is; AND 3/ that scientific journals would publish papers which don’t break rules of logic in the abstracts…
It’s reasonable for people to expect all these three points occur. But it’s not reasonable for them to keep believing it, when none of said authorities can provide empirical evidence when asked politely.
I’m hoping more sceptics will learn to ask the question.
Of course, we can have fun after the fact, if people who can’t provide evidence keep believing the committees. That of course, is right up there in logic and reasoning stakes with religious obedience. It’s fine, if you want to find spiritual guidance, peace of mind, or absolution, but not so useful if you want to change the weather.
20
I find it disturbing though that the AGW crowd often takes what is obviously humorous satire and feels compelled to it into something more serious. No sense of humor these guys. Gotta learn to laugh once in a while! 🙂
BTW, did you see the one about the inverse correlation to declining pirate population and increased temperatures? That one even works with the recent increase in pirates and the decline in temperatures. Methinks these kinds of satires will only grow as the fraud is further exposed.
20
[…] Here is the original: Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges | JoNova […]
10
Thse satires are not as funny as the real jokes proposed to “get rid” of CO2 in the air: 50,000 hectare algae ponds! Dump 10,000 tons of iron sulphate in the South Atlantic to promote plankton growth! Giant CO2 scrubbers dotting the lanscape (rather, defacing the landscape) like wind turbines!
There is DEFINITELY a correlation between increased CO2 in the air and soft mindedness. Regrettably, this has caused the already soft minded to be reduced to imbeciles [a certain Prince of England comes to mind]
20
There are plenty of empirical estimates of climate sensitivity:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
10
Boris don’t you see that these empirical estimates have decomposed innumerable other factors that influence the climate to say what the influence of CO2 on the climate is?
That is – they modelled the climate, amidst a myriad of influences that could not be so decomposed from the observations.
It’s the time factors involved, and in every simgle last one of these calculations, I can give an equally valid statistical argument that CO2 was not observed within the stochastic variations.
Boris, virtually no one who reads these pages is going to believe a thing about the validity of AGW and I regret to say there is no additional information you can add to change that. People have already reasoned this out for themselves.
Some people have pronounced AGW theory valid because it is “peer-reviewed.”
Oh yeah? Well I didn’t review it, and I’m a peer, and if I had reviewed it one would look for it in the same places one would search for used toilet tissue.
10
Which famous scientist said that the earth’s climate cannot be truthfully, adequately modelled toward real conclusions, because it’s too complex?
For local weather events, different models regularly produce very different outcomes.
10
[…] Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges | JoNova ; […]
10
[…] See original here: Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges | JoNova […]
10
Boris,
From your writing I would guess you are a younger person; maybe 22-32 years of age, and you have been inculucated for a fairly significant fraction of your life with AGW, so the idea seems familiar and natural to you.
Most of the die-hard skeptics (like me) are older, and it is sad for me to witness a younger generation profoundly duped by AGW, and this is mostly the result of the influence of politicians and a very leftist media.
Why not do something a little differently than your friends and associates – and become a skeptic?
Some very talented younger people are or have turned skeptic – such as the young investigator award winner, Niv Shirav of Israel.
So you’d be in very good company, and besides, it is a lot easier to defend the obvious than it is to defend an obvious charade.
10
[…] Here is the original post: Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges | JoNova […]
10
I’m new to this site, found it very interesting. I might be completely out of subject but I just wonder even if it appears that all of you are right, that man’s CO2 emissions don’t affect global warming what is the negative effects of all the CO2 missions reductions strategies that have been proposed so far?
What I see is a net reduction in the use of carbon-based energies (is that wrong?), an economic system that has to cope with yet a new variable (the CO2).
Finally about the scientif values of all the articles proving that man CO2 emissions are causing the global warming, I agree they can’t be use as the truth. Actually I never heard anybody referring to them as the absolutely truth but using them as indicators that something might be wrong and then based on the “Precaution Principle” act about it.
I’m really looking forward to read your comments.
PS My maternal language is french so let me apologize for the level of my english writing
10
[…] Here is the original post: Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges | JoNova […]
10
Ian,
Thanks for your inquiry.
At risk of being accused of providing “Ad Hominem” information, here’s some food for thought:
Trillions of consumer dollars are to be transferred; not by the virtue of markets wherein suppliers provide what we really want or need; but by force of laws that drive up costs and compel consumers to buy inneffective products and services; all for the sake of what is most likely a non-problem or an unknown.
Throughout man’s history, chicanery like the global warming context has been used to dupe populations into submitting themselves to the whims of authority. Even recent history will give you an idea how narcissists seek power and use it to abuse populations.
The unabrogated right to question authorities, their vested interests and their planned outcomes is a necessary component in healthy states. Looking at the personalities and veracious claims of global warming proponents, it’s easy to understand the context is the establishment’s means to determine who prospers and who pays, by writ of law.
It’s very important to question Albert Gore, Maurice Strong, the World Bank, UN members and other “leaders” in order to understand their motives. Doing so, you will learn they have substantial vested interests in these outcomes, aligning economies for their sake rather than the planets.
Global warming has co-opted genuine earth science.
10
Boris #38: “There are plenty of empirical estimates of climate sensitivity”
Empirical means ‘by observation’. How do you observe an estimate? Watch out: Here comes another empirical estimate rolling past. They’re light fluffy things, hard to catch, and they’ve been known to spontaneously evaporate if you look at them too long. (Like a slow version of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.)
The empirical estimates that knocked on my door last, were a lot lower than the IPCC ones, but which empirical estimates are real, and which ones are illusory?
10
Joanne,
You make an estimate based on observations. That’s what an empirical estimate is.
Empirical estimates center around the IPCC’s central values of 3C per CO2 doubling. But the empirical estimates have larger confidence intervals, especially on the high side, than the IPCC models.
In any case, they actually exist, so no use pretending they don’t anymore.
10
Ian
we can be “precautionary” – but how far do we want to take that?
At the expense of destroying ourselves? – because everybody needs fossil fuel in some way to live.
If you have an automobile, are you going to say “I will not use automobiles because using automobiles can be dangerous on the road?”
No. In some cases, especially if one is going to transport something, the automobile has to be used because a person cannot carry it themselves.
Are we going to use solar and wind power in place of fossil fuel? No. Worldwide, solar and wind contribute much less than a half a percent of all energy used, and increasing that tenfold would still make it under five per cent.
Besides, who would pay for it? Governments?
No. Governments have no money either, because there is a recession, and that means businesses are not making money for Governments to tax business anyway.
Best thing to do is to get rid of the stupid AGW idea altogether and move along to fix economies.
10
The “precautionary principle” might be good in some cases, but if the proposed remedies will cause untold human suffering and even death, all based on something that *might* be happening, shouldn’t the precautionary principle tilt us back towards the other way, towards not taking such drastic “remedies”?
20
Ian #42: You ask a fair question – but we’ve been sold a line with The Precautionary Principle. There is no such ‘principle’, because ultimately every action (or lack thereof) has some effect. Carbon based fuels have provided almost all our energy since before history began. We’re reduced that dependence to ‘only’ 80% of all our energy in the last 50 years. So chopping it further by another 20% is no small feat. It’s possible, yes, and if the world really was in danger, we should throw everything at it, risk lives, and wear the pain. But there isn’t any evidence from The Planet that anyone can point to that says we are in trouble. There IS evidence that the world has warmed, but not that carbon was the cause. There is evidence in THE LAB, and from MODELS designed to find a link, that carbon could be a problem, but we’ve looked through 500 million years of history and no one can find an example where carbon caused temperatures to rise. Look at any long term graph and there is no good correlation (except a backwards one). This is theory versus the real world and the theory is crashing and burning.
If we make energy more expensive (which we have to do if we are forcing people to use non-fossil fuels) the people who will suffer the most pain are in the third world. Poor mums will be less able to afford all the things energy brings us – clean boiled water to drink, fresh food, heating, electric lights to teach kids to read, air conditioning in schools to help kids learn, school buses to pick kids up… I could go on and on and on… there’s almost nothing that we have or use that wouldn’t be more expensive. OK for us. Deadly for the poor.
How many people are we willing to starve for the sake of an unproven theory?
Good news, the Skeptics Handbook is being translated into French. That will help you understand more of the skeptical side of things if you want to follow this up.
10
After Item 41, I’m talking to the wind,
So I go back to the take no prisoners howler role, because among alarmists, reason has no value.
Reason has no role.
10
Boris – if estimates from complex computer models can be ’empirical’ then what isn’t empirical? Cartoon characters of politicians are ‘estimates’ of real people. Are they real themselves? Sure! They’re a Real Cartoon. But they don’t vote in congress. So They Don’t Count.
Asking for empirical evidence (observations from the Real World) becomes meaningless if you allow people to make assumptions multiplied by guesses and raised to the power of 15 other estimates and call that “An observation.” The only thing we’re observing is the socio political state of modellers mental processes. Climate Models are Opinions. They may be expert opinions, but opinions do occasionally collapse in a flaming heap.
Climate models are not The Planet.
20
Just when I was ready to blame it on cow flatulence, this new theory shows it’s ugly head. I always suspected the mailman did it, and now it appears to be true 🙂
10
I wish there was some legal means to seek redress from from alarmists for making me feel like vomiting all over the floor.
20
After reading your reply to my comments I manage to pinpoint one major problems in using less or no fossil-fuel energy is it will make energy more expansive and therefore hurting the poor/third world countries.
This is a legitimate fear, the thing is tough how keeping using fossil-fuel at the same rate is helping them? Since the world-wide use of fossil fuel the gap between the richest countries and the poorest one kept growing. Not mentionning the war for oil the fact that the worldwide reserves are depleting. I may be an ideologist but I found the CDM a great way to help those countries. Well much better then forcing them to accept our way of life to ensure the control of their oil ressources.
As for the knight of the climate change battle (aka Al Gore and company) having economic interest in the climate change business? Where’s the problem? Isn’t always been the same? Isn’t the oil business have done the same for the last century? The common man and woman will never be in a position of power.
10
Joanne,
The science is irrelevant.
I appreciate everybody’s effort to address the truth about “climate change” or “global warming” supposedly caused by us consumers. But educating the public about what little we know will not affect the lemmings’ jump from the cliff. To them it’s true because the TV tells them so.
I’ve been through this with MTBE and vehicle emission testing here in Alabama: When possible political kickbacks and inside, pre-determined deals were exposed, the promulgators shrank away like Dracula from sunlight.
“Climate change” has never really been about the climate or the environment, and it never will be. It’s about changing political climates and financial climates, forming an oligarchy.
You must address the financial and political motives of the folks pushing the hype. Therein also lies a reason to dismiss the “precautionary measure”, because climate alarmists’ reason-to-be is a red herring.
10
Ian,
Ever hear of the Pew Charitable Trust? Please, “google” to find information on their membership, their motives, their goals. You may be alarmed by the number of energy companies involved. Then again, they are among the interests who stand to profit (take your money by force of law) the most.
It’s ugly.
10
I am a science dunce* and only came here because I was reading the Planet Gore blog at NRO, but I would like to say that Joanne/JoNova has totally won me over with here pwnage of Noun. I like it when global warming zealots are rightfully put in their place as cultists and dunderheads. 😉
*I may be a science dunce, but I completely understand the economic effects of global warming.
10
<if estimates from complex computer models can be ‘empirical’ then what isn’t empirical?
These estimates are independent of computer models, so your criticism of models doesn’t apply here.
Just one example, based on the surface response to the solar cycle:
http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf
10
It’s model independent but it isn’t assumption independent, Boris,
and when you vary the assumptions, the result changes.
Just like the models.
Wow! This is an AWESOME day! May 5! A milestone!
This is the day that Boris finally admitted AGW was nothing more than somebody’s interpretation, and that a thousand other interpretations are equally valid,
then Boris moved out of his mom’s basement, threw out his Star Trek toys, and got a real job,other than free-lance volunteer work for Greenpiece!
10
That’s why there is a range for climate sensitivity. Maybe if you stopped throwing out vapid insults, you’d realize this.
10
I don’t think Boris gets it.
I keep thinking about the Maunder Minimum &
the Little Ice Age.
IF you want to talk about “observations,”
the period from 1650—1850 was preceded by the
Medieval Warm Period.
This just may be a similar occurrence, part of a natural cycle so long that we (modern humanity) don’t have sufficient historical data to accurately assess the actual extent of the phenomenon.
Considering that the history of the thermometer begins in the 17th-century, it is impossible to ascertain even the relatively recent historical past, in terms of what constitutes or establishes an historical climatic standard for global temperature.
IF we’re entering another period of solar minimum, similar to the Maunder Minimum, & the governments of the world use this hysteria in an attempt to “reduce global warming,” we may finally see those 1970’s predictions of “the coming Ice Age” fulfilled.
At last, Man triumphs over Nature.
NOT!
j
10
So you have kneecapped my theory that Global Warming correlates with the use of Microsoft PowerPoint.
If you get the chance buy this book, released in NZ 27/4/09 “Air Con” by Ian Wishart.
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/newshop/enter.html
It is a very good read.
10
The Medieval Warm Period, Ohhh Nooo, produced 60% more food worldwide. I’m looking forward to a 3 degree centigrade rise. I’d also like to get a “I Love Global Warming” bumper sticker to put on my big truck that I park in the employee parking at my job at the Post Office.
10
Yes indeed the value changes when the assumptions are varied, Boris, and if you think about it, one of the primary assumptions is that climate sensitivity is positive, dropping that assumption, it is meaningful to say
the climate sensitivity to the doubling of carbon dioxide in the air ranges from -3 to +3 Kelvin per watt
and guess what the average value of the climate sensitivity turns out to be.
Come on and be a skeptic, Boris! We like to laugh and have fun. Now you must admit that Skeptics seem a much more interesting bunch than global warmers, wouldn’t you say?
10
whoops – meant to put the units on the inverse of lambda as watt per Kevin
[soft shoe dance]
10
Brian,
Thanks for the invite.
However, climate sensitivity cannot be negative–then you would be saying that warming causes cooling.
Nor can climate sensitivity be zero. That implies a system that cannot change. And we know the climate can change.
Finally, climate sensitivity is extremely unlikely to be dominated by negative feedback (i.e. below 1.1C), which would make the climate very difficult to change and require enormous forcings to explain the ice ages. It also doesn’t fit with observations of volcanic cooling and even twentieth century warming.
10
Huh? Vocanic cooling is dust, Boris – what’s that have to do with climate sensitivity?
Climate sensitivity is positive by HUMAN definition. You know as well as I do, that obervationally from decadal data regression – climate sensitivity can turn out to be negative.
How many other people have invited you to be a skeptic this week?
Why not take up the invitation?
10
Came across your site by way of NRO, and after a lousy start to the day reading this post was a welcome relief. 🙂
I was taught that only by knowing how something functions can a model be built of that something. What sort of model is built from assumptions? They need to find a better word to describe their “pin the tail on the donkey” antics.
Thanks.
10
Yes, but you can measure a range for feedbacks by observing a volcanic cooling episode.
10
Well then Boris – I guess your preferred value of climate sensitivity is Schwartz’s.
10
“Nor can climate sensitivity be zero. That implies a system that cannot change. And we know the climate can change.”
Hold onto your hat Boris. Climate sensitivity refers to carbon dioxide’s effect on the climate. If it were ‘zero’ the climate might still change – it could just possibly be affected by solar magnetic effects, solar irradiance, orbital changes, interstellar dust, land-use changes, cloud cover, glaciation, deglaciation, albedo, aliens, air-conditioners near NOAA thermometers, and who-the-heck-knows what else.
But I agree with you that climate sensitivity of carbon is a positive non-zero number. The question is whether it’s significant.
10
Joanne,
Perhaps the issue is that the weather is controlled by the definition of words according to Boris. After all, that is the post modern way. Reality isn’t real. Its determined by consensus. A consensus of the people who are unable to know anything BECAUSE they cannot know everything, everywhere, for all times, and all circumstances. They have only one absolute: there are no absolutes. That leads them to the conclusion that proof of anything is not possible and, more importantly, proof is not necessary. All they need to do is make arbitrary assertions and its reality’s responsibility to obey. Especially when enough of them make the same assertion often enough and loudly enough.
There is one thing I don’t know. How can a sum of zeros, no matter how numerous, add up to anything but zero? By my simple understanding of things, a consensus of opinions from those who can’t know anything adds up to no information about anything but the summation of zero information content opinions. Believing otherwise is believing in magic. Its interesting to note that magic really is inoperative in this universe in spite of the Harry Potter books and movies.
Boris, you keep on believing in magic. Perhaps if you do it often enough, long enough, and sincerely enough, it might work for you. Even though it hasn’t for anyone since the first someone.
10
My perspective is somewhat different, and with a little luck I might be able to explain myself clearly.
When Yang and Lee examined the “theta-tau” elementary particle mystery, the “consensus” was that the two particles were distinct BECAUSE the two particles arose from interactions for which parity was not preserved if the two particles were not distinct entities. Other than that, the two particles appeared to be indistinguishable.
Then Yang and Lee simply dropped the assumption that parity was conserved in weak interactions – and guess what, the assumption turned out to be wrong.
[The reason why this is so remains a mystery.]
The same thing may be said about climate sensitivity. By a HUMAN definition, the value is always positive.
But the atmosphere doesn’t care what a human definition is. The atmosphere simply responds to various changes. If the atmosphere responded in such a way to doubling of carbon dioxide in the air that resulted in increased reflective cloud cover – and if one did not KNOW or ASSUME that a priori – then by simply examining data alone, all other things being equal, one would conclude that the climate sensitivity was negative and there is no escaping that conclusion.
My own thoughts about it are as follows: The value is not defined, because there is no direct observational method to calculate it. The value is INFERRED from data BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS that MIGHT NOT BE CORRECT.
Until proven otherwise, “climate sensitivity” remains for me a quantity buried in the random and determinate, persistent and ubiquitous, noise in the influences upon the climate – on an annual, decadal, and century basis. At this point, attempts to “weed it out” of the data simply involves the use of assumptions that might not be valid.
A parallel (but not completely analogous) example might be, consider a value of mechanical action (product of energy and time, which is also independent of the motion of the observer) that is less than the Planck constant.
Sure I can THINK of a value of action smaller than Planck’s quantum of action, but in the physical world, it is meaningless because there is no way to ever OBSERVE such a value in a physical interaction.
10
But if climate sensitivity is zero, then all those possible forcings you mentioned would have the same negative feedbacks to overcome that CO2 wold have in a zero CS world.
10
In #78, drop the word “might’ and insert the word “would”
Droning on ad nauseam, CS doesn’t
HAVE TO BE positive, negative, zero, or anything else.
When I play chess with children (people under 20 or so) – I always let them win. I haven’t had a chess match (yet) with a young person who I couldn’t easily defeat (it doesn’t mean that such chess wizards aren’t out there).
That philosophy doesn’t apply for me, here.
10
[…] Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges | JoNova […]
10
I would like to see the data underlying the graph so that I can run a regression. I don’t believe anything without R-squareds and t-statistics.
For the literal-minded out there, the above is tongue-in-cheek. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t love to see the data and run the regressions. It would be great for stats classes, and especially with respect to the issue of the meaning of “statistical significance”.
10
Re the earlier comment about the new book Air Con by Ian Wishart, I understand it is being released in Australia next week, so it might be worthwhile asking your local bookshop to get some in. I saw on one Google for it that John Reed Book Distributors in Sydney are handling it.
Professor Bob Carter gave it high praise according to the book’s website:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/05/climate-expert-calls-air-con-the-definitive-book.html
10
Two points.
1) We aren’t looking for the causal link between increasing temperature and atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub]concentration, because we already have it. It is the greenhouse effect. Of course since CO[sub]2[/sub] concentration is increasing there will be a correlation between temperature and any other monotonically increasing series.
2) Recall that the climate’s response to an increase in greenhouse takes a long time. 60% of the total response is reached in 30 to 40 years. So on time scales of centuries, a high CO[sub]2[/sub]to temperature correlation is expected, but on time scales of months, such as those shown on the graph, a very low CO[sub]2[/sub] to temperature correlation would be expected.
10
On a scale of centuries, the only thing observed is CO2 increases following warming periods, within a 200-800 year time lag.
We all know where that CO2 came from.
10
Acad,
if you’re serious I’ll email you a copy of the excel sheet I used – with sources – so you can do the R2 correlation and all the regressions you like.
There’s no secret data on this side of the scientific fence, and I’m always interested in more information…
Robin: 1/ Just because there’s a ‘causal link’ which is proven in the Lab, that doesn’t mean that other forces out in the real world don’t overwhelm this effect. (Indeed on every time scale that appears to occur).
2/ The scale here is 128 years and temp rises and falls mostly due to other factors. The Co2 turning points, and temperature turning points, don’t correlate well. The models don’t know what those ‘other’ factors are, yet the PR team from the Alarmists keep scaling graphs of CO2 vs Temp in a way that makes the lines look highly correlated. Plenty of people think the alarmists are right because of graphs like this one. As you agree – that’s flawed reasoning. The alarmists shouldn’t promote these graphs.
3/ “60% of the total response takes 30 years?” Would that be a computer model estimate based on dozens of assumptions, guesses and other estimates?
10
Boris said: “But if climate sensitivity is zero, then all those possible forcings you mentioned would have the same negative feedbacks to overcome that CO2 wold have in a zero CS world.”
You’re frying the concept of climate sensitivity. It will help if you use the correct phrase “climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide”. There is no such thing as “climate sensitivity of all causes put together”. Mixing the two up is screwing your head.
I know it’s hard, but dozens of different forcings are working on the climate all at once and in their own cycles, and with their own turning points. Unravelling this multifactorial pool of known and unknown effects is – pardon the language – Damn Difficult.
To stop us wasting time discussing something that doesn’t exist, please don’t mention the phrase “Climate sensitivity” again without also adding “of carbon dioxide” or of “methane” or of something.
10
Brian wrote: “On a scale of centuries, the only thing observed is CO2 increases following warming periods, within a 200-800 year time lag.”
That’s not the only thing that’s observed. One other think that is observed is a very strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature. One other thing that is observed is the warming periods at the end of glaciations are 5000 or 6000 years of the most rapid warming in the ice core record, taking global temperatures from the coldest they reach almost monotonically to the warmest that they reach – strong evidence of a CO2/temperature increase feedback loop.
Neither is it always observed. The current warming and the warming at the end of the younger dryas both were preceded by the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Brian wrote: “We all know where that CO2 came from.”
Here I must confess that I don’t. The options are the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere. I guess because organic carbon is strongly depleted in carbon-13 you could tell from isotope ratios of CO2 trapped in ice cores which source was more dominant. I guess someone has done the work to find out which. Which was it? And was it worked out by carbon isotope ratios?
10
addendum re: CO2 and temperature increase.
Analysis of the last glacial maximum, (which is the one most precisely known from ice cores), constrain the climate sensitivity to the range 1.2°C – 4.3°C (and thus almost
identical to the IPCC estimate.)
According to this paper:
Climate sensitivity estimated from ensemble simulations of glacial climate
Schneider von Deimling et al. Climate Dynamics (2006). DOI 10.1007/s00382-006-0126-8
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/Schneider_etal_ClimDyn_2006.pdf
10
Robin, there’s no evidence that a greenhose gas other than water ever warmed any portion of the Earth.
Not unless you’ve found something that I haven’t in the 30 years that I’ve looked for it.
The source of CO2 after a warming period is the ocean, mostly. That’s because CO2 is less soluble in warm water than cold.
The situation is complicated by the diffusional gradient in deep ocean water, competing with the decreased solubility as a function of salinity
Oh skip it. The bottom line is, CO2 follows warming periods, and if it didn’t, nobody would be arguning a thing about CO2 causing global warming.
That’s where we’re at. Global warmers don’t like it, but facts don’t play favorites.
10
Jo wrote: “Robin: 1/ Just because there’s a ‘causal link’ which is proven in the Lab, that doesn’t mean that other forces out in the real world don’t overwhelm this effect.”
Thanks for the response!
Yes, the anthropogenic global warming only represents about 0.02°C per year. This is, as you point out, overwhelmed by many things.
Jo wrote: “(Indeed on every time scale that appears to occur).”
Well, I was looking at this paper that the Australian Bureau Meteorology have up on their website: http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/meehl_additivity.pdf
Of The total warming since 1950 is about 0.5°C, and the authors (using the US department of Energy’s climate model), find that the contribution due to greenhouse gas increase over that time seems to be about 0.7°C, so on that time scale, it is the overwhelming contributor.
Jo wrote: “2/ The scale here is 128 years and temp rises and falls mostly due to other factors. The Co2 turning points, and temperature turning points, don’t correlate well.”
This is undoubtedly true. Only the temperature rise since 1970 is currently generally attributed to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. And that is punctuated by volcanic forcing and by the El-Nino southern oscillation. The effect of the sunspot cycles can probably also be seen, although this is also swamped by the other effects.
But notice my original point – because the climate takes a few decades to respond to an increase in CO2, you wouldn’t expect the temperature turning points to align with the CO2 turning points. In the rare case where the effect is not swamped by other factors, you would expect the temperature to turn slowly over the following 30 or 40 years. (Or 25 to 50 years for 60% of the effect to have occurred, to precisely quote one estimate from the scientific literature.)
Jo wrote: “The models don’t know what those ‘other’ factors are…”
The paper linked above is one of many in the scientific literature that does a break down of the causes of temperature. I think they do an okay job of showing what the other factors are. Sulphate cooling. Volcanic forcing and solar forcing are the big ones, after greenhouse forcing.
It is certainly true that they are imperfect. The size of the 98 El Nino remains poorly modelled in most models. The model in the paper over estimates volcanic cooling, and the temperature record does step outside the errors in the late 1910s, the mid 1940s and the late 1950s. But this isn’t evidence that they don’t know what the ‘other’ factors are. It might be that they are just imprecise at modelling such a complicated system, possibly because of limitations of the cell size combined with the mathematical awkwardness of chaotic systems.
Jo wrote: “3/ “60% of the total response takes 30 years?” Would that be a computer model estimate based on dozens of assumptions, guesses and other estimates?”
You can make such an estimate from a climate model, but that one was not. It was from earth radiation budget data. It is an estimate with a wide error. 25-50 years. The error is due to the error in the climate sensitivity (to a doubling of CO2).
The paper in which that estimate is made, if you are interested in reading it (and have the time) is here: http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/Hansen-04-29-05.pdf
10
Brian Valentine Wrote: “Robin, there’s no evidence that a greenhose gas other than water ever warmed any portion of the Earth.”
Hi Brian!
Thanks also for the response, but we may struggle to find the common ground with that statement.
I wonder if we can agree that if you increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas, then you will increase the greenhouse effect?
Brian Valentine Wrote: “The source of CO2 after a warming period is the ocean, mostly. That’s because CO2 is less soluble in warm water than cold.”
Yes. Is this true of all gasses? In high school chemistry they said that solubility generally increased with temperature, and this seems to be the case with dissolving sugar in coffee.
Brian Valentine Wrote: “Oh skip it. The bottom line is, CO2 follows warming periods, and if it didn’t, nobody would be arguning a thing about CO2 causing global warming.”
The CO2 increase coincides with the warming (for the most part):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/luethi2008/fig2.jpg
(Which is an image from this paper: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/luethi2008/luethi2008.html)
10
Robin wrote:
Q1/ “Of The total warming since 1950 is about 0.5°C, and the authors (using the US department of Energy’s climate model), find that the contribution due to greenhouse gas increase over that time seems to be about 0.7°C, so on that time scale, it is the overwhelming contributor.”
And lets finish the sentence: “it is the overwhelming contributor… according to unproven, unverified climate models, which are based on opinions and estimates by people who wouldn’t have a job if carbon wasn’t a problem.”
Climate models prove nothing except that if you give smart guys with computers a lot of money they can come up with any number between -3 and 11 degrees, and look pretty convincing and authoritative, especially when no one understands what went on inside the black box of their complex model because it’s not public, and no one is paid to audit them. (Note – even if they were public and people were paid to audit them, I don’t think it really makes much difference. The climate is so complex, we don’t have a chance with our pathetically inadequate understanding of how it works to be able to predict it yet.)
Q 2/ The correlation from post 1970 warming… again, the 30-40 year thing is another modelled guess. No experimental evidence to back it up. Perhaps the 1979 -1999 warming was due to CO2, but why has the warming stopped? (Models don’t know). Isn’t it an odd coincidence that temperatures have gone up and down every 30 years since 1880 (see the Akasufo graph ), and they appear to be still oscillating on a 30 year trend? (Almost like carbon makes no difference at all?)
The climate models don’t include solar-magnetic effects despite them having an excellent correlation (who knows what else they don’t include). The models can’t predict el nino or la nina effects. None – NONE – of the models correctly predicted that temperatures would not rise post 2001 – 2009. If models can’t get the five year averages working in The First Five Years, why would we follow them out to 2100??? Are we on drugs?
Q3/ As per the Hansen paper and other non-model estimates. What’s the difference? It’s still calculated by taking assumptions, multiplying it by estimates and raising it to the power of a good guess. That someone did it with a hand calculator instead of a computer doesn’t make it more certain. Only one assumption has to be wrong for the whole caboodle to fall in a hole.
I don’t mean any of that disrespectfully. I like that you are asking reasonable questions in a friendly tone, but models (and hand calculated theoretical estimates) are not empirical evidence, even if they worked, which they don’t.
Theory has to agree with real world data, not the other way around.
10
The feedbacks in the climate system respond to warming (or cooling), not to specific forcings. The water vapor feedback is not going to be highly positive for CO2 and negative for solar or anything like that.
10
Still making up your own definitions, eh Boris? Been around this tree already and clearly you’ve learned nothing.
“A climate feedback is an internal climate process that amplifies or dampens the climate response to a specific forcing.” (Radiative Forcing Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties, p. 2, National Academies Press, 2005)(italics mine)
10
Or if you prefer the IPCC definition:
In English, that means a feedback responds to a specific forcing.
10
Boris, I thought we got over these humps and you became a skeptic.
No?
A mistaken impression on my part?
10
ON CO2 solubility in water
Yes Robin, usually things get more soluble in hotter water, but not carbon. It is released by the oceans as they warm, that’s probably why there is an 800 year cycle after temperatures rise. It takes about that long for all the water in all the world’s oceans to do one full lap of the planet. (ie, the really deep water takes a long time to recirculate and warm up and release it’s CO2).
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/recent-ocean-heat-and-mlo-co2-trends/
http://www.co2web.info/Oceans-and-CO2_EngrsAust_Apr08.pdf
10
To bore everyone, here’s some subtle details about the Way the World Actually Works.
The solubilty of most solids in liquids increases with temperature. There are a few strange exceptions.
It is generally not possible to decide a priori when gases will increase or decrease their solubility in liquids with increasing temperature.
To understand why, consider the dissolution of gases in liquids as a two step process:
1. The gas condenses in the liquid
2. The condensed gas dissolves in the liquid.
The direction of solubility of gases in liquids with temperature depends on the overall sign of the free energy change of the two steps, combined.
It may turn out that the sign of the free energy change of step 1 is large and positive, which is not offset by a negative value of step 2, the overall free energy change is then positive, and the solubility of the gas in the liquid will decrease with temperature.
The reverse is true when the overall change in free energy change is negative.
This subtlety is not usually discussed correctly in general chemistry courses, it is picked up in a course like Physical Chemistry
10
Joanne Nova Wrote: ‘And lets finish the sentence: “it is the overwhelming contributor… according to unproven, unverified climate models, which are based on opinions and estimates by people who wouldn’t have a job if carbon wasn’t a problem.”‘
Gee, Jo, that’s a strong claim.
On what basis do you call the Department of Energy’s PCM “unverified”? Did it not undergo the hindcasting by which Climate Models are verified?
And I do question your confidence that the employment of Meehl and Washington would be at any risk, no matter what the results climate research discovers. Meehl has been at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado since 1973, and is somewhat renowned. He won the Editor’s Award, Journal of Climate, American Meteorological Society, in 1999, the Editor’s Citation, Geophysical Research Letters, American Geophysical Union, 2006, and The Jule G. Charney Award of the American Meteorological Society, this year. Google scholar has him the lead author on a dozen papers with over 100 citations. Washington is, if anything, more renowned. He joined the NCAR in 1963, and is a head of the Climate Change research section. He is a Fellow of the AMS and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and from 1991 to 1995 he was a member of the AAAS Board of Directors. They would hardly be the first guys to lose their jobs even if the NCAR were downsized.
The Australian author, Julie Arblaster, was studying the El Nino at the time of the paper, a valuable line of research even if it isn’t connected to climate change, because of the devastation in Indonesia and Malaysia, and to a lesser extent Australia due to fires from the 1998 El Nino.
So I think that at least most of the Authors of this paper had research areas not under threat by climate change findings or serious job security by virtue of seniority and accumulated respect. (Accumulated, in part, by not ever having found to have falsified research.)
Joanne Nova Wrote:”Climate models prove nothing except that if you give smart guys with computers a lot of money they can come up with any number between -3 and 11 degrees, and look pretty convincing and authoritative, especially when no one understands what went on inside the black box of their complex model because it’s not public, and no one is paid to audit them.”
Again Jo, I’m not certain that you could accurately call the DOE PCM a “black box” or “not public”. The atmospheric component at the time of the paper was the NCAR’s CCM3.2, the source code for which can still be downloaded from here. You can look at it, see what it does, compile it, and if you’ve got a lot of processing power or time, run it.
The Ocean, Sea Ice, and River transport components are described (with references) <a href=”http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/pcm/”here.
So I think that this particular model was (and is) fairly open and public.
Joanne Nova Wrote:”The climate is so complex, we don’t have a chance with our pathetically inadequate understanding of how it works to be able to predict it yet.”
There is no doubt that the models are imperfect, especially on a regional scale. Herein lies the greatest cause for alarm. We are affecting the global climate, and even the best experts don’t know what it will do to any ecological systems or farmland.
Joanne Nova Wrote:”The correlation from post 1970 warming… again, the 30-40 year thing is another modelled guess.”
I did indeed make a mistake there. Upon re-reading that part of the paper, I see that the 25-50 years is directly due to estimates of climate sensitivity (due to a doubling of CO2), not as I claimed, calculated from the Earth’s radiation budget.
But there are many estimates of the climate sensitivity that are independent of general circulation models. (Including the Hansen paper on radiation budget, but also including estimates from observational evidence, An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity, , and from paleoclimatic evidence, on various time scales. Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature reconstructions over the past seven centuries. Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years.)
Although we don’t seem to be able to constrain the climate sensitivity more than about 1.5°C to 4.5°C per doubling of CO2, there are multiple independent lines of evidence that show that it is in that ballpark. And so the 25 to 50 years is also in the correct ballpark. (And fairly intuitive, I think, if you think about how long it would take the ocean temperature and sea ice to respond to an increase in a greenhouse gas.)
Joanne Nova Wrote:”…but why has the warming stopped? (Models don’t know).”
I don’t think that the data supports the claim that the warming has stopped. There have been drops of the same magnitude (0.15 of a degree) in every decade since the 1950s. (Similar conclusions are in the scientific literature: We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer‐term warming. )
Significant to me is that the average temperature for this decade so far is 0.19°C warmer than the average for the 1990s. This is the fastest decade on decade warming on record.
But it was predicted by models in 2007 that 2008 and 2009 would not break the 1998 record. “Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.” Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model, August 2007.
Joanne Nova Wrote:”Isn’t it an odd coincidence that temperatures have gone up and down every 30 years since 1880 (see the Akasufo graph ), and they appear to be still oscillating on a 30 year trend? (Almost like carbon makes no difference at all?)”
That graph does show a warming. It is attributed to “recovery from the little ice age”, which is not a forcing mentioned in the IPCC reports. How does a cool period up to 1850 cause a warming throughout the 20th century?
Joanne Nova Wrote:”The climate models don’t include solar-magnetic effects despite them having an excellent correlation”
What is a solar-magnetic effect?
Joanne Nova Wrote:”The models can’t predict el nino or la nina effects.”
They can be (and certainly the Hadley centre one is) poor at reproducing the size of the ENSO. I was aware earlier in the year of some Australian research that was overturning ideas about the cause of the ENSO, so it might be that this will improve in the near future.
Joanne Nova Wrote:”As per the Hansen paper and other non-model estimates. What’s the difference? It’s still calculated by taking assumptions, multiplying it by estimates and raising it to the power of a good guess. That someone did it with a hand calculator instead of a computer doesn’t make it more certain. Only one assumption has to be wrong for the whole caboodle to fall in a hole.”
Well I would say that reproducibility of climate sensitivity from independent evidence does add reliability to estimates. And I would say that if you think that they might be wrong, then you should be advocating additional caution to that proposed by the IPCC, not less.
Noting that the climate sensitivity might be as high as 5 or 6 °C (Albeit with a lower probability than about 3°C), is a terrifying thought, and I at least have confidence in scientific estimates of the upper bound that you don’t seem to share.
Joanne Nova Wrote:”I don’t mean any of that disrespectfully. I like that you are asking reasonable questions in a friendly tone …”
And respect to you too. I am impressed and surprised that a line of questioning counter to the editorial position of this site has been tolerated for more than a post.
Joanne Nova Wrote:”…, but models (and hand calculated theoretical estimates) are not empirical evidence, even if they worked, which they don’t.”
Which is why I mention the empirical evidence from observations, from earth radiation budget data, from ice cores and from paleoclimate reconstructions. There are other approaches too. In 2003 there was an interesting paper that used a neural net in place of a climate model. It predicted much greater warming than climate models (equivalent to a climate sensitivity of about 5°C per doubling).
And while one should be cautious of the meta-analysis, there have been ones of observational rather than modelled data, to get at the climate sensitivity, and this has produced some claims that the upper bound can be confidently reduced to about 4.5°C per doubling of CO2.
“We then survey some recent attempts to estimate climate sensitivity using several different approaches: the global temperature trend over the last century; short-term cooling following volcanic eruptions; the climate at the Last Glacial Maximum; modern climatological patterns; and the global temperature change in the Maunder Minimum. These estimates are based on independent observations and widely varying physical phenomena: the heat balance of a warming planet; the feedbacks involved in short-term radiative perturbations; and quasi-equilibrium climate states under different boundary conditions.” Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity.
So while I think that models are an important tool, and probably the best way we have of estimating the future climate under various emission scenarios, I agree that they are susceptible to being wrong … and it has been noted in the scientific literature that their agreement with observations is better that what is expected from their estimates of error, which suggests that the agreement might be partly spurious. (See: Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well?).
However, I think that we can trust observational evidence, and that does seem to be pointing in the same general direction.
10
Thanks Jo and Brian.
So we should be expecting a large outgassing of CO2 from the oceans soon? I guess that this is expected to ameliorate oceanic acidification and exacerbate the greenhouse effect.
Brian: To continue to try to find the common ground re CO2 and warming, do we agree that increasing the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas will increase the greenhouse effect?
10
I get a little tired of the “didn’t use a model” argument by AGWers when referencing studies while attempting to produce empirical proof.
If you write a mathematical equation to describe something, that is a model.
The assertion that they “did not use models” by the likes of Boris, Robin and others trying to demonstrate empirical proof is only correct in the very narrow definition of complex multi-line computer model.
The complex multi-line computer models General Circulation Models (GCMs), relied heavily upon in IPCC reports, are a constructed of hundreds or more mathematical models (equations) of various climate system components.
To describe a system with a mathematical model, one usually needs to have an idea of how to describe that system in plain spoken language first. There are almost always assumptions either implied or stated explicitly when creating a mathematical model.
For example: I have a system that consists of one apple. If I add an apple, my system has two apples.
Mathematically that system can be expressed by:
1 + 1 = 2.
That is a model.
We do not know with certainty all the components of our climate system. Some components we can see: clouds, but we fail to model them because they are not well understood, as admitted by the IPCC.
Since we do not know with certainty all the parts, we make assumptions. Even for the parts we think we know, we don’t necessarily know the mechanisms (What switches PDO, AMO, ENSO for example. We know they switch between warm and cold phases, but we don’t understand the trigger.)
Even “observations” like temperature fed into the GCMs are frequently the product of other models with their own sets of assumptions and a great deal of statistical “magic” and data infilling because the record isn’t complete. The GISS temperature anomaly is model output and a frequent “observation” plugged into GCMs.
Every equation (model) within the broader construct of a GCM carries its own set of assumptions and the overall GCM has its assumptions on top of all the assumptions inherent within it.
Read the reports (not the abstracts) and turn the pages. You will find mathematical expressions of what the authors are trying to describe. Those mathematical equations are MODELS. Within the verbiage of these reports you will find most of the explicit assumptions, but you may also find some assumptions that are implicit in the construct of the equation written to describe the system.
For example, if I use linear regression to describe the observations of CO2 and temperature wherein I have an observation of increasing CO2 and an observation of increasing temperature, I have assumed linearity even if I didn’t state it as an explicit assumption.
The assumption made by the AGW crowd in the above example is that one causes the other, just because our regression showed a correlation. But as the humorous post demonstrated, there are lots of things that can be correlated to increased temperatures.
The main point of the original post being therefore that correlation does not necessarily equal causality.
10
An outgassing of CO2 should occur if the oceans got warmer. My understanding is that they have not got any warmer. I also understand that the relationship between the concentration of a greenhouse gas and its effect on temperature is logarithmic and so most of the warming has been caused by the present level and very little extra warming will occur due to extra gas.
10
Robin, “Expecting an outgassing soon?” It’s not quite the point. The oceans have been outgassing CO2 (and soaking it up) every day for billions of years. It’s not like it’s just about to start.
If the Co2 that was released had a big positive feedback then sometime 400 million years ago or so, the world would have heated once and gone runaway greenhouse. Yes, there probably is some positive reinforcement, but the crucial question is whether it’s big enough to matter or too small to measure.
10
Which greenhouse gas?
You are making assumptions about all other components of the climate system. Namely that any effect resulting from an increase in a GHG occurs in the absence of any other forcing, or that all other forcings/feedbacks will enhance the assumed warming, or that GHG increase will simply overwhelm all other forcings/feedbacks.
Bad assumption. To date, unsupported by observation.
10
Robin, we’re already the CO2 from the oceans, emergin from the LIA.
Go back and read 77 if you want, or don’t if you don’t want to.
Robin are you being sincere? Or are you just horsing around while trying to trip somebody up?
JoAnne get a lot of such “comics” writing on her web log.
10
we are already seeing CO2 from the oceans, emerging from the LIA
typos
10
JLKrueger wrote:
The GISS temperature anomaly is model output and a frequent “observation” plugged into GCMs.
I’m pretty sure that a GCM doesn’t take a time series of global mean surface temperature as an input.
The temperature of each cell is calculated from the previous temperature, and the physical processes that would change that, including conduction and convection from adjacent cells, and interaction with radiation from the sun and from the earth, and also evaporation and condensation.
JLKrueger wrote:
The assumption made by the AGW crowd in the above example is that one causes the other, just because our regression showed a correlation. But as the humorous post demonstrated, there are lots of things that can be correlated to increased temperatures.
I think that the causal link between increasing greenhouse gas concentration and global mean surface temperature is not based on noticing the correlation, but by understanding the mechanism, which is the greenhouse effect.
I think that that is an equation.
10
Joanne wrote:
Robin, “Expecting an outgassing soon?” It’s not quite the point. The oceans have been outgassing CO2 (and soaking it up) every day for billions of years. It’s not like it’s just about to start.
Of course. But the oceans are a very significant net carbon sink. And this has been good and bad. Good because it has removed some of the carbon from the atmosphere, but bad because the resulting acidification is damaging oceanic ecosystems.
But net sourcing or sinking is the only thing that matters on a global scale. If a molecule of CO2
If the Co2 that was released had a big positive feedback then sometime 400 million years ago or so, the world would have heated once and gone runaway greenhouse.
I think that this is essentially the mechanism of the end of the glaciation periods that have occurred about every 100,000 years or so recently. Of course it does not runaway indefinitely, because the oceans don’t have an infinite amount of CO2 to release. But certainly the end of glaciations show strong monotonic warming for a solid 5000 years.
Yes, there probably is some positive reinforcement, but the crucial question is whether it’s big enough to matter or too small to measure.
Yes, that is the crucial question.
10
JLKrueger:
Which greenhouse gas?
Well how about any greenhouse gas that is not at saturation?
You are making assumptions about all other components of the climate system. Namely that any effect resulting from an increase in a GHG occurs in the absence of any other forcing, or that all other forcings/feedbacks will enhance the assumed warming, or that GHG increase will simply overwhelm all other forcings/feedbacks.
I don’t think that I’m making any such assumptions yet. Because I’m new here today, and I think the first thing to do is find the common ground.
I’m not talking about feedback yet, and I’m not talking about other forcings yet, and neither am I yet comparing the relative effect on climate of various forcings.
But there is a greenhouse effect, for without it, the earth would be 33°C cooler. And I claim that the greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gasses, and that increasing the concentration of one of them would increase the greenhouse effect. And that strikes me as powerfully non-controversial, and I wondered if that might be the common ground.
10
You are using a theory/hypothesis in an attempt to prove causality. All you have is a hypothesis which you are assuming is correct. And again, you are assuming it is the only or overpowering mechanism in the entire system.
Bad assumption, still not proven by observation.
Equations describing mechanisms and systems are MODELS.
Your statement is incorrect on its face. Since we don’t have measured temperatures for each cell, raw temperature data isn’t used. Anomalies are used and they are produced for each cell including those for which we have no actual measurements by statistical infilling. Everything you described for each cell in the grid is a model and each one includes assumptions.
GISS provides a global gridded temperature anomaly (not raw data) in three binary datasets for users needing temperature data for modeling purposes.
Of course since the modelers refuse to share datasets, complete methodology and code, we are forced to make assumptions about the models too.
10
Derek Tipp wrote:
An outgassing of CO2 should occur if the oceans got warmer. My understanding is that they have not got any warmer.
My understanding is that they have got warmer.
See: Ocean warming on the rise
And that thermal expansion is the cause of the lion’s share of sea level rise:
What am I missing?
I also understand that the relationship between the concentration of a greenhouse gas and its effect on temperature is logarithmic…
This is true. This is why climate sensitivity is expressed as a temperature change per doubling of CO2 – because this figure is nearer to constant.
… and so most of the warming has been caused by the present level and very little extra warming will occur due to extra gas.
Well current CO2 concentrations are only about 385 parts per million in the atmosphere, so it can still double another 11 times.
10
Brian Valentine wrote:
Robin, we’re already the CO2 from the oceans, emergin from the LIA.
Go back and read 77 if you want, or don’t if you don’t want to.
Thanks Brian. What is 77? I can’t see any numbers on these posts.
Robin are you being sincere? Or are you just horsing around while trying to trip somebody up?
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I’m trying to be polite, and I’m having some trouble with this interface. I made an extensive response to Jo, which has disappeared, (possibly by being too extensive), and I thought I was following the instructions for posting images correctly, but I’m clearly not.
10
JLKrueger wrote:
You are using a theory/hypothesis in an attempt to prove causality. All you have is a hypothesis which you are assuming is correct. And again, you are assuming it is the only or overpowering mechanism in the entire system.
Do I correctly understand that you don’t believe in the greenhouse effect?
10
Here is a link which shows that recent research has shown that the oceans are apparently not getting warmer.
10
Joanna – thanks for the data.
I ran the numbers and your theory holds up well. The R2 for the period 1880-2008 is 0.72, which means that US postal rates explain 72% of the variation in global temperature over the period. The strength of the relationship is due to the fact that both exhibit a “hockey stick” shape, with the blade starting about the same time, as of course makes sense since our theory (whatever it is) posits that that will happen. Furthermore, the t-statistic on the coefficient for the postal rates is 18.2, which is statistically significant at well beyond the 0.1% significance level, let alone the usual 5% level. Unambiguously, there is an infinitesimal probability that we could have gotten this result by chance. I believe that the world has every right in the light of this scientific evidence to demand that the US and the Obama administration solve global warming by bringing the Post Office and its pricing practices under control.
10
JLKrueger also wrote:
Equations describing mechanisms and systems are MODELS.
Not in the normal use of the words. But what’s in semantics? A rose by another name would smell as sweet.
Your statement is incorrect on its face. Since we don’t have measured temperatures for each cell, raw temperature data isn’t used.
You don’t have to have a measured temperature for each cell, it is calculated at each step.
To initialise a model, you need to enter at state for the whole model, and this is usually done by making a WAG, and then running the model under constant forcing until it reaches a reasonable equilibrium, then using that as the initial state.
GISS provides a global gridded temperature anomaly (not raw data) in three binary datasets for users needing temperature data for modeling purposes.
Do they? It must be for initialising the model. Note that this is no good for a model with a different grid, so this is for people running the GISS model.
Of course since the modelers refuse to share datasets, complete methodology and code, we are forced to make assumptions about the models too.
Giss results and methodology are available from this journal article:
Model documentation, including the ModelE specification and results from three standard configurations, is given in the following journal article:
Schmidt, G.A., R. Ruedy, J.E. Hansen, I. Aleinov, N. Bell, M. Bauer, S. Bauer, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, Y. Cheng, A. Del Genio, G. Faluvegi, A.D. Friend, T.M. Hall, Y. Hu, M. Kelley, N.Y. Kiang, D. Koch, A.A. Lacis, J. Lerner, K.K. Lo, R.L. Miller, L. Nazarenko, V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind, A. Romanou, G.L. Russell, Mki. Sato, D.T. Shindell, P.H. Stone, S. Sun, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, and M.-S. Yao 2006. Present day atmospheric simulations using GISS ModelE: Comparison to in-situ, satellite and reanalysis data. J. Climate 19, 153-192.
The code is available for perusal or download from this link
They also have a reference manual:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/modelE.html
FAQ:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/FAQ.html
and “How To” document:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/HOWTO.html
on the NASA webpages.
10
That’s what’s wrong with your line of reasoning. You can’t simply ignore all other parts of the climate system by locking on GHGs and greenhouse effect. They don’t work in isolation except in a computer simulation or a laboratory.
The mean temperature on Mars (virtually no greenhouse gases) is about -65°C. Let’s see, 33°C cooler on Earth would equate to roughly
-19°C (a nice spring day in the Arctic).
You are making assumptions because you are assuming that nothing else happens when you increase the GHG except an increase in greenhouse effect.
The assumed climate response to the increase in GHG is warming. That is how an increase in “greenhouse effect” can be measured (observation). That seems to work in models and a lab, but not so well in the real world. Virtually every study theorizing the “greenhouse effect” makes an assumption along the lines of “everything else being constant.” Bad assumption, everything isn’t constant.
An assumption does not have to be explicit to be there. So far your assumptions are implicit.
10
How are you defining normal use when we are talking mathematical approximations of real world systems?
You don’t have a measured temperature at each step and you definitely don’t have a measured temperature for each cell. So at least on that last bit we are in agreement. The temperature, part of the system state, had to get initialized somewhere first. After initialization, you calculate it during the run based on assumptions about responses.
Wild Ass Guess, eh? You mean like really BOLD ASSUMPTION! Sorta why models are not evidence.
Gee, and that would give me lots of confidence in the model’s predictive accuracy.
Unless you put it through another statistical transform to adjust it to a different grid, though I don’t know why anyone would want to do that. If it’s being used in the initialization step, modelers will likely want to use a grid that will be friendly to one or more of the available datasets. No sense reinventing the wheel.
We are making assumptions about the details that probably do not apply to all models.
What, you think I don’t know about the links you provided? Gavin and the boys are constantly being tagged on ModelE and how they aren’t answering questions or providing complete information.
To quote from the so-called reference manual:
“This document is a short description of what GISS ModelE does and gives some references and descriptions of how it does it. Hopefully this will eventually morph into a full technical paper given enough time and resources!”
Ain’t there yet as far as being all that useful unless you are an “insider.”
You claimed to be new, but clearly you specifically meant “new to JoNova.” Your comments went from “novice exploring” to got the “Real Climate” and “Open Mind” lines down pat real fast. Going that fast to ModelE ain’t a rookie move.
10
Just put JL down for denying the greenhouse effect exists. It will save you a lot of time.
10
zzzzzzz
Huh? Did somebody say something?
10
Isn’t IR the be all and end all?
Is it true that sunlight reflected off the moon is stronger than IR emitted downwards by GHGs, or does something else cause the instruments to be overwhelmed by it? Does this mean the moonlight is a more significant than the returned IR? We mortals need to know so we can control lunar emissions if need be.
OWWOOOO.
🙂
10
Derek Tipp Wrote:
Here is a link which shows that recent research has shown that the oceans are apparently not getting warmer.
Thanks for that link, Derek, I wasn’t aware of that paper.
I did a bit of googling to see if the discrepancy between this cooling and the continued sea level rise has been resolved … and it turns out that it has.
The cooling is not real. It was a consequence of bad data from some of the buoys and from some of the expendable bathythermographs.
NASA has a write up about the drama ,a href = “http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page3.php”>here.
10
That link again:
NASA has a write up about the drama here.
10
Third time lucky: here
10
[…] Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges | JoNova (tags: statistics climate change post.office USPS price carbon evironment parody satire) […]
10
JLKrueger wrote: That’s what’s wrong with your line of reasoning. You can’t simply ignore all other parts of the climate system by locking on GHGs and greenhouse effect. They don’t work in isolation except in a computer simulation or a laboratory.
Is that so?
What about an increase in solar irradiance then?
Would you say that that could increase or decrease the temperature of the earth? Or would that increase the temperature?
JLKrueger wrote:The mean temperature on Mars (virtually no greenhouse gases) is about -65°C. Let’s see, 33°C cooler on Earth would equate to roughly -19°C (a nice spring day in the Arctic).
Yes, about that. The black body temperature of the Earth would be about -18°C, I believe.
It was Joseph Fourier in 1824 that first noticed the discrepancy, and proposed that the atmosphere causes additional warming.
JLKrueger wrote:Wild Ass Guess, eh? You mean like really BOLD ASSUMPTION! Sorta why models are not evidence.
Gee, and that would give me lots of confidence in the model’s predictive accuracy.
Well, not really. It comes out in the wash when you run the model for a bit. If you’ve stuck a too low a value for the temperature or humidity in a given cell, the modelled processes of conduction and convection and evaporation and condensation correct this to a more correct value if you let the model run for a few centuries.
JLKrueger wrote:You are making assumptions because you are assuming that nothing else happens when you increase the GHG except an increase in greenhouse effect.
Not at all, there are certainly feedback effects. The direct effect of a doubling of CO2 is to raise temperatures only about 1°C. However observational evidence from ice core histories, from paleoclimateic histories from radiation budget data, from the response to large volcanic eruptions and from ocean heat content measurements show it to be more than that. Probably about 3°C.
But a feedback can’t eliminate the effect of the thing that caused the feedback, because of the nature of a feedback. If the cause is completely eliminated, so is the feedback.
But this is going to turn into a completely non productive mud-slinging match if we fail to find any common ground to build upon, and it would be nice if I could get you on side in that endeavour.
It seems at least that you accept that the greenhouse effect works in the lab. Can we put it out there that we agree on this?
10
It seems at least that you accept that the greenhouse effect works in the lab. Can we put it out there that we agree on this?
Negative, guy. It doesn’t even work in FURNACES, at least, not as how you are interpreting the “greenhouse” effect
I put together tables of radiation greybody emissivities for water, CO2, air mixtures for use in calculating radiant heat transfer in the presence of participating gases, these emissivities are used as weights in partial sums over the total radiant heat transfer per unit of area.
If the “greenhouse” effect was evident in any of this, one would identify ADDITIONAL heat transfer THAT COULDN’T be accounted for by the simple identification of the IR spectra of water and cabon dioxide, together with the overlaps of each molecule, taken separately.
If you want to play “greenhouse” there are a number of alarmist websites out where you can chat all day with people who fantasize about the world coming to an abrupt end unless Greenpiece takes over the world
10
JLKrueger wrote: What, you think I don’t know about the links you provided?
I’m sure I don’t know yet what sort of things that you are aware of.
I do think, though, that the code, at least, is available online for many of the models used in high profile papers.
JLKrueger wrote: To quote from the so-called reference manual:
“This document is a short description of what GISS ModelE does and gives some references and descriptions of how it does it. Hopefully this will eventually morph into a full technical paper given enough time and resources!”
Okay, I accept your point that it’s not complete.
I find the time and resources reason perfectly credible. Research scientists can be poor bookkeepers.
JLKrueger wrote: You claimed to be new, but clearly you specifically meant “new to JoNova.” Your comments went from “novice exploring” to got the “Real Climate” and “Open Mind” lines down pat real fast. Going that fast to ModelE ain’t a rookie move.
I was discussing with Jo about the Meehl et al. paper that calculated a decomposition of the climate signal into parts due to various forcings, and the atmospheric model that they used is also available for download, so I wondered if the NASA GISS code was too.
I googled, and it was.
I don’t read Realclimate but have one of their articles bookmarked. A four year old one explaining why water vapour is correctly treated as a feedback. (This one.)
I have dabbled at openmind, and find good statistics compelling, but often beyond me.
But certainly I have an interest in climate change, and some experience in modelling (not in a climate context).
I read the journal Nature’s climate change webpages more regularly than either. Do you read that? I find it a good source of information about current research and analysis. (Nature Reports: Climate Change.)
10
Joanne Nova Wrote: ‘And lets finish the sentence: “it is the overwhelming contributor… according to unproven, unverified climate models, which are based on opinions and estimates by people who wouldn’t have a job if carbon wasn’t a problem.”’
Why do you call the Department of Energy’s PCM “unverified”? Did it not undergo hindcasting?
And I do question whether the employment of Meehl and Washington would be at any risk, no matter what the results climate research discovers. Meehl has been at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado since 1973, and is somewhat renowned. He won the Editor’s Award, Journal of Climate, American Meteorological Society, in 1999, the Editor’s Citation, Geophysical Research Letters, American Geophysical Union, 2006, and The Jule G. Charney Award of the American Meteorological Society, this year. Google scholar has him the lead author on a dozen papers with over 100 citations. Washington is, if anything, more renowned. He joined the NCAR in 1963, and is a head of the Climate Change research section. He is a Fellow of the AMS and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and from 1991 to 1995 he was a member of the AAAS Board of Directors.
I don’t think that either of these two would lose their jobs even if the NCAR were downsized.
The Australian author, Julie Arblaster, was studying the El Nino at the time of the paper, a valuable line of research even if it isn’t connected to climate change, because of the devastation in Indonesia and Malaysia, and to a lesser extent Australia due to fires from the 1998 El Nino.
So I think that at least most of the Authors of this paper had research areas not under threat by climate change findings or serious job security by virtue of seniority and accumulated respect. (Accumulated, in part, by not ever having found to have falsified research.)
10
Brian Valentine wrote: “Negative, guy. It doesn’t even work in FURNACES, at least, not as how you are interpreting the “greenhouse” effect.”
How should I interpret the greenhouse effect, such that it does work in furnaces?
10
Why do you call the Department of Energy’s PCM “unverified”?
Because I happen to work there, guy.
BWAHAAHAAHAAA
10
Brian Valentine wrote: “If the “greenhouse” effect was evident in any of this, one would identify ADDITIONAL heat transfer THAT COULDN’T be accounted for by the simple identification of the IR spectra of water and cabon dioxide, together with the overlaps of each molecule, taken separately.”
I don’t think that that’s the case. The spectra of CO,sub>2 and any other greenhouse gasses) fully account for their action as a greenhouse gas.
If the spectra of a gas is such that is is more transparent to frequencies that have a high power spectral density in sunlight than frequencies that have a high spectral density in radiated IR from the earth, then it is a greenhouse gas … It lets energy in to the atmosphere, but slows its escape.
10
typo: The spectra of CO2 and any other greenhouse gas, fully accounts for their action as a greenhouse gas.
10
You have a very funny view of the way the world works, Robin.
You’re not the first person to confuse “heat capacity” with “IR absorption”.
Why can’t alarmists go work on some practical and useful problem, that could actually benefit mankind?
Here’s a couple of suggestions:
– Eliminate an element from the periodic table. Chlorine proved a bit too much for the Green Scene, so set your sights a little lower this time.
– Figure out a way to carry out radiant mass transfer like they do in Star Trek. Now THAT would be something that people could really USE!!!!
10
Brian Valentine wrote:”Because I happen to work there, guy.”
Are you the Brian Valentine in the Industrial Technology Program?
Is the PCM not verified with hindcasting?
10
Not as it stands, no
10
Brian Valentine wrote: “You have a very funny view of the way the world works, Robin.
You’re not the first person to confuse “heat capacity” with “IR absorption”.”
I think we’re having a disconnect here. Could you explain what you mean by confusing heat capacity with IR absorption, because I don’t think I’m doing that.
And I do think that a greenhouse gas is a greenhouse gas because of it’s absorption spectrum, not because of its heat capacity.
10
Brian Valentine wrote: “Not as it stands, no”
What’s the problem, as it stands?
10
Wherewolfe Wrote:
“Isn’t IR the be all and end all?
Is it true that sunlight reflected off the moon is stronger than IR emitted downwards by GHGs, or does something else cause the instruments to be overwhelmed by it?”
The intensity of the reflected IR due to the greenhouse effect is about 320 W/m2. The intensity of the reflected light from even a full moon is about 0.001 W/m2.
10
Joanne Nova Wrote:”Climate models prove nothing except that if you give smart guys with computers a lot of money they can come up with any number between -3 and 11 degrees, and look pretty convincing and authoritative, especially when no one understands what went on inside the black box of their complex model because it’s not public, and no one is paid to audit them.”
I’m not certain that you could accurately call the DOE PCM a “black box” or “not public”. The atmospheric component at the time of the paper was the NCAR’s CCM3.2, the source code for which can still be downloaded from here. You can look at it, see what it does, compile it, and if you’ve got a lot of processing power or time, run it.
The Ocean, Sea Ice, and River transport components are described (with references) here.
So I think that this particular model was (and is) fairly open and public.
10
Joanne Nova Wrote:”The climate is so complex, we don’t have a chance with our pathetically inadequate understanding of how it works to be able to predict it yet.”
There is no doubt that the models are imperfect, especially on a regional scale. Herein lies the greatest cause for alarm. We are affecting the global climate, and even the best experts don’t know what it will do to any ecological systems or farmland.
10
Look at it this way.
Humid nights are warmer than nights with low humidity. That’s because the water vapor is reflecting the radiant heat of the cooling Earth back down to the Earth.
All over the Earth, there is so much water vapor in the air that, on the average, the Earth is some 30 Celsius degrees warmer than it would be if water vapor wasn’t present at all.
Is this heat there forever? No, eventually the water condenses someplace, and the heat is dissipated, at longer wavelengths still, wich is absorbed by nothing.
Now consider CO2 in the atmosphere. By itself, the effect is neglible (we have heard it said, by iteslf, is responsible for one degree average rise in temperature.) But it cannot be so measured, for the natural variablity in the total amount of water vapor at any given time is much larger than that, so it is meaningless to talk about it.
So we come up with the idea of water “feedback” from CO2. This is supposed to increase the temperature further, by putting more water in the air.
But how? How is this working any different than the Sun? Why does this act differently then the air with water vapor alone, which we know will condense and the average air temperature stay the same?
Does CO2 have the special property of “holding” heat somehow and this “held” heat is transferred to water as some “held” heat?
Hopefully not, because if you think about it, water vapor “feedback” FROM ITSELF would have permanently saturated the air since day 1 of an Earth with liquid water present.
So there you are, Robin, with an explanation of “greenhouse” gases which are nothing like “greenhouses” in which people grow tomatoes in the winter.
Gotta get back to other things. I’m gonna let Krueger take over this escapade – assuming he isn’t comatose from boredom or dispair.
10
Brian Valentine wrote: Humid nights are warmer than nights with low humidity. That’s because the water vapor is reflecting the radiant heat of the cooling Earth back down to the Earth.
Yes!
Brian Valentine wrote: All over the Earth, there is so much water vapor in the air that, on the average, the Earth is some 30 Celsius degrees warmer than it would be if water vapor wasn’t present at all.
Well, some 12°C, or 22°C if you count clouds as water vapour.
Brian Valentine wrote: Is this heat there forever? No, eventually the water condenses someplace, and the heat is dissipated, at longer wavelengths still, wich is absorbed by nothing.
Why is the heat at longer wavelengths still?
Brian Valentine wrote: Now consider CO2 in the atmosphere. By itself, the effect is neglible (we have heard it said, by iteslf, is responsible for one degree average rise in temperature.)
The one degree is for a doubling of CO2. It is responsible for more like 3°C by itself.
Brian Valentine wrote: But it cannot be so measured, for the natural variablity in the total amount of water vapor at any given time is much larger than that, so it is meaningless to talk about it.
It still has an effect over and above the water vapour. (And a far greater one in the absence of water vapour, because the overlap with water vapour is strong).
So I think that it can be measured, and it is meaningful to talk about it.
Brian Valentine wrote: So we come up with the idea of water “feedback” from CO2. This is supposed to increase the temperature further, by putting more water in the air.
Right. A world that is 3°C warmer has more water vapour in the air, because evaporation is greater and because the air can hold more water.
Brian Valentine wrote: But how? How is this working any different than the Sun?
The sun will also increase the water vapour in the air, yes.
Brian Valentine wrote: Why does this act differently then the air with water vapor alone, which we know will condense and the average air temperature stay the same?
The air temperature won’t revert back to the 22°C cooler when the water vapour condenses. The heat due to the greenhouse effect dissipates slowly. So the average air temperature will very much not stay the same.
Brian Valentine wrote: Does CO2 have the special property of “holding” heat somehow and this “held” heat is transferred to water as some “held” heat?
No, it is simply opaque to certain frequencies of IR radiation. So IR of that frequency does not get out through the atmosphere very well.
Brian Valentine wrote: Hopefully not, because if you think about it, water vapor “feedback” FROM ITSELF would have permanently saturated the air since day 1 of an Earth with liquid water present.
On the other hand it can rain, which clears the air of water vapour arbitrarily quickly.
Brian Valentine wrote: So there you are, Robin, with an explanation of “greenhouse” gases which are nothing like “greenhouses” in which people grow tomatoes in the winter.
The mechanism is certainly different, but it is similar in that the greenhouse is warm not because it has a greater energy in, but because the rate of energy escaping is reduced.
As it is with the greenhouse effect.
Brian Valentine wrote: Gotta get back to other things. I’m gonna let Krueger take over this escapade – assuming he isn’t comatose from boredom or dispair.
It’s been interesting trying to understand your position, Brian.
10
Joanne Nova Wrote:”The correlation from post 1970 warming… again, the 30-40 year thing is another modelled guess.”
I did indeed make a mistake there. Upon re-reading that part of the paper, I see that the 25-50 years is directly due to estimates of climate sensitivity (due to a doubling of CO2), not as I claimed, calculated from the Earth’s radiation budget.
But, on the other hand, there are many estimates of the climate sensitivity that are independent of general circulation models. (Including the Hansen paper on radiation budget, but also including estimates from observational evidence, An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity, , and from paleoclimatic evidence, on various time scales. Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature reconstructions over the past seven centuries. Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years.)
10
Typo:
Including the Hansen paper on radiation budget, but also including estimates from observational evidence, An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity, and from paleoclimatic evidence, on various time scales. Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature reconstructions over the past seven centuries. Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years
10
Although we don’t seem to be able to constrain the climate sensitivity more than about 1.5°C to 4.5°C per doubling of CO2, there are multiple independent lines of evidence that show that it is in that ballpark. And so the 25 to 50 years is also in the correct ballpark. (And fairly intuitive, I think, if you think about how long it would take the ocean temperature and sea ice to respond to an increase in a greenhouse gas.)
10
Is that so, Robin?
Is that how greenhouses work, Robin?
Fun Fact: Did you know that glass is diathermanous to all thermal wavelengs of EM radiation?
Do a damn heat radiant heat transfer calculation of air at a composition of 750 ppm CO2 and see if your 3 degrees makes any more sense than a 3 degree increase from a dog howling at the Moon
10
Joanne Nova Wrote:”…but why has the warming stopped? (Models don’t know).”
I don’t think that the data supports the claim that the warming has stopped. There have been drops of the same magnitude (0.15 of a degree) in every decade since the 1950s. (Similar conclusions are in the scientific literature: We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer‐term warming. )
Significant to me is that the average temperature for this decade so far is 0.19°C warmer than the average for the 1990s. This is the fastest decade on decade warming on record.
But it was predicted by models in 2007 that 2008 and 2009 would not break the 1998 record. “Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.” Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model, August 2007.
10
Joanne Nova Wrote:”Isn’t it an odd coincidence that temperatures have gone up and down every 30 years since 1880 (see the Akasufo graph ), and they appear to be still oscillating on a 30 year trend? (Almost like carbon makes no difference at all?)”
That graph does show a warming. It is attributed to “recovery from the little ice age”, which is not a forcing mentioned in the IPCC reports. How does a cool period up to 1850 cause a warming throughout the 20th century?
10
Joanne Nova Wrote:”The climate models don’t include solar-magnetic effects despite them having an excellent correlation”
What is a solar-magnetic effect?
Joanne Nova Wrote:”The models can’t predict el nino or la nina effects.”
They can be (and certainly the Hadley centre one is) poor at reproducing the size of the ENSO. I was aware earlier in the year of some Australian research that was overturning ideas about the cause of the ENSO, so it might be that this will improve in the near future.
Joanne Nova Wrote:”As per the Hansen paper and other non-model estimates. What’s the difference? It’s still calculated by taking assumptions, multiplying it by estimates and raising it to the power of a good guess. That someone did it with a hand calculator instead of a computer doesn’t make it more certain. Only one assumption has to be wrong for the whole caboodle to fall in a hole.”
Well I would say that reproducibility of climate sensitivity from independent evidence does add reliability to estimates. And I would say that if you think that they might be wrong, then you should be advocating additional caution to that proposed by the IPCC, not less.
Noting that the climate sensitivity might be as high as 5 or 6 °C (Albeit with a lower probability than about 3°C), is already terrifying for me, and I at least have confidence in scientific estimates of the upper bound that you don’t seem to share.
10
Joanne Nova Wrote:”I don’t mean any of that disrespectfully. I like that you are asking reasonable questions in a friendly tone”
And respect to you too. I am impressed and surprised that a line of questioning counter to the editorial position of this site has been tolerated for more than a post.
Joanne Nova Wrote:”, but models (and hand calculated theoretical estimates) are not empirical evidence, even if they worked, which they don’t. ”
Which is why I mention the empirical evidence from observations, from earth radiation budget data, from ice cores and from paleoclimate reconstructions. There are other approaches too. In 2003 there was an interesting paper that used a neural net in place of a climate model. It predicted much greater warming than climate models (equivalent to a climate sensitivity of about 5°C per doubling).
(http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/knutti/papers/knutti03cd.pdf)
And while one should be cautious of the meta-analysis, there have been ones of observational rather than modelled data, to get at the climate sensitivity, and this has produced some claims that the upper bound can be confidently reduced to about 4.5°C per doubling of CO2.
(http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf)
10
Quick question for the poseurs out there:
How can you spot a fraud?
They use language like “while one should be cautious of the meta-analysis …”
10
Brian Valentine wrote: “Quick question for the poseurs out there:
How can you spot a fraud?
They use language like “while one should be cautious of the meta-analysis …””
How why would a fraud want to be cautious of meta analysis, while a non fraud would not be cautious of meta analysis?
It is genuinely difficult to combine data from different studies with different methodologies as is done it the paper. Results can be wrong by combining data from studies of different qualities, and by publication bias.
It occurred to me that publication bias might be the reason for the bimodal shape of the posterior PDF for climate sensitivity in this paper.
By which I mean that papers that estimated climate sensitivity to be about 2.8 were considered less interesting than very low or very high values, and so this paper underestimates the probability of climate sensitivity about there.
And in what way can I possibly be a fraud?
You you think that I actually agree with climate scepticism, and are pretending to agree with the scientific view for some personal gain?
10
Hmm, I don’t think I should have risen to the bait.
The guidelines are no insults, and no statements about motivations, as well as no swearing. Your post 152 only manages to not swear.
I am being civil to you, and addressing the issue genuinely and intellectually. And I am making an effort to follow the site guidelines.
Furthermore I am attempting to use the expertise here to increase my understanding of global warming.
Now you have suggested that I could “Do a damn heat radiant heat transfer calculation of air at a composition of 750 ppm CO2 and see if your 3 degrees makes any more sense than a 3 degree increase from a dog howling at the Moon”.
I don’t know what that means, but if you think it would be enlightening, I would be happy for you to walk me through one.
10
Brian Valentine wrote:
“Is that so, Robin?
Is that how greenhouses work, Robin?
Fun Fact: Did you know that glass is diathermanous to all thermal wavelengs of EM radiation?”
Yes. A glass greenhouse works by a different mechanism. The heat loss is slowed by slowing loss by convection rather than loss by radiation.
Brian Valentine wrote:”Do a damn heat radiant heat transfer calculation of air at a composition of 750 ppm CO2 and see if your 3 degrees makes any more sense than a 3 degree increase from a dog howling at the Moon”
What does a “damn heat radiant heat transfer calculation of air at a composition of 750 ppm CO2” calculate, and how is it calculated?
10
It means, that a 3 degree increase increase in temperature from a 750 ppm CO2 mixture in the air is not possible.
Can you carry out ordinary radiant heat transfer calculations, invloving participating gases in enclosures, and so forth?
I find it remarkable how many people can spew out sophisticated sounding knowledge of radiant properties of the atmosphere, and when questioned about their true knowledge of radiant heat transfer, turn out to be quite clueless as to how calculations are actually done.
To me, this is what shows itself as the poseur of sophisticated theory.
10
Brian Valentine: “It means, that a 3 degree increase increase in temperature from a 750 ppm CO2 mixture in the air is not possible.
Can you carry out ordinary radiant heat transfer calculations, invloving participating gases in enclosures, and so forth?”
No, but I’m increasingly eager to learn. How do I do that?
10
Now, your willingness to learn, rather than your eagerness to impress others with what you know, is what truly impresses me.
A good place to start, is a good book on the subject, and the textbook, “Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer,” by Siegel and Howell, which I have used to teach, is an excellent book to start.
Depending on your background, getting through the book would take you about six months of serious work, and if you are serious, I would guide you how you might approach it.
10
Brian Valentine wrote:
“Now, your willingness to learn, rather than your eagerness to impress others with what you know, is what truly impresses me.
A good place to start, is a good book on the subject, and the textbook, “Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer,” by Siegel and Howell, which I have used to teach, is an excellent book to start.
Depending on your background, getting through the book would take you about six months of serious work, and if you are serious, I would guide you how you might approach it.”
Okay. Perhaps you could do a worked example with that 750 ppm atmosphere that you were talking about above, while I wait for the book to arrive?
What exactly are we calculating the heat transfer between here?
10
Between the surface of the Earth and the Heaventree hung with humid nightblue fruit.*
[outer space.]
Get the book, and we’ll start with some simpler things first.
*description of the cosmos from James Joyce, Ulysses
10
Is that textbook going to teach that only water vapor is a greenhouse gas? Apparently that’s what Brian believes.
10
No, the book will teach that 750 ppm CO2 in a mixture of air and 1% water vapor has very little influence on radiant heat transfer between 260 and 350 Kelvin degrees
10
Brian Valentine: “Get the book, and we’ll start with some simpler things first.”
Okay, I’m looking at the table of contents of the book. There doesn’t seem to be anything on the absorption spectra of translucent media.
What part do we look at to calculate the required properties of 750ppm air compared to 385 ppm air?
10
Brian Valentine: “Get the book, and we’ll start with some simpler things first.”
Also if you could post the equation that we intend to be able to solve at the end of this exercise, so that we can look at it and discuss which terms are affected by humidity and CO2 concentration, that would be a good beginning motivation.
It would also do a lot for my confidence that you know what you’re talking about.
10
Why would you expect to find a chapter on translucent media in a text book on radiant heat transfer?
Perhaps you could enlighten me on that.
If you plan to learn quantum mechanics from a text, for example, and quantum mechanics is new to you, are you going to start with a chapter on how to make near-field approximations to the Born equation?
No, you would start with Chapter 1, would you not?
Maybe it’s just me, although you seem to have a condescending tone.
I will let others be the judge of that, since you have made your remarks public.
I’m not a big fan of attempts to condescend, and BS has even less appeal to me.
10
Brian Valentine wrote:”Why would you expect to find a chapter on translucent media in a text book on radiant heat transfer?”
Well, Chapter 12 is on translucent media. You tell me why it’s there.
I was perusing the contents to see where I should start reading to find out about calculating radiative transfer through the atmosphere. I thought that since we are considering heat loss to the atmosphere during transmission, translucent media would be the one to look at.
Any real pointers you could give would be nice.
Brian Valentine wrote: “If you plan to learn quantum mechanics from a text, for example, and quantum mechanics is new to you, are you going to start with a chapter on how to make near-field approximations to the Born equation?”
Okay, there are two problems that I was trying to address with that question. One is the motivation one. How will reading this text help me understand the greenhouse effect?
This would be clearer if you would post this “damn heat radiant heat transfer calculation of air at a composition of 750 ppm CO2” that you find it “remarkable” how many people “spew[ing] out sophisticated sounding knowledge of radiant properties of the atmosphere” can’t solve.
The other is authority. You apparently have a low opinion of people who cant solve a damn heat radiant heat transfer calculation of air at a composition of 750 ppm CO2″. So I raise a very serious question:
I don’t ask can you solve it, I merely ask can you write it down?
I ask because I begin to suspect that you can’t. (Which may be related to the condescending tone that you are picking up on).
But don’t fear, you can win back my assumption of respect by simply posting this equation, and being able to discuss which terms are affected by humidity and CO2 concentration.
10
Brian Valentine:
Also, I don’t think you answered my question about heat capacity and absorption spectra.
Did you know that it is the absorption spectrum of a gas that makes it a greenhouse gas, not its heat capacity?
10
Don’t worry, I found an online tool for calculating transmission through the atmosphere.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html
750 ppm CO2 compared with the pre-industrial 270 ppm CO2 yields about 3.4 W/m2 less radiation out.
That’s just a little over 1°C of warming (without feedbacks).
That would be the greenhouse effect.
10
Whilst most scientists, mathematicians, hobbyists, profiteers, journalists, comperes and politicians are apportioning blame to decimal places based on assumption, opinion and earning money, morals be damned, a request to look beyond minutiae is not unreasonable. A good place to start would be to have a fact.
Will/do we have an insignificant net influence on the climate with ACO2 emissions?
We can’t know how little the effect is without a lot more knowledge of the various unknowns like how much ACO2 stays in the air for how long, H2O atm. volume, variability and feedback values, ocean floor gas and heat emissions/cycles/effects, ocean and atm. oscillations and current variations/effects, super volcano eruption dates and effect/duration, net solar and extra terrestrial influence, biomass response and influence, aersol types/volume effects, tech. advances, farming advances, Earth girth, axial wobble influence and variation and a whole lot more. It doesn’t need a rocket science to understand that.
What will it be in 2100, ice age, tropical age, as we are now? I go with predicting this year will be near enough the same as last and this century ditto plus ~0.5 C for glacial emergence. I have as much chance of being right as as any forecaster.
“… even this small discrepancy, of less than 0.1 percent, completely changed the end result.”
Lorenz.
IR emission stable or decreasing? CO2 ~0.038% + 0.0001 to 0.0003% per annum. WV a highly variable 2-4% absorbing not only in a more energetic part of the spectrum but also in a much greater range.
Temperature variation can’t be predicted by CO2 levels over any time period in any era. How can it be considered significant?
🙂
10
The word “translucent” refers to partial transmitance of visible light, media that transmits thermal IR radiation is either diathermanous, or it is participating.
At least that’s the terminology Siegel and Howell and everybody else I have ever heard use.
In the edition of Siegel and Howell that I have, ch 12 is radiation in the presence of other modes of energy transfer, and maybe some new edition of their book refers to translucent media, or if it doesn’t, maybe you could write it for them.
Approximation for IR transfer through non-isothermal diffuse grey gases one typically uses are the Curtis-Gordon and the zoning methods, and I’m not going to go any farther with that.
10
I like the thinking in the original post. Almost any increasing or decreasing value can be linked to global warming (or not as the case may be). I was particularly impressed lately by worldclimatereport’s blog that linked any one of the carbon footprint calculators to an average of the GCMs so that you could work out how much temperature increase could be avoided if the appropriate carbon reduction action was taken. If this info was more widely known then this debate would evaporate in less time than it takes Jim Hansen to say “death trains”.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/04/30/what-you-cant-do-about-global-warming/
00
Brian got pwned, as the kids say. 🙂
00
YOU again?
I thought you became a skeptic and went out and campaigned against the carbon tax.
Aren’t you the “Boris” who keeps writing on Eli’s blog about what a turkey he is?
00
Here is an article that sets out a test by which the CO2 theory can be tested – by the amount of heat retained in the oceans. It is a compelling read, though it does contain some maths which will be dificult for less advanced mathematicians. Here is one small extract from its findings:
“In brief, we know of no mechanism by which vast amounts of “missing” heat can be hidden, transferred, or absorbed within the earth’s system. The only reasonable conclusion-call it a null hypothesis-is that heat is no longer accumulating in the climate system and there is no longer a radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing. This not only demonstrates that the IPCC models are failing to accurately predict global warming, but also presents a serious challenge to the integrity of the AGW hypothesis.”
00
Robin asks me to write down a single equation to solve, which would be used to calculate IR radiation through the Earth’s atmosphere.
No problemo, here it is:
Div q = 0
where q is the heat flux vector.
There you are, Robin, memorize that, and people will call you an Atmospheric Physics Wizard!
00
So, this is where today’s education system has brought us.
Evidently he never solved a radiant heat transfer problem in his life, has no interest in solving any, and he’s an “expert” on “global warming.”
Well, as Socrates once remarked, “with today’s youth the way they are, civilisation cannot possibly last for two more generations.”
Each day I identify more with that old goat; right now I’m about the same age he was when he died
(carrying out his death sentence himself, which to me was his demonstration that no one controlled him but himself)
00
Sorry, this is off topic but I believe it represents a major breach in the establisment case. A leading climate scientist says that controlling co2 won’t change the climate. There can only be one inference
We can’t solve global warming says climate change professor
Can we solve climate change? No we can’t, according to a leading climate change professor.
Mike Hulme professor of Climate Change at East Anglia University reckons we are heading up a “dead end” by putting climate change science at the top of the political agenda.
…..
“It is rather hubristic to think we can actually control climate. Climate change is the new human condition we have to live with. Let’s accept this is the new reality.
“Don’t construct the problem in a way which means we cannot have a solution which is the way I think we have got it constructed at the moment.”
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/science/2009/04/we-cant-solve-global-warming-s.html
00
Same guy.
In this BBC interview, Professor Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change says in reply to the proposition that “In the worst case scenario, we’ll perish”. “Well yes, that’s an interpretation or a judgement on the evidence; the evidence from science is very clear we are altering climate, quite what the significance is, of course a lot of other factors come into play”
mp3
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/humeradio4.mp3
Full interview
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8022000/8022297.stm
00
My first comment disappeared so I will repeat it. Hulme is a leading climate scientist.
*************
We can’t solve global warming says climate change professor
Can we solve climate change? No we can’t, according to a leading climate change professor.
Mike Hulme professor of Climate Change at East Anglia University reckons we are heading up a “dead end” by putting climate change science at the top of the political agenda.
.
“It is rather hubristic to think we can actually control climate. Climate change is the new human condition we have to live with. Let’s accept this is the new reality.
“Don’t construct the problem in a way which means we cannot have a solution which is the way I think we have got it constructed at the moment.”
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/science/2009/04/we-cant-solve-global-warming-s.html
00
Identification of a fraud, Item# 2
They use a pseudonym on the internet because they are too weak to say their own name aloud in public.
What do you think, Robin?
Does that identify a coward or a fraud?
Both, actually. Looking at the historical record, we find them to be one and the same thing.
00
“Does that identify a coward or a fraud?”
Ah, the inevitable attack on anonymity, as if it mattered to the argument.
And maybe you should think about consulting a text that deals with radiative transfer in the atmosphere. Would you like me to recommend one for you?
00
er, thanks, Boris, that would be, real great.
Seems Siegel and Howell, as well as Chandrasekhar, forgot all about THE ATMOSPHERE
Can you believe it?
You ought to write to them and tell them.
[don’t tell them I sent you]
00
By the way thanks to Eric for describing Hulme’s assessment.
Hulme should know – he has been saying the same thing to the British government since the Thatcher government.
He’s a nice guy, I met him once – he is the target of a lot of criticism from Hadley Centre, but they have never demonstrated him to be wrong.
And Hulme uses HADLEY data to back up what he says.
On dealing with climate change, Professor Carter has said, roughly, that people can invest in $100Mn to build a dam with certain results, or they can lose $1Bn or more in revenue from lost industrial activity with uncertain results, and there really is no argument about practical ways of dealing with climate change.
00
Brian Valentine wrote:
Siegel and Howell seem to be using it to refer to partial transmittance of thermal radiation, and seem to consider a participating gas an example of a translucent medium, according to my reading of it:
From “Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer
By Robert Siegel, John R. Howell”:
12-1 Introduction (pp 501, fourth edition)
Radiation exchange between solid surfaces without any emitting, absorbing. and/or scattering medium between them is treated in Chaps 5-10. The addition of having a radiatively participating gas or other translucent medium between the surfaces can be included by building on this foundation.
Perhaps the meaning of “translucent” has changed a little over the years.
Brian Valentine wrote:
Do they include absorbance as a function of wavelength, such as is significant in the greenhouse effect?
00
Primary colors.
00
I don’t have the 4th edition I have the first where the word “translucent” appears as “attenuating” so they must have changed their minds?
As for the Curtis-Gordon and zoning methods, look them up in the TOC
00
What strange things Global Warming has done to Siegel and Howell!
And me.
00
JoAnne has asked me to be nice to Robin, so I shall.
Yes Robin, these methodologies include absorbance as a function of wavelength, in all the treatments of participating gases, the absorbance has to be identified at the wavelengths (and temperatures) of interest.
In hand calculations of radiation transfer, one usually uses tables that show the absorbance as a function of wavelengths, and carries out the calculations as sums over the wavelengths. There are a number of analytic functions (implicit and explicit) that correct the temperature dependence.
These calculations can be carried out much easier by computer, of course, once the absorbance values have been programmed into the method.
The ANL program uses a modification of the zoning method, which is to say, the atmosphere is broken into a nimber of approximate isothermal sections, and the condition of matched flux is applied at each section.
That is easier than the Curtis-Gordon method, which is implicit in temperature, and the temperature actually has to be estimated to get the heat flux, and the calculations iterated until the temperature and flux values converge to values that don’t change any more with iterations.
Solving the equations of transfer usually involves solving integral equations of the Volterra type by approximations of the kernel.
That sounds real fancy, but it really isn’t, all it means is solving an equation that involves an integral with the function one seeks, by approximating the unknown function with known functions.
Radiant heat transfer calculations, like everything else, are easy once you get the hang of it; if you think about it, all it involves is the conservation of energy written in one form or another.
The calculations don’t even involve the SECOND law of thermodynamics; not directly, anyway – but the Second Law is certainly applied when one has to specify in advance wwhich way the heat is going!
00
Okay, thanks for the response Brian.
So it is really these tables that we should look at to understand the consequence of an increase in atmospheric CO2?
Do I correctly understand that your position is that there is no such consequence?
Many other people’s calculations yield that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere results in a drop in radiative flux out of the atmosphere of around 3 W/m2, and this is simply wrong?
00
While your being “nice”, I’ll take the opportunity to put an earlier question a third time.
Could you make it a little clearer what you mean by >You’re not the first person to confuse “heat capacity” with “IR absorption”.
I have been assuming that we agree that the greenhouse effect is an absorbance spectrum phenomena, not a heat capacity one.
00
Thank you, Robin.
The absorbances listed in the tables are specified at a fixed molar composition, of course, and at low concentrations (< 5 mol or volume %), the absorbance is proportional to the (mol weighted) molar concentration.
Even though this relation is linear the overall effect on the heat flux cannot be seen a priori of course because the equations of transfer are highly nonlinear in temperature.
The absolute reduction in the heat flux calculated by any method must first of all be specified to the surface under consideration (i.e., as the disc that the Earth appears to the Sun, or the surface of the sphere as the Earth appears to people); the humidity, and will be strongly influenced by the type and magnitude of cloud cover.
Unfortunately there are no uniformly accepted referenced values for any of these.
00
Thanks again for the response, Brian.
I’m not sure I get your meaning yet.
You are talking about the equations being “highly non-linear” in the temperature of the surface (not of the medium)?
I guess a first approximation involving leaving the temperature constant would be interesting.
And by “non-linear” you mean not proportional to temperature (but more proportional to it’s fourth power), as opposed to “non-linear” as in the superposition principle doesn’t apply?
00
I don’t understand this either.
Surely where there is absorbance by the atmosphere the divergence of the heat flux would be negative?
So wouldn’t Div q be generally negative where there is a translucent medium?
00
I Hulme is arguing at all against the establishment case, and I think that you’re mistaking the meaning.
He is not saying “controlling co2 won’t change the climate.” He is saying that controlling CO2 is impossible.
00
Typo:
If you think that Hulme is arguing at all against the establishment case, then I think that you’re mistaking the meaning.
00
Hulme is saying that humans are affecting the climate, so of course this is backed up by Hadley data.
It is interesting that you think that he should know.
He says “I am firmly convinced that humans are indeed altering climate worldwide”. Is this also your view?
Prof. Carter is not like Hulme. He does deny that human activity is affecting the climate, and although he has published such claims in economics journals. (He is a geologist.) And as often seems to be the case with those few percent of scientists that deny AGW, he does have a possible conflict of interest – he is on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs, a group that has received funding from corporate interests including oil companies.
00
Warning: If you start swiping at Carter, it’s No More Mister Nice Guy
And don’t play “dumb and innocent” and “I didn’t do that” with me, either.
I’ll try to answer your questions, succincly.
From the microscopic theory of matter we know that the vibrational modes of moolecules contribute to the heat capacity to first order in energy. The same is true of absorbances. Of all vibrational modes of CO2 for example, the symmetric and asymmetric stretches are degenerate to the re-radiation, and only one (no-degenerate) bending modes contributes to the near IR re-radiation.
Only the heat flux of a black or grey body can be written explicitly as the difference in fourth powers of absolute temperatures. The kernel of the integral over all wavelengths contributing to the heat flux is non linear (in disguise).
The influence of constants appearing as coefficients of non-linear equations on the solutions can never be seen or identified a priori. That is a fundamental property of non-linear equations.
The linerar combination of linearly independent solutions to linear equations is a solution.
The linear combination of solutions to non-linear equations is not necessarily a solution.
The divergence of any source-free field is zero. CO2 is not a “source” of radiation in the presence of radiation.
The temperature of the air from the Earth to the ground is evaluated as a function of height to obtain the total heat flux from the Earth to outer space.
Hulme agrees with others about the influence of human activity on the climate, the exgtent to which that is so varies with individual, the end result is the same, there is nothing one can do about it. Carter and everybody agrees that the climate changes, and the practical thing one can do, is live with it and adjust to it, rather than try to “stop” it.
And I am not kidding about where I will draw the line with your behaviour.
00
Robin, Div q = 0 in equilibrium. If div q < 0, things warm up a bit and so increase their heat emission until div q=0 again. That’s the greenhouse effect!
As for what Mike Hulme is saying, I don’t know, I heard him on the radio and he was really unclear, neither I nor the interviewer got what he was trying to say, so I’d suggest that further discussion of him is pointless.
Regarding Carter, if you want to discuss the science of what he says, fine, but if you are going to just quote the muckspreading you’ve pasted from wikipedia, then that’s out of line with the principles of this blog.
00
Okay, thanks again for the response Brian. I’m not sure if you answered the questions.
One in particular was “[Hulme] says “I am firmly convinced that humans are indeed altering climate worldwide”. Is this also your view?”
One of the main PR problems with Islam, is that there is more than one vocal extremist who tolerates not even the slightest inferred slight on Mohammed.
Your prophet who shall not be slighted is … Prof Carter?
I would have thought that Richard Lindzen would have made a better messiah. MIT brings a lot of kudos, and Carter looks a bit too much like a televangelist.
My curiosity at your extreme reaction aside, Prof. Carter has a different opinion to about 97.4% (standard error about 1.8%) of scientists who list climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change. (Source)
In science everyone’s views should be questioned, but views that are counter to the weight of opinion and evidence should be questioned moreso … and they should welcome this questioning, because it is the only acknowledgement that they can hope for, until their results are reproduced. Neither are conflicts of interest irrelevant.
So I’m sorry to offend you but I don’t apologise for questioning Carter (or anyone else’s) views. Perhaps if you were to provide a list of the subjects and people that you will not stand to be questioned, then I could try to avoid questioning them in direct discussion with you. But I think it would be better if you could view questioning as a healthy thing, and leave dogma out of discussions of science.
As to the matter of your post, we’re clearly talking across purposes again. I’m sure that the problem is mostly one of language, but I think that the fastest way to get to a point at which we are communicating is for me to respond to these points as I understand them on reading. The downside is that many of these are flat contradictions of what you have posted.
I hope you can be big enough to respond to “Not unless you think that a sink is a kind of source.” with something like: it looks like you are misunderstanding my meaning of “source”, what is meant is this, rather than “I don’t like your condescending attitude.”
1) The symmetric and asymmetric stretches of CO2 are not degenerate. The asymmetric stretching is 2565 cm-1, whereas the symmetric stretching is 1480 cm-1.
2) There bending modes are degenerate. They are both 526 cm-1.
Okay. Is this what you meant by “highly non-linear”?
There are many kernels of an integral. One for each integral transform. What integral transform are you talking about here? And what is the form of the kernel?
Okay. … Or is that what you meant by “highly non-linear”?
Not unless you think that a sink is a kind of source. Otherwise the divergence of any source free field is only non-positive.
In any case, the air heats up because of the IR radiation. That means that some of the radiation is absorbed. That means that the divergence of the field is negative.
But I would have thought that CO2 was a sink when it absorbs radiation and a source when it re emits it. When either event happens the divergence would not be zero.
Well, the more common belief is that it is possible to reduce fossil fuel use. We will reduce fossil fuel use when it runs out, so we may as well do it now instead of then, and that way we get to keep some biodiversity as well.
“Carter and everybody”???
Did you know that Carter doesn’t believe in AGW, and is therefore very much in stark disagreement with “everybody”?
…
00
PaulM wrote:
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks Paul!
I think that he was pretty clear on his acceptance that humans are changing the climate … which seems to be the point that is not accepted by some people here.
And I think that the interviewer not only understood that, but knew it beforehand.
Carter’s extraordinary claim is that the globe isn’t warming. Instrumental evidence complied by NASA and instrumental evidence compiled by the Hadley centre show that the warming from the 1990s to the 2000s (so far) is the strongest decade to decade warming on record. I’m not sure what more could be said about that.
But I don’t think it’s out of line with the principles of this blog to point out a conflict of interest.
Jo, herself did this above in post 92, with reference to GERALD A. MEEHL, WARREN M. WASHINGTON, CASPAR M. AMMANN, JULIE M. ARBLASTER, T. M. L. WIGLEY, AND CLAUDIA TEBALDI.
Now, I personally think that those people would have a job if carbon wasn’t a problem, but the argument by conflict of interest was made by Joanne, and I too think that conflicts of interest are relevant.
00
Robin,
I consider myself a teacher, which for me, means that I like to learn, and everybody is my teacher in some way, even the 4-year old girl who lives across the street from me who won’t quit trying to learn to ride a skate board no matter how many times she falls.
I wish I could say that I believed that there was more I could learn from YOU than How to Talk Like a Smart Ass and Condescend to People,
but I don’t want any lessons in that. I’ve seen enough of it in my life.
00
Robin, have you read my post no.114 and read the important link there? That article is the silver bullet that really sinks the “CO2 causes catastrophic global warming” theory,along with the lack of the predicted “hotspots” in the atmosphere over the tropics. If those fundamental predictions are wrong – and clearly they are – then the whole theory must go into the bin. Do read that link.
00
By the way Paul M, a solution of the steady-state heat transfer problem was outlined, not the transient.
Technical distinction: a system is at equilibrium if it can be isolated and no change in any state variable can be observed over time.
A sytem is at steady state if the assumption about “isolated” cannot be removed.
The Earth certainly cannot be “isolated” (from the Sun) and not observe changes in the variables describing the steady-state.
00
[…] I mean, just look at this graph […]
00
There are many kernels of an integral. One for each integral transform. What integral transform are you talking about here? And what is the form of the kernel?
b. symmetric
a. Okay, take the kernel and the Jacobian of the transformation, and the question becomes irrelevant.
Theorem:
The following physical quantities, and only the following quantities, are independent of coordinate transformation (and the motion of the observer):
1. Pure number.
2. Entropy. [corollary of 1.]
3. Mechanical action of any physical interaction.
4. The Jacobian of a transformation from one coordinate system to another.
00
Robin said :“Now, I personally think that those people would have a job if carbon wasn’t a problem, but the argument by conflict of interest was made by Joanne, and I too think that conflicts of interest are relevant.”
Yes, technically, these people would still have jobs, because they’re smart employable people – I should have said, “they’d have to get a different job”. [Think: retraining, possible relocation, loss of status, competition, lower salary…] Billions of dollars is spent on climate related research each year. Are you suggesting that all the people employed in those related jobs would work just as hard to prove the counter theory? Sure. This situation would be fine if just as much money was thrown into researching other causes of climate, but it ain’t so.
You can’t throw billions at smart people and tell them to ‘find a link’ and then be surprised that they find enough stuff to write 800 page reports. I could write 800 pages on postage stamps if someone paid me enough. But what matters is that they haven’t found empirical evidence. What more can I say (and how many times do I have to say it?)
And about Carter, you said: “Prof. Carter… And as often seems to be the case with those few percent of scientists that deny AGW, he does have a possible conflict of interest – he is on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs, a group that has received funding from corporate interests including oil companies.”
Brian, possibly, could have phrased his objection to this better, but he was right to protest. It’s not that Carter is a messiah, it’s that this is a pitiful attempt to smear all non-believer-scientists with the smell of ‘he might know some people who once took oil money’. Ohmigosh – Carter’s on a research committee for an organization that’s a libertarian non-profit, that might have at one time taken 5% of their funding from naughty Exxon, except that Sourcewatch can’t even find any specifics on that and you can be sure they would have looked closely. Is that the best slur you can find? His salary doesn’t depend on it – he’s a university guy. I’m not sure that there would be much money involved, AND he had these views before the IPA approached him (which is one of those funny un-coincidences – how sceptics end up congregated in organisations which are um… skeptical… and that proves something? There’s a big cause and effect gap here. Why would the IPA approach a believer in AGW to offer them honorariums (if that) to speak against AGW?)
No Brian and others object to the broad brush, unresearched, ad hominem attack. You are most welcome to critize his views (with direct quotes would be preferred), but you implied most sceptical scientists are in it for the money, and then failed to even find a real conflict of interest for one. This is clutching at straws.
My point about conflict of interest was aimed generally at modelers. Their status and their current livelihood rests on it. And I didn’t name any specifically. I don’t need too. Where are the large groups of modelers who are paid to find other causes of climate change?
00
JoAnne asked me to be “nice to Robin” because JoAnne thought that Robin was “being sincere”
– I had NOT responded so pleasantly prior to JoAnne’s encouagement because it looked to me like Robin’s agenda was to show off and condescend.
My warming to Robin came after Robin’s performance demonstrated that JoAnne’s assessment of Robin appeared to be incorrect.
I’ll revert back to the same intolerance for condescention, because I usually find that people who condescend have very little to actually condescend about.
00
Robin, do you think that the hundred thou I receive per year from Exxon for being a denier is enough?
Or do you think I’m overpaid for what I don’t know?
Seriously, my kid acted like Robin until she was about 17.
She’s now 43, and lives with the same behaviour from her 20 year old.
00
Derek Tipp wrote:
Yes Derek. I read the link, was surprised and informed by it, googled if there had been a resolution to the discrepancy between the ocean temperature as sea level rise, learned that it was also in discrepancy with satellite Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System data, learned that Willis had then looked at the ocean data, and found two errors, one with the XBTs and one with some of the ARGO floats, and learned that correcting the errors resulted in the disappearance of the ocean cooling.
The correction to the paper (.pdf) reporting the cooling was also published in geophysical research letters.
I thanked you for the article, and linked to middle (and most directly relevant to the correction) page of an in depth write up of the situation here. in my post 122-4.
Did you read that link? The one in post 124 works, and maybe the one in this post does too, but I seem to be a bit rubbish at getting the links right, so I’m only hoping about that.
I think that that particular article is based on inaccurate data that has since been corrected.
It is interesting that models get this wrong. They are also poor with rainfall and wind speeds in the tropics. (At least the Hadley Centre model is). Mean surface temperature is increasingly poorly modelled for increasingly smaller regions. The size of the ENSO is too low. The rapidity of the collapse of the Northern Summer Sea Ice was recently unresolved, and AFAIK still is.
Global mean surface temperature is pretty good though.
But I don’t think that it is true to say that because the models aren’t perfect, therefore global warming isn’t happening. We know that the globe is warming from temperature measurements such as the NASA and Hadley centre ones.
Certainly modelled climate should be recognised as having a greater error than is immediately apparent from current global mean surface temperature hindcasts.
I don’t think that you need to bin the whole thing because of the areas in which they are still inaccurate. They are probably still the best way to estimate the effect of increasing CO2 on the global mean surface temperature. And conservation of energy keeps that particular statistic from going too wild in the models. But certainly independent evidence of the climate sensitivity are important.
Such as some of the ones I cited above in my conversation with Joanne that looked at observational data or paleoclimatic reconstructions or earth radiation budget data or ice core data.
00
Sorry, that link to the correction published by Willis in Geophysical Research Letters didn’t go off (again)
Here it is again.
Here (hopefully) is that link to the write up about it at NASA.
00
They are [ALL] also poor with rainfall and wind speeds in the tropics.
Meaning the models don’t get the heat transfer right. Right?
Right.
The size of the ENSO is too low. The rapidity of the collapse of the Northern Summer Sea Ice was recently unresolved, and AFAIK still is.
I have been arguing for years that the El Nino and Souther Oscillation are incorrectly coupled. Be that as it may, west wind blew out the perrenial sea ice to the Norwegian Sea, leaving only annual ice that was too thin.
We know that the globe is warming from temperature measurements such as the NASA and Hadley centre ones.
Until 1998 or at least 2001, the globe was warming
Give me some direct evidence that the CO2 greenhouse effect is real sinnce neither you nor I believe in a hot spot near the tropopause between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn
Ladies and Gentelmen: ROBIN is going to end the discussion right now, by being the first person on Earth to answer the last riddle:
[drum roll]
00
Thanks for the response again Joanne!
Joanne Nova wrote:
I suspect that even if NCAR was heavily downsized, the first two authors of the Meehl et al. would still be there.
[ I was not referring to any particular people. I was referring to the monopolistic balance of money thrown at one side and not the alternatives. — JN]
I don’t think that all climate research would stop. It is still an interesting and living field, so it will still have students. Moreover climate still causes natural disasters, so it’s research would attract some funding even in a world without warming.
[But if funding halves in any industry, how is that good for any of the specialist members who work in that industry? Most of them either don’t get the next pay-rise, get sacked, lose some spending power, don’t get the upgrade of equipment they want, or just lose status, because, well, climatology is ‘important’, but if we ‘can’t change the weather’, we are not inviting said experts onto many committees and to as many conferences. It’s impossible to argue that climatologists would prefer to have half the funding. — JN]
But I guess neither of these points is here nor there, because my genuine objection to this analysis, is that I find it difficult to believe that 97% of climate researchers are falsifying their results to protect their careers. I think that falsifying results will endanger a career in any scientific field.
[ In most scientific fields, if you falsify a big Nature paper you are suddenly cited more often, you are the next in line for a promotion and you find it easier to get grants and larger ones too. You attract better PhD students to help you, you are invited to speak at more conferences, and placed higher on the program. Not so in climate science. The funding is too directed, too monopolistic. Most scientific fields are looking for answers, not looking to prove only one side of a hypothesis. There are a few researchers with jobs who are paid to disprove the hypothesis, and most of them are on SourceWatch or DeSmog being pilloried. This is not how science works. — JN]
I think that I’m suggesting that some of them would. My feeling is most.
[ When you apply for a grant say, “To study localized air movements over the Californian coast and predict what happens when global warming occurs”, you are not doing atmospheric recalculations of Hansens 1984 paper, you just assume it’s right and focus on San Diego’s odd weather patterns, or the effects of the ocean currents nearby, and figure out what happens if you apply 2-4 degrees of warming. In other words, these people are busy, and they are doing good scientific work, but they are not testing the assumption that CO2 warms the planet. If you so work outside your grant you are not ‘doing your job’ so to speak. These people can be honest and hard working but unless someone funds and rewards (rather than attacks) people for finding holes in the AGW theory: What a surprise, it hardly ever happens, and when it does happen – despite the disincentives we ignore the guys who could be brave whistleblowing hero’s, and instead we bring up a mistake they made on a different thing 10 years ago. — JN]
I think that not all the research is from specifically funded global warming institutions. There are papers coming from universities and general research institutions. Our own CSIRO doesn’t sack or demote scientists when they are moved from project to project.
[Yes there are ones outside the box, but not many, and they are not rewarded – they are bullied – if they publish counter results. (And a lot of the time it’s very hard for them to publish counter results.) Where is the Department of Solar Influence, or the Institute of Non-Man-Made-Climate-Change? — JN]
Do you think that all the climate research that goes on all over the world has that directive?
[Yes a lot of it does. I will post on it soon. It’s in the IPCC’s mandate for example. IF CO2 has no influence then the IPCC has no reason to exist. — JN]
Surely at least Phd theses would often be free of directives such as “find a link”?
Does the observation evidence from the papers I linked in my earlier exchange with you constitute empirical evidence?
[ I must have missed it. None of the papers I saw referred to observational evidence. They pointed at climate models or lab tests. Can you find the comment and I’ll look again? — JN]
Okay. I’ll take that on board, and I accept your argument about skeptics congregating in organisations that are skeptical. I hadn’t considered that.
[ Thank you. None of the alarmists sites consider it. It’s yet another illogical distractor aimed to leave a bad smell and avert people from the real question that they can’t answer “Where’s the evidence”. I wish more people had your ability to recognize a reasonable point and move on, this debate would be more productive. — JN]
This point is also fair. But I think that it applies to your next paragraph as well as it does to my comments about Carter.
Point taken though.
[Thanks again. You are proving yourself to be unusual. Fair comment about my para next, except that my point still stands. I mean can you name climate models who are paid to back other causes of climate? I don’t think there is a Centre for Cloud Research that is modeling the weather and would receive more money and kudos if it proved that clouds controlled the weather, nor are there many people who would receive more money and other rewards to model say, solar influences. Svensmark has done some (very successfully), but can’t get enough funding. He had to work from a basement, rig his own gear, and has been ‘put off’ delayed and ‘unhelped’ to use CERN to further his theory. In contrast there are 22 large models of climate that are funded by carbon related money. — JN]
[You are asking good questions, and it’s useful for me. Probably I should write this up properly as a post on it’s own. Thanks. — JN]
00
Brian Valentine wrote:
Please don’t misquote me. The quote was: “They are also poor with rainfall and wind speeds in the tropics. (At least the Hadley Centre model is).” It is perfectly clear that inserting the word all does not maintain what I said.
00
“”quote”” is the name of “quote”
“quote” is a noun or verb containing five letters
quote is a verbatim repetition of somebody’s words identified as a “quote”
00
Robin, I got the post number wrong when I referred to 114, I should have put 174. You will see that that link refers to up to date data. You will see that the missing heat in the oceans has continued to date – 6 years! The data is accurate and is confirmed by Professor John Christy. In case of doubt here is the link. Here is one small section of the article:
“In brief, we know of no mechanism by which vast amounts of “missing” heat can be hidden, transferred, or absorbed within the earth’s system. The only reasonable conclusion-call it a null hypothesis-is that heat is no longer accumulating in the climate system and there is no longer a radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing. This not only demonstrates that the IPCC models are failing to accurately predict global warming, but also presents a serious challenge to the integrity of the AGW hypothesis.” The figures are very clear.
10
Pielke seems to be arguing that this “might be cyclical.”
How could that be true? It would have been seen long ago, since the effect (even diluted) would be a big anamoly to known oscillations.
Heaven only knows when we are going to quit playing the Loch Ness Monster game with AGW.
You can’t see the Loch Ness Monster! Nobody can actually see him, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t there!
He’s hiding!
He’ll come get you one day!!!!!
00
Brian – there is evidence of a cyclical change of temperature, though its cause is not understood and may have nothing to do with man. Pielke certainly seems to be on to something worth looking at.
00
You mean, subtracting out the known oscillations there is something left over that is periodic?
I’ve been doing that for years, I’ve never seen anything like that, I’m not going to argue with Pielke though
00
Brian Valentine wrote:
Better just to take the Fourier transform. Any periodicity will show up without any need to pollute the data by subtracting estimates of responses to known forcings.
00
Oh, I have, Robin, FFT of the residual left nothing with any reliable periodic correlation down to at least 6th order.
Good idea though, and additional thoughts or insights would be welcome.
As time passes, and the paucity of actual evidence for AGW becomes smaller still, I hope you will follow your intuition about the veracity of AGW.
People who continue to cling to the idea of AGW with vigourous tenacity seem (to me) to be doing it to convince themselves; almost as if skepticism was a mortal sin.
But you, with what I know to be your endorsement of open thought, would not fall into such an ethical dilemma
00
Derek Tipp wrote:
I’ll have a read of it. It looks interesting.
Minor point of order: The IPCC models are not failing because the IPCC doesn’t have any models since the IPCC doesn’t do any research. What they do is report on the state of the science based on all the research that has been done.
From the IPCC mandate:
As an exercise in finding the common ground before we plunge into a discussion of this article, do we agree that the oceans have warmed significantly since the 1970, and particularly strongly 2001-2004?
00
I’m staying WAY out of that one!!!
Good night from Arlington, Virginia, USA
00
Brian Valentine Qrote:
What’s the 6th order of a Fourier transform mean?
00
Plus, I wouldn’t do it on the residual, I’d do it on the raw data.
00
f SUB i HAT := SUM FROM (k .eq. 1) TO 6 a f SUB k exp(ikt}
00
sightly off – too tired to tyoe good nite
00
Robin: I hope you don’t mind. I’ve added inline comments into #212 in reply. I find it faster than cut and pasting, and it makes the flow easier to follow.
00
Good summaries, JoAnne!
Robin, may I ask a small favour of you?
Would you read (in his own words) about why the young Isaeli physicist Nir Shaviv became an AGW sceptic?
I wish there were more younger people on board with this – most of the more outspoken sceptics like Carter and me are older
older goats
00
You can say it all you like. It doesn’t make it true.
00
Boris, isn’t it about time for “Scottie” to beam you back up to the Enterprise?
They’ve probably been looking all over for you.
00
Hello Jo, and thanks again for the time you took to make a response to my post.
I started by addressing the points as they were written, but it read back as both too confrontational, and too demanding of your time to respond again.
But I do find that argument that the reason that over 95% of the published scholarly papers only find that the warming (at least since the middle of last century) is anthropogenic because scientists are biased starkly not compelling for a number of reasons:
1) Democracies don’t like global warming. The reason is that it creates an imperative to regulate or tax now for benefits that won’t occur inside the electoral term. And the evidence is that this is the case.
1 a) Bush administration’s famous interference with science included significant censorship of NASA’s GISS on climate change.
1 b) The government review process in the IPCC reports always produces a weakening, not strengthening of the statements. Particularly demanding are the government delegations of USA, China, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
1 c) Government policy on global warming is has all been targeted at appeasing the public, not reducing carbon emissions. No government has ever enacted a policy that reduces fossil fuel supply; only use. In fact there has been a resource rush to exploit resources while the market exists, including government incentives.
So government research bodies (GISS, NCAR, Hadley, CSIRO) can only be under pressure to find against AGW.
2) Science respects most a paradigm shifting paper.
If there was strong evidence that AGW was wrong, every scientist would want to be the one to publish the research (And collect the Nobel Prize). And every academic journal would be clamouring to be the one to publish it. (Once convinced that it is correct, and won’t blow up in their face).
So academic bodies can only be under pressure to find against global warming.
3) Science disrespects most non reproducible results.
The climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 will one day be much more precisely known. Getting it vastly wrong will be bad for the career, and getting it right will be good.
So individual careers can only be advanced by getting it right, not manipulating data.
4) As a sceptic (in the general sense), I am familiar with the conspiracy theory argument. The guys who think that the government did the 9/11 attacks have a government conspiracy that managed to cover up everything, the guys who think the moon landings were faked have a NASA conspiracy that managed to cover up everything, the guys who think that vaccinations are bad have a big pharma conspiracy that is keeping research under wraps, the people who think that you can run an engine on water have a fossil fuel conspiracy that buys up the patents and keeps them from production.
And evidence to the contrary can always be responded to by invoking a bigger conspiracy involving more people and power.
“The AAAS supports AGW” => the AAAS does not represent the actual views of scientists but is controlled by a small committee of AGW supporters.
“The NSA, the NRC, the AGU, the GSA, the AMA, the WHO, the AMS and the WMO also support AGW” => the small controlling committee that doesn’t represent the individual scientists are not insular to one organisation, so all national scientific organisations get polluted at the top by this “groupthink”.
“The L’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy, the Académie des sciences, France, and the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany agree with AGW” => The G8 and the UN are controlled by pro AGW forces that manipulate member science academies across language and cultural barriers, so that they do not represent their membership’s views.
“Scholarly papers find that AGW is real” => editors of journals are part of the antiscientific conspiracy, and are foregoing the short term gain of being the one to break the story that AGW has no support, for some nefarious purpose.
For my part, I think that people who seek money and power tend to end up in business or politics, whereas scientists tend to be those who have fallen in love with a subject, and seek truth. I do realise that there is no proof of this because questions can always be responded to with “that’s part of the conspiracy”. But I don’t think that I will ever find the conspiracy argument compelling.
00
Joanne Nova wrote:
Of course:
An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity, Journal of Climate (2002). Was the one I meant, but there are others that I liked to that don’t use climate models:
The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data is another estimate of cliamte sensitivity that is completely independent of climate models.
Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity is a meta analysis of several observationally based papers using Bayesian techniques. (All that prior and posterior probability distribution functions, that one only vaguely remembers from statistics.) (The link is only to a draft … the paper proper is available from Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06704, doi:10.1029/2005GL025259.)
Another independent approach uses a neural net instead of a climate model:
Probabilistic climate change projections using neural networks
00
As I have stated earlier the estimates of cs2xco2 may be model independent – but that doesn’t mean they are assumption independent and it is the same issue with the models – the assumptions that go into them make the results, well, consistent with the assumptions, anyway
I gave a presntation at the 2009 Heartland conference (Deny-a-Palooza!!!) on experimental methods of determination of greenhouse effects of CO2 in the troposphere, paper sumbitted to the j of climatol, if if experiments were actually carried out then some experimental data to settle?) the issue might be available
in a few years
00
Robin, Thanks for reposting the papers, again, these are not observational empirical papers. They are not recording formanifera, sediments, isotopes, gases, temperatures, etc etc et al or even horribly complicated tree rings.
An estimate is not something you can see, hold, record, or listen to from the real world.
Thousands of scientists have been looking through the last 500 million years of history and yet none of them have found any observations of a time and place when carbon rose either concurrently or before temperature.
And as for you being unconvinced about conspiracies – 1. I didn’t mention any. 2. I wrote the salary and monopolistic funding issue not as a means of ‘proving’ anything scientific – because it can never do that – but you were asking effectively ‘how can so many scientists be wrong’.I provided a possible explanation why so many can be a/ not paying attention, b/ assuming it’s a problem without checking, and c/actively ignoring things that work against their interests.
Note that it’s using the fallacious argument by authority to prove that AGW exists because “lots of scientists say so”. Science is NOT Democratic. We don’t vote for theories. They are right or wrong, in and of themselves, and independent of our existence. History is replete with examples of mass human belief in things that were wrong.
Scientists listen to the real world. The real world is not saying ‘blame carbon’ because it has given us no examples of significant warming or correlations with turning points.
I repeat – yes carbon is a greenhouse gas. Yes the world has warmed. But the two are not necessarily connected. Carbon could be adding infinitesimally small warming, Or some other factor (eg clouds) could be providing feedback that works against the carbon effect. Either way, the only way to know if carbon matters is to read results from the only life-size expermient there is. The Planet.
I want some output from the real world, not from a highly simplified copy of it.
00
“1) Democracies don’t like global warming. “
Hahhaha. Sorry. What governments wouldn’t LOVE a reason to give the governors more power? What better than to ask for more money and have rules to regulate cars, buses, power stations, forestry, farms, factories, mines, and cow flatulence?
“2) Science respects most a paradigm shifting paper.”
Yes of course. And they show that respect by accusing them of taking bribes from oil companies, attacking their religion, calling them names, and magnifiying and exaggerating every single error in anything that person ever did. Righto. That’s respect that we all want to work for.
“3) Science disrespects most non reproducible results.”
You are taking about a perfect world of science. Yes, in an idealized form, where science is done by Spock, and is free of intimidation, bullying, status, pay packets and social exclusion doesn’t matter – yes.
“If there was strong evidence that AGW was wrong, every scientist would want to be the one to publish the research (And collect the Nobel Prize).”
Noooo. Havent you heard? You get nobel prizes for making inaccurate movies interviewing no scientists.
“Bush administration’s famous interference with science included significant censorship of NASA’s GISS on climate change.”
Ah yes. Hansen is repressed. He’s only done 1400 or so televised performances.
Yet the 800 year lag has not been properly graphed or published – anywhere.
“1 b) The government review process in the IPCC reports always produces a weakening, not strengthening of the statements. “
Ahhh – which is why they are only “90% sure” we are to blame as of 2007? Don’t think so.
That they keep downgrading sea level forecasts etc is a mere reflection of reality. The evidence has gone against them completely since 1999. They’re only arguing the biggest exaggeration they can get away with.
There is no conspiracy.
But there is no evidence either.
00
Joanne Nova wrote:
Well, they come up with an estimate of climate sensitivity from measured data. The instrumental temperature record and the data from the ERBE satellites.
They are independent confirmation of climate sensitivity estimates from general circulation models.
Crikey, Jo. I think you might be mistaken there.
1) The lag is only about 800 years. Since any of the ends of glaciation periods lasts 5000 or 6000 years, every single one of them has atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration rising concurrently with temperature (for 80% of the rise).
2) Because it is well known that the glaciation/interglacial cycles are timed my Milankovitch cycles, which are from orbital properties of the earth, theory demands that CO2 does not cause them. It operates as a positive feedback mechanism. So I strongly suspect that few people were looking through the ice core records for the end of an interglacial period that didn’t have the 800 year lag.
3) Both of the above aside, if someone was looking for a warming strong enough to be timed by ice core, that wasn’t controlled by Milankovitch cycles, in an attempt to find a CO2 rise not lagging a warming, then one of the first ones they should look at would be the end of the younger dryas, because it is recent and a significant rapid warming … and they would have found one right there (to within the error of the relative timing of air and ice samples within a core, which is a couple of centuries).
4) The current warming was also preceded by the CO2 rise. CO2 started rising by 1850-60 (at least), but temperatures didn’t hit the minimum until about 1910.
And that’s a point that we agree on.
No we don’t vote. Theories do become part of our knowledge (and so textbooks) by consensus, which is similar, but slower. There was certainly no election in which thermodynamics became a valid theory, but it is taught in schools because enough scientists agree with it. There is no formalisation of this. Enough scientists simply agree.
Global warming isn’t like a belief in witchcraft. There’s a tested science behind optics, thermodynamics, the greenhouse effect and meteorology. It might be like Newtonian Mechanics, where it is a good approximation in many circumstances by a poor approximation in others. However, if that is the case, then again, precaution is the non-suicidal principle … because it could be a whole lot worse as well as a whole lot better than apparent in the current climatic situation.
Atmospheric Carbon dioxide and temperature are highly correlated in the ice core record.
(see: Covariation of carbon dioxide and temperature from the Vostok ice core after deuterium-excess correction.
“[..] we derive a new estimate for the covariation of CO₂ and temperature, of r² = 0.89 for the past 150 kyr and r² = 0.84 for the period 350–150 kyr ago.”)
What do you mean by “correlations with turning points”?
That’s perfectly valid, except you need “and” not “or” because without a strong negative feedback the effect of carbon is not infinitesimal. (Although only about 1/3rd of current best estimates).
But running an experiment on the planet should be done with the precautionary principle. We’re in the test-tube, and we’ve got nowhere else to go. Let us buy the insurance of spending 2% of world GDP per year to ameliorate greenhouse emissions in case Stern is right and the cost of adaptation is 20% of world GDP per year. And then if in the event that (counter to all paleocliamtic evidence) it becomes apparent that Lindzen’s iris turns out to be the case, we can then stop spending the 2% and go nuts on the fossil fuels (until they run out).
The copies are certainly not perfect. And we should continue to improve them, and compare them to each other, and the real one.
And our decisions should be made in the understanding that the copies aren’t perfect.
But there is no value in simply ignoring what they say. Especially when they say “if you keep this up you will commit 30% of species to extinction by 2050”. Because if you run that experiment on the real world, you’ll get a more accurate result.
00
Robin – have you had an opportunity to look at my link to the work of Dr. Pielke Sr. in my post 215? This paper is very convincing and without an adequate explanation it leaves CO2 in the clear as far as serious global warming is concerned. Here is the link, in case you cannot find it.
00
Excellent reply and summary, JoAnne Nova! Euge!
Robin writes,
“But there is no value in simply ignoring what they say. Especially when they say “if you keep this up you will commit 30% of species to extinction by 2050″. Because if you run that experiment on the real world, you’ll get a more accurate result.”
Oh puhLEASE. That’s some Science Fiction/Barton Levenson/Tim Flannery hyperventelated paranoia not even worthy of someone with INTEREST in science, let alone a scientist.
00
Derek Tipp Wrote:
Yes, mate, I’ve looked at it.
But I was going to disagree with some of the premises and methods, and I wanted to get a feel for what common ground we had in order to calibrate my response.
Do we agree that the oceans have warmed significantly since the 1970, and particularly strongly 2001-2004?
(As in do you find the ocean heat content data in this paper: Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems, S. Levitus, et al. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, (2009) credible?)
00
Brian Valentine wrote:
“Oh puhLEASE. That’s some Science Fiction/Barton Levenson/Tim Flannery hyperventelated paranoia not even worthy of someone with INTEREST in science, let alone a scientist.”
Leery as I am of trying to re-engage you in meaningful discourse Brian, it was about the centre estimate of a high CO2 emission scenario as published in Nature. Which isn’t known for science fiction, but for being probably the most respected scientific publication in the English language.
Extinction risk from climate change, Thomas et al. NATURE |VOL 427 | 8 JANUARY 2004.
And it seems quite credible given the biodiversity drop over the last few decades, according to recent trends in the WWF’s living planet index:
An epidemic of extinctions: Decimation of life on earth.
Do you have a scientific reason for believing the methods of Thomas et al. to be flawed, or the species tracked by the living planet index non-representative?
00
I should add that the paper received a lot of interest from research scientists, having over 1000 papers and publications citing it according to google scholar … about thirty times the average interest even for papers published in that esteemed journal.
00
Robin: “Well, they come up with an estimate of climate sensitivity from measured data. “
Righto. Yet another estimate-guesstimate. We don’t know the major driving forces behind climate variations. There is no empirical evidence that carbon makes a significant difference. Agreed? You can’t name any – (but don’t feel bad, the guys at the top of AGW can’t either). I can create all kinds of estimates from all kinds of real observations. It’s not evidence.
Point 4. Current warming was Not preceded by CO2. the globe has been warming since the middle of the Little Ice age: glaciers have been melting since 1800, sea levels have been rising even longer. The world was warmer for most of the last 5000 years and Co2 was lower. There is a poor correlation.
Global warming IS like a belief in witchcraft. Without evidence, without falsifiability, with intimidation, threats, innuendo, bullying and unbacked assumptions, what’s the difference? One uses cauldrons, the other, models.
What do you mean by “correlations with turning points”?
If a slope correlates, it looks impressive on a graph, but for a cause and effect link nothing beats turning points. Why, because when temps rise, the turning point for carbon follows (usually) hundreds of years later. The same on the downturn (tho the lag is often longer). Turning points show us that temperatures really do drive carbon. The lack of any turning points due to carbon means carbon is not a major driver. It may do minor insignificant stuff, but it it outweighed everytime by Something Else. (And we Don’t know what that something else is.)
Svensmark has a graph of solar cycles and the turning points match the temperatures. Carbon just rises monotonically (in the last 100 years), the correlation is crap (Pardon the language)- no turning points.
The lag in vostok is ‘only’ 800 years. ‘Only?’ Carbon isn’t controlling anything from one year behind, or 10,000 years behind. It’s a cause and effect thing. It comes after.
And yes, I’m aware of the ‘amplification theory’. Whether it is insignificant or significant is speculation – unbacked by evidence. The fact that the temp and co2 graphs rise for 5000 years (and the slope doesn’t obviously change) tells us it could be that CO2 makes very little difference. We can explain the big moves in the graph just by knowing that warming oceans take 800 years to turn over and they release co2. Occam’s razor comes to mind.
“But running an experiment on the planet should be done with the precautionary principle.”
AbSOlutely. I totally agree – which is why I cannot support something that increases the likelyhood of death and disease in the poorest people on earth without some (any) evidence.
00
Robin – according to the article the oceans have been cooling since mid 2003. So before 2003 it is agreed that they were warming. Clearly there has been a change since 2003, and that is where the temperature record parts company with a theory that says that we will get continuous warming – in fact alarmists say that warming will increase in line with increases in CO2. Why should the world take massively expensive precautions for a theory which just doesn’t stack up?
00
Nicely put, Jo Anne.
Robin would do well to emulate Jo Anne and she would benefit many people by doing so,
regrettably, I don’t think Robin is bold enough to do that, and would prefer to cower in the “consensus”.
00
Cower in the consensus, and condescend to people who try to demonstrate what “evidence” looks like. Blah.
Yuck.
Role model behaviour, it isn’t.
00
Brian Valentine Wrote:
Do you have a scientific reason for believing the methods of Thomas et al. to be flawed, or the species tracked by the living planet index non-representative?
00
Derek Tipp:
May 15th, 2009 at 2:16 am
Yes, I agree with that.
The paper also claims to spot a cooling trend that is different from long term model predictions. The model predictions are predictions of an average warming throughout the sunspot cycle.
Would you agree that solar irradiance would affect the temperature of the oceans?
So that if we were looking at ocean heat content over a shorter period than the (approximately 11 year) sunspot cycle then even without any long term effects we expect an increase if the solar activity increases over the period and a decrease if the solar activity decreases over the period?
And would you also agree that if we want to confidently say “the ocean heat content has decreased” or “the ocean heat content has increased” that the increase or decrease should be more than the experimental error of the measurement?
00
Thanks again for taking the time to respond Joanne.
Joanne Nova Wrote:
There is certainly an error associated with these measurements too.
But you seem to be dismissing them as being without information.
I think that independent verification of an estimate using entirely different evidence does add a lot of confidence that the original estimate is in the correct ballpark.
00
I have.
To the extent that such extinctions be credible within the advertised 41 year time period from now, there must exist credible evidence that such species are in such limited numbers NOW that THEY ARE ON THE VERGE of extinction, and no such evidence for the number of species considered nearly approaches such numbers.
Otherwise, there must be credible evidence that such changes will occur such that the species CANNOT reproduce under changes that are certain to occur.
(extinction = no longer reproduces)
Guess what. Evolution acts such as to help species survive under changing conditions.
Evolution is an ongoing process, Robin, and hasn’t the slightest notion of Weep and Wail and Hand-Wringing Conjectures of misguided articles appearing in Nature or any where else.
00
/end of my saga with Robin.
I’ll let Jo Anne deal with the rest, to the extent that the patience of a human being will permit.
00
Sorry to make such a brief response, I mean to address the rest of your post presently. But I shall also answer your question:
Joanne Wrote:
There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that carbon makes a significant difference.
A strong one that I am aware of is with respect to the current warming. We know that of the driving forces behind the climate, the one that has applied the most warming force is carbon dioxide, at about 1.66 W/m². (A graph of radiative forcing components)
00
Might as well resign yourself to it, Jo – you and All the Little Beasties are going to die because of Global Warming.
Why? Because Robin says so, that’s why, and with no more than a shred of irrproducible evidence her little graph about Radiative Forcing Components that I could rearrange with a drop of a hat ON THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS used to derive the graph.
Of all the ailments supposedly conncected to AGW, the etiology and incidence of only one morbid condition am I sure is strongly coupled to AGW: paranoid schizophrenia.
00
Look at what the communists are claiming NOW
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/pouring-cold-water-on-global-warming-14299972.html
00
Brian,
If the dunderheads do manage to force us all out of combustion-driven cars and into something THEY find more amenable to their cause, little doubt man-displaced water vapor will be the next target. Can’t help but wonder who will profit by law.
00
Brian Valentine wrote:
So no, you don’t have any scientific evidence that the species tracked by the living planet index non-representative, and furthermore you, without any evidence, claim that the 30% drop in biodiversity that they have measured is not only not correct, but that that number of species aren’t even on the verge of extinction.
You man not be aware that not every species can exist in the temperature and precipitation range that Homo Sapien and Rattus Rattus can.
For instance, a study of 819 species of eucalyptus in Australia found that 53% of sepcies have ranges spanning less that 3°C of mean annual temperature, 41% have a range of less than 2°C and 25% have a range of less than 1°C. So when the regional temperature increases 1°C, 25% of species will probably be displaced from 100% of their current range.
Eucalyptus don’t migrate very fast.
Half of the species lived only in a range the area of a 110km radius circle or less. And Eucs are a very successful family. The median range size for all the worlds species would be considerably smaller than that.
That means that when mean temperatures move 1°C, 25% of eucalyptus will be displaced completely out of their current range.
Climatic Range Sizes of Eucalyptus Species in Relation to Future Climate Change
Geographic and Climatic Range Sizes of Australian Eucalypts and a Test of Rapoport’s Rule
I’m not sure that it’s entirely sensible to suggest that the eucalyptus species evolve into a new species that can handle their new climate.
Now that evolution has been performed in the lab, we have a basis for guessing how long it takes. One of the 12 populations of e. coli evolved to metabolise citrate in only a little over 30,000 generations. Being generous, and using this as the expected number of generations to evolve, even though the presence of the other 11 populations implies that 300,000 might be a better estimate, we can guess how long it would take a eucalypt to evolve.
Now there are a wide range of Eucalyptus, but 6 years is the minimum generation time for some common ones in the wild. So (very conservatively) we need about 200,000 years. Between now and 2050.
I humbly suggest that you might be mistaken on a couple of your points, and that, in fact, the paper’s attention by the thousands of scientists who cited it in their work, did not, as you suggest, read and cite a paper “not even worthy of someone with INTEREST in science, let alone a scientist.”
00
zzzzzzzzz
00
Awakening momentarily from an awful dream, I happened to think, that the world has warmed, of the order, 1.5 Kelvin degrees over a century.
Now to prove her poing about eucalypti going the way of the sabre-toothed tiger and the 10 penny cup of coffee, ladies and gentlemen, Robin will demonstrate her point by listing at least three species of eucalypti known to have vanished from the face of the Earth over the last century.
[drum roll]
00
While we wait for our alarmist to return with a prognosication of the World lasting another thousand months or a mere 100 more, I should like to comment upon the Catlin Arctic Expedition.
I find the British Government CONTEMPTABLE for endorsing this escapade, as if the Artic has suddenly warmed some 20 degrees, unknown to anyone, making the journey no more dangerous than a week in the mountains.
The explorer’s lives were UNJUSTAFIABLY risked as a publicity stunt for Royal Socity fantasies about an Arctic that didn’t exist, together with UNCONSCIONABLE predictions that the explorer’s might have to spend as many as FIVE DAYS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN WATER WEARING NOTHING BUT THEIR SNOW SUITS
Those who egged them on, including the demented Prince Chuckles, ought to be horse whipped for this demonstration of their OWN egotism.
I admire the explorer’s bravery and I’m glad they were removed from the purgatory safely.
00
Brian Valentine said:
Brian, you appear to have missed the point.
It was not that I am familiar with the species of recently extinct Eucalyptus species. It was that small regional temperature or precipitation changes decimate ecological communities. The Eucalypt study was merely an illustrative example of how small species ranges are, that I happened to have on my desk.
You obviously found this point counter intuitive, and you’re not the only one. It is difficult to believe that a species will be out competed outside a annual mean temperature range of 1°C when the diurnal temperature range is ten times that. Unless you know some biology.
But species ranges are smaller than you think, because all the species that you recognise are only the fantastically successful ones. Half of all species have a range of less than about 50 miles, and surprisingly small climate changes to that region puts surprisingly many of the species under extinction pressure.
00
Thank you for your very nice reply, Robin.
I realy do admire your persistent search for the truth.
00
But Robin, surely it is well known that temperatures have changed significantly more than 1 or 2 degrees over short periods many times in the past in regions of the planet due to natural causes. After those episodes, no doubt some species went extinct, but new species due to inter-breeding have been formed to take their place. That is how the natural world works. It is now clear that the world is cooling as you can see from the evidence from the oceans, contrary to the predictions of somputer climate models.
00
Don’t worry, Derek, they’ll adjust the computer models (somehow) to make this appear as if they know this would happen all along.
Then clothe the deception in fancy-sounding and meaningless obsurity, such as
“temperature modulation of near surface Ocean water by mid-zone turbulence monthly exchanging atmospheric heat by convection cells known to arise from the precipitous heating from surface level to those latitudes known to support Benard convection within mid-latitude regions known to respond to matutional changes in temperature on the average larger than annual.”
00
Given that there has been a regular cycle of ice ages approximately every 100,000 years, and the temperature variation during these cycles was pretty close to 10 degrees Centigrade (peak-to-peak), I would argue that any organism requiring 200,000 years to adapt to a few degrees change would be well and truly dead by now.
00
Thanks for reading my post, Tel!
Tel wrote:
Although deglaciation accompanied by extinctions, the current rate of extinctions is much greater, and the mean global temperature change much smaller (to date), suggesting that trees have generally been able to respond to a deglaciation by migration.
There are a number of reasons why this might not work as well with the current climate change.
1) This climate change is in a new direction. Warming from the top of an interglacial will migrate many species off the top of mountains and the pole end of continents that have had ranges have existed continuously throughout the last million years or so of glaciation cycles.
2) This climate change is very fast. Recent warming has been comfortably over 0.1°C per decade, the current climate change is an order of magnitude faster than the about 0.02°C per decade that is the (in itself very rapid) warming during a deglaciation. Which, depending on your seed dispersal techniques, might be significant.
3) Human land use forming a barrier to migration. Forest movement is easier when the forest is continuous, but problematic if you have to cross a couple of multi-hundred thousand hectares of corn plantations. Or a city.
I certainly don’t attribute all of the recent drop in biodiversity to climate change. Habitat loss and various forms of pollution are probably more major contributors. But some of the have been attributed to climate change (amphibians in particular), so the record shows that species that have survived a couple of glaciations cycles can be made extinct by current climate change.
But certainly if the methods used in the paper that I linked are applied to the last deglaciation they do dramatically overestimate extinctions. And neither does the paper predict extinctions as such. It uses the phrase “committed to extinction” to mean that the species no longer has any viable range.
If its range does not include areas that warm now, it might be because it is attacked by insects, bacteria or fungi, in which case the devastation is rapid and dramatic. Such as we have seen in Canada in recent years by the increasing breeding success of the mountain pine beetle further north than before. If it is outcompeted by a tree, it might be a century or two before it is actually extinct in the wild.
Speaking as an outsider, the climate change driven terrestrial extinctions that are happening in Australia now seem to be prevalently due to changes in precipitation patterns more than due to temperature change directly.
But certainly the time left for subantartic ocean communities can be measured in metres, as temperature predators are sighted each year further south and deeper.
00
Derek Tipp wrote:
Partly. But human land use has made the current situation much more dire.
Or doesn’t work, as the recent 30% drop in biodiversity implies.
We are still discussing that point, Derek, and I think that it is not correct. Certainly the claim of cooling over the last 6 years is less than the margin of error in the Willis reference, (the last reference of your linked article). (Here’s the link). If you look at figure 1, I thing you’d be hard pressed to claim that the data definitely shows cooling. (And the paper that I linked to in my previous post on that subject, is more recent still, and shows a continued warming).
Furthermore sea level rise is still ongoing, which is awkward to explain if you claim ocean cooling. (See: CSIRO Sea Level Rise).
And finally, I note that your linked article covers a time period from the warmest part of the last sunspot cycle to the current extended dearth of solar activity. This will underestimate the long term warming trend. So the comparison of this to the increase in heat content projected by models is invalid.
I was hoping you might agree with some of those points?
00
Jo Nova Wrote:
Well, yes.
But also the coolest point on the instrumental record was about 1910. I agree that it has been warming since the middle of the LIA, but depending on the time scale you look at it is also possible to claim 1910 or 1970.
1970 is the one after which most of the warming is universally attributed to anthropogenic global warming. (Oreskes’ essay is probably too famous to need linking to, but here it is in case).
I have not heard that the world was warmer for most of the last 5000 years. Do you know where it comes from?
I think that the world was cooler for most, if not all, of the last 5000 years. The mean of these 8 temperature reconstructions from the scholarly literature puts the warmest part of the current interglacial at 0.2 or 0.3°C cooler than current temperatures.
00
That post failed until I took out the link to the Oreskes essay, which I wanted as justification of the use of the word “universally”.
00
Robin – the problem with our discussion is that we can each quote from different papers that reach opposing conclusions. Willis may say that he now believes his original results were wrong due to instrumental error, but Loehl’s work in 2009 is supposed to have a smaller margin of error and give an even larger heat deficiency in the oceans. You say the sea level is still rising, but apparently Cazenove says “steric sea levels peaked in 2005” and since then “the volume of the oceans has contracted”.
Clearly I am not in a position to say who is correct. Roger Pielke Sr. told me very recently that the conclusions are still correct and the only question is how long the cooling of the oceans will continue. Even this short trend must call into question the CO2 theory – because it shows that other factors are able to cancel it out completely even if it is significant (and there is no proof that it is.
00
Observation can only support a known field of results.
00
You might want to check the previous interglacial (approx 120000 years ago) which was about 3 degrees warmer than the 1999 reference temperature. There might be PREDICTIONS that we will see 3 degrees of warming in the near future, but so far it hasn’t happened yet.
That certainly is fast. I presume that when you say “recent” you mean the last 100 years or so (since climate change cannot be measured on a smaller scale) implying that it was 10 degrees colder back around 1901. Strangely, no historical record of any glaciation in the leadup to the Great War.
I agree that human land use is a far bigger cause of extinctions than global warming. This makes me think that the finite resource of “Green Politics” should be channeled in more useful directions than attempting to stop CO2 production.
I posit that there is nothing sexy and exciting about mentioning how land clearing for farming is wiping out species, but there is something sexy and exciting about “Saving the Whole World (TM)” from “Terrible Destruction (TM)” caused by runaway greenhouse effect. Thus the Green political movement has been seeking maximum impact, rather than common sense, and the doom sayers are the only Green voice that gets heard anymore. You no doubt have heard of the boy who cried wolf, well the Greenies are ready to learn that lesson over again.
Sadly, the more moderate and sensible Greens (and I put myself in that category) are gonna get whacked by the backlash caused by a bunch of radical fruitloops who have been conned into thinking they are rescuing the world.
Like it or not, the human population is rising, and those humans need food and resources. From this, we can say that they future WILL NOT be the same as the past. Trying to plan for the future by making every attempt to keep it the same as the past is a damn stupid idea, guaranteed to fail. If conservation of species depends on holding the world in some sort of stasis field (always being frightened of change because change is the unknown) then it is likewise guaranteed to fail.
Also, humans can improve the mobility of species. After all we have Eucalyptus growing in Africa and SE Asia as plantations, we also have foxes, rabits and cats in Australia, and wallabies in the US and Europe. Some species hit jackpot, others came out losers. The future will be different to the past. In a rapidly changing environment, general-purpose species are the best adapted, in a slow changing environment, specialist species hold niches better than the generalists. Is there a good reason to offer charity to the specialists once their niche is no longer viable? Would any creature offer charity to us if the roles were reversed?
00
They are all grown adults. I find it far more contemptible to treat them as children who are unable to make decisions about their own lives. I do also believe that the organisations sponsoring the expedition should be footing the bill for the rescue (rather than the taxpayer).
00
The three were obviously incapable of making sound judgment regarding their own well being, and it is thereby the duty of Government to discourage it strongly, not coax them on, and refuse to be a part of an imbecile publicity stunt that a fool could perceive in advance to be lunacy.
I knew from the moment the “adventure” was announced what they would obviously confront and so would any other non-resident of a psychotic’s fantasy.
They might as well have been launched tied to bouys into the Atlantic to travel trans-Atlantic in the water to “show that global warming had warmed the oceans.”
It IS, however, the Government’s responsibility to rescue a citizen from any predicament, no matter how imbicle the thinking was that landed them in the predicament – the Government can be reimbrsed later if needed by the survivors themselves, or whoever it was who goaded them into a precarious situation.
In this case, it was the Government itself that encouraged this brainless endeavour – and is thereby liable for the cost of saving those who were terribly misguided.
I’m hoping voters will take heed – although they are rather stuck with the Royalty they unfortunately inherited, and they cannot vote the Prince of Wails out of office.
00
This would be tantamount to depriving them of their humanity, I will not be party to such nonsense. Government cannot and will not fix the problems of the world by instructing people how to live their lives. Only the person whose life is at risk can be entitled to make the decision that may (or may not) put their life at risk. No one else could ever possibly be qualified.
The duty of government is to protect people from damaging each other; to maintain a reasonable, and simple, system of laws that the citizens can understand and follow; to maintain its own existence against external military threats; and to facilitate commerce. That’s it. The duty of government is absolutely NOT to solve your problems, my problems nor whatever problems the Catlin Arctic Expedition may run into (but I’ll agree in as much as government should not be encouraging such things either, it should be as neutral and uninvolved as possible).
Admittedly, there are many people who do like the idea of government stepping in to solve their problems, which inevitably leads to stuff-ups and political bandwagons such as the AGW rollercoaster.
00
By the way, if you go to http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/ you see a number of prominent logos on the front page, such as Nokia, Panasonic, WWF, Caitlin, ECX. These are the organisations who are riding it for publicity, so they should be the ones paying for it (presumably they all voluntarily chose to have their logo up on the site).
00
Tel wrote:
Okay. Looking at the same 8 temperature reconstructions from the scholarly literature that I was talking about to Joanne, it looks like:
1) 12,000 years ago the mean global temperature was probably several degrees cooler than now.
2) The warmest part of the interglacial was around 8,000 years ago, and this is probably 0.2 or 0.3°C cooler than 2004, which wasn’t much warmer than 1999.
So I’m not sure that your claim that 12,000 years ago is was warmer than now would have any agreement with current understanding. Do you know where this claim comes from?
Anthropogenic warming only dominates the temperature increase over the last 50 years.
So I was meaning the warming since then.
implying that it was 10 degrees colder back around 1901. Strangely, no historical record of any glaciation in the leadup to the Great War.
No, there’s only been about 10 decades since 1901, so 0.1°C per decade would imply that 1901 was 1°C cooler, not 10°C cooler. Or, to take my actual meaning 1970 was 0.4°C cooler.
The reasons why we should preserve biodiversity is a little outside the scope of a discussion on climate. But briefly, the biggest reason is that we don’t know the ecology precisely enough to know the flow on effects of any given extinction, and any of them might be fatal, or permanently damaging to the health of humans.
There are other arguments that each animal has a unique biochemistry, and each is therefore a resource of study that had academic value and probably medical value. Many of the drugs that medicine uses are from biological origins, and only a fraction of a percent of species have had their biochemistry’s closely studied, so there are probably a dozen cures for cancer out there, and all we have to do is find them before we kill them all.
The most important to me is that they are devastatingly interesting and beautiful, and extinction is a crime against aesthetics.
However you value the resource that is a species, destroying it destroys the resource forever. But certainly the argument that is presented in environmental science is the risk to humans one … which is the strongest one if you’re talking to someone who says “Is there a good reason to offer charity to the specialists once their niche is no longer viable?”, but the far weaker one to anyone with an interest in biology or medicine.
But if you don’t care about biodiversity, you don’t care – and that’s an increasingly prevalent attitude amongst city people with no wilderness oriented hobbies. I wouldn’t put you in any category of green in that case though. Certainly not the “more moderate and sensible” category that you put yourself in.
00
Derek Tipp wrote:
Certainly. But perhaps we can also find some common ground about what constitutes a good paper. I think that reasonable handling of errors, and some treatment of the solar cycle when analysing trends over only the falling part of it.
“Energy and the Environment” doesn’t come with a lot of credibility. So I would tend to question that one first when contradicted by the sea level rise data, the earth radiation budget data, and by the geophysical research letters paper looking at the same data.
Excuse my ignorance … who is Cazenove?
I think that it is possible for the .02°C per year warming trend to be swamped by other factors over time periods of less than a sunspot cycle, without forcing a rethink of the effect of CO2. Especially in a time when meltwater from ice could be contributing to the coolness of the measurement of the ocean. As, perhaps, could be inferred by the fact that the error bars are orders of magnitude larger than the measured cooling in the Willis paper.
00
“Anthropogenic warming only dominates the temperature increase over the last 50 years.”
– Robin
Only if you are convinced of that explnation, close your eyes to every other logical explanation and refuse to consider any possible valid hypothersis that cannot be dismissed as easily as the AGW idea can be dismissed.
Quite the hallmark of a religious fanatic.
00
Incidently, Tel, I hardly consider Government discouragement of hare-brained stunts to be some sort of “micromanagement” of people’s lives.
00
Sick of monster faces, or just want to add your own monster?. To add a photo or image to your comments, sign up to Gravatars,
Use the same email address that you’ve used to post messages here and all the comments from that email will appear (inc retrospectively) with your photo.
The gravatar site stores them for wider use. You can change the image any time you like. Be aware any other sites you post on with gravatars will also display the photo.
00
Thank you for your very nice compliment about my picture, Jo Anne : )
00
Robin: “I think that it is possible for the .02°C per year warming trend to be swamped by other factors over time periods of less than a sunspot cycle, without forcing a rethink of the effect of CO2.”
Please be clear, I have never suggested that just because it’s cooler for a few years that it proves the enhanced greenhouse theory is wrong. The important point is that no one can find any observational evidence, so the theory relies on models or estimates based on a lab test and a lot of assumptions. The recent cool spell is important because none of the models predicted it. It’s another confirmation that Some Mystery Factor is More Important Than Carbon and we don’t know what it is. And the recent non-warming of the oceans is also very important. It’s where the heat is supposedly ‘hidden’. Where else could the ‘extra trapped radiation’ be stored if it’s not in the atmosphere or the oceans? Soil doesn’t make a good heat sink. Maybe there isn’t any extra trapped radiation?
00
It appeared to me that Robin was moving toward AGW scepticism, I really did think so, after Joanne had forced Robin to recant a couple of times, at leat partially …
Then my sanguine outlook sank to the same choleric view I had when all this started.
Joanne can try to speed the process up but I think only the passing of time will have any real influence on Robin’s views.
00
As far as Naomi Oreskes famous survey goes: 1/ It’s argument by authority. It shows something about the social order ‘climatic scientist’, but not much about The Planet. 2/ Since no one can name THAT paper (the one with evidence that CO2 matters), the Oreskes study will be quoted for years to come – to show how sick our so called ‘peer review system’ was circa 2000-2010.
As I effectively said before, many people studying, say, sloth habitats in antigua, or cranial bypasses in heat-stroke victims, don’t know or care much about detailed calculation of atmospheric physics. These scientists assume Hansen 1984 was right (if they have even heard of that paper). Since hardly anyone is paid or rewarded to find the holes in that paper (or find that other mystery paper with evidence that CO2 has caused global warming) why would we be surprised that scientific researchers have followed the money. I don’t mean that in a malicious way – people who love studying sloths, say, would notice that they stand a chance to get more funding for studying sloths if they use the phrase ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’. Who can blame them for putting up their hands when money is being offered? Yes thanks.
BTW – The more recent study than Orsekes, found less than half the papers from 2004-2007 endorsed the consensus. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/schulte_two_colmun_fomat.pdf
Only one paper refers to ‘catastropic’ climate change, and as is truly par-for-the-course, it doesn’t offer any evidence.
00
I’ve said it before I’ll say it again:
To the “peer-reviewed” argument about demonstrations of validity of AGW, my statement is:
I’m a peer, I didn’t review it and if I did it would have ended up in the loo.
I was a reviewer for US DOE “research” in AGW where I work, I told the people behind this that the efforts were mostly garbage, my objections were mostly over ruled, there is a huge amount of money at stake over this.
Nobody is going to stand up and say “yes I agree this research is useless” if it means that large Federal research grants to National Laboratories will be used for something else and the money transferred elsewhere.
00
Joanne Nova Wrote:
Yes, I am pretty clear that that’s your view, Joanne.
(And flat temperature periods of more nearly a whole sunspot cycle have occurred during the current warming, so a six year one is fully unexceptional.)
However Derek was discussing ocean heat content, and that is less affected by “random” variation than mean global surface temperature. I think that the reason for the half-cycle of flat temperatures is a combination of the decreasing solar activity over that time, which would affect the ocean heat content, and the prevalence of the La Nina, which I presume would increase the ocean heat content … Given that it reduces the mean global surface temperature and, to my knowledge, doesn’t affect the earth’s radiation balance.
What sorts of things are “observational evidence” and how do they differ from measurements of the earth’s radiation budget, or measurements of past climate and CO2 concentration from ice cores, or measurements of global temperature after volcanic eruptions?
I think that the technology didn’t exist to do short term predictions in 2001. The papers on that started, to my knowledge, with the Hadley Centre’s DePreSys, in mid 2007. (Newspaper Article) Which did predict that 2008 and 2009 would be not as warm as 1998. (And one assumes that the current extended solar inactivity is providing less solar forcing now than would have been guessed in 2007).
So the last bit of it was predicted.
Perhaps.
But Sea level data does agree with radiation budget data that the oceans are holding the extra heat, and the recent paper on the sea level data does show a continued warming, and the non-warming is swamped by the estimated error of the measurement.
It’s not yet compelling that there has been a non warming.
00
Joanne Nova Wrote:
Re 1):
I don’t think that the paper is making an argument for global warming. I think it is showing that, once again, the press is doing a poor job of scientific reporting.
One might get the impression from the popular media that there is both scientific evidence that the current warming is mostly anthropogenic and scientific evidence that the current warming is natural.
But (at least for the sample of papers that had the ISI keywords “Global Climate Change”), the evidence is all that the warming (of the last 50 years) is anthropogenic. I think it is the poor communication of the scientific understanding to the public that this paper is discussing.
I certainly agree that it is not a valid argument that the climate sensitivity is over 1°C per doubling of CO2. (And that hence the response of the climate to current CO2 increases is over 0.5°C).
But I do think that papers that estimate climate sensitivity are.
00
It took a long time, but I think Robin MAY have finally came round to scepticism.
I’m not going to put words in her mouth.
However, by the claim,
“I certainly agree that it is not a valid argument that the climate sensitivity is over 1°C per doubling of CO2.”
Robin is EXACTLY at the same point I am (and I’m not a “sceptic” I am a flat out DENIER)
– you see, the cause of such a temperature increase within a 20-year span (let alone 100 years) could never be distinguished amidst the background of white noise constantly influencing the climate.
00
Re 2):
For me THAT paper was External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings, Stott et al, (2000).
Not trying to suggest this is as convincing an argument as more modern papers (such as Meehl et al, (2004) (Known for showing that 20th century climate can be interpreted as approximately linear).) Nor that it was telling for people who are in the field.
But it was the one I read while still wondering if there was anything to this AGW stuff that we keep hearing about in the blogs, and then thinking, yep, there probably is.
00
Joanne Wrote:
Yes, I’m still uncompelled by that argument.
The payoff in career, recognition and kudos for finding holes in accepted theory is the greatest that exists in a scientific field. I don’t accept this claim that there is none.
Hmmm, “Energy and the Environment” again. I noticed it is still not on the ISI list of peer reviewed journals. This is not really a paper, it’s an article published by the popular press; which, as has been observed¹ is often at odds with the scientific literature.
[1] Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press
Boykoff and Boykoff, Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 125–136
http://environment.yale.edu/climate/pdf/bokkoff_balance_prestige_press.pdf
00
Joanne wrote:
Is “catastrophic” the sort of adjective that is expected to be used in scholarly articles? Does it have a well-defined meaning in epidemiology?
00
Hmmm, a google scholar search of catastrophic + “global climate change” since 2004 gives 3500 hits. Perhaps it is a more common adjective than I’d thought.
Does anyone know which one Schult found?
00
Brian Valentine wrote
Take is as “according to our best scientific understanding” if you like. But its not especially controversial. (Excepting perhaps to a person who doesn’t accept the greenhouse effect at all, [starting with its basis in optics of which we have a very high level of scientific understanding] … but that must be a fairly rare, if not unique animal now.)
But our prior discussion petered out at the greenhouse effect, and I had no idea you thought that there were other “logical explanations” for the warming. What, in your view, are these?
00
Brian wrote:
I was merely saying that I don’t use an argument from authority, based on Oreskes’ essay to argue what the climate sensitivity is.
Oreskes’ essay only shows that the scientific an popular press have a vastly different position on climate change.
If I were to discuss what the climate sensitivity is likely to be I would(and have done in this thread), use papers that look at that directly.
00
You must have read the article by Dr Akasofu on the emergence from the LIA on this web site, Robin?
And surely you are familiar with the work of the Royal Danish observatory that demonstrated that any warming over the last 50 years could be the result of no other causes than solar variability?
It sounds so boastful and trashy to say, if you accept any value of the climate sensitivity above any value that will result in a degree rise in temperature or more, then you are (still) arguing from authority, because I can tear the analysis that leads to any higher value apart.
Leaving that aside, there are others who can do it too.
Despite all of the labour you have put into your contributions on this web column, I regret to say, that Jo Anne’s “Skeptic’s Handbook” remains undefeated.
That’s that.
00
Brian Valentine wrote:
I did read it, Brian.
And I commented earlier in this thread that “recovery from the little ice age” is not a forcing mentioned in the IPCC reports.
How does a cool period up to 1850 cause a warming throughout the 20th century? Is this an ongoing ice albedo positive feedback, or an atmospheric CO2 / oceanic carbonic acid positive feedback?
No, that would be a new one on me. But surely this contradicts the some-ongoing-positive feedback from the LIA theory … assuming the LIA doesn’t affect solar variability.
These two can’t both be true. Which one do you think is false?
00
The two are mutually exclusive?
And you don’t have a whole lot of faith that the rel position of the Earth’s plane of orbit with respect to the Sun would have verymuch to do the the climate over the time span of the LIA and the emergence from it?
That is to say, the graph from Dr Akasofu has no underlying cause – it’s just some happy accident of some sort?
I first heard of the “greenhouse theory of global warming” in 1965 I think it was; I was 16 years of age and a sophomore in college.
A professor of physical chemistry mentioned the Arrhenius idea to me; it was obscure at the time, because that particular idea had been debunked in the years, 1907-1915.
In response I told him, “that’s nonsense, no one would find that one bit credible” he replied, “yes it is nonsense, isn’t it.”
In all honesty I never believed I would hear of the idea again from anyone.
00
Brian Wrote:
That’s what it seems to me.
If the current warming can be attributed to no other causes than solar variability, and the “rel position of the Earth’s plane of orbit with respect to the Sun” is another cause than solar variability, then they are mutually exclusive.
What have I missed?
00
00
http://globalwarmingnot.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/03/greenhouse_theory_disproved_a_century_ago.thtml
Not the only one. Actually a series of papers appeared in the Philosophical Magazine over the time period.
00
Robin: “What sorts of things are “observational evidence” and how do they differ from measurements of the earth’s radiation budget, or measurements of past climate and CO2 concentration from ice cores, or measurements of global temperature after volcanic eruptions?”
These things are observational evidence, but none of them support AGW.
I wrote more about what is evidence on: http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/30/what-is-evidence/
Outgoing radiation has been measured and as far as I know, it showed there was hardly any ‘outgoing radiation’ missing – meaning CO2 didn’t trap much. I hear (as always) that these figures have been contested and adjusted. I have not looked into it closely. It would be good to review both sides of that. I am more and more suspicious though that raw data is constantly being manipulated post hoc, which might be justified, if it wasn’t always in a direction to match the models.
Robin: “Yes, I’m still uncompelled by that argument. [Re: Joanne’s point about monopolostic money and it’s effect on science] The payoff in career, recognition and kudos for finding holes in accepted theory is the greatest that exists in a scientific field. I don’t accept this claim that there is none.”
Sure. Like I’ve already said. Many holes in AGW have been found, the reward is:
http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/3368
http://www.desmogblog.com/ian-plimer
http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ron_Christie
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Douglass
You have yet to name a meaningful incentive for any of the people who pointed out mistakes in the IPCC papers, flaws in major graphs that were used ad infinitum, or like Svensmark came up with a theory that has better correlation than CO2. The possibility of ‘fame’ is real but small. The reality of ridicule, harrassment, intimidation, social exclusion, and difficulty being published, is there for all to see, most of it very public, thanks to paid PR blogs like DeSmog.
“Oreskes’ essay only shows that the scientific an popular press have a vastly different position on climate change.”
Do tell? Have you got any evidence to support this belief that the press frequently writes that most climate scientists are not believers in AGW? Most people in the street could tell you what the scientific consensus supposedly “is” . Any PR company would be thrilled with that kind of brand recognition.
As for the ‘forcing’ of the recovery from the LIA. I answered this on comment 380 on http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/03/global-warming-a-classic-case-of-alarmism/#comment-4419
Spuffler #377: “Will the main slope of ‘recovery from little ice age’ remain linear?”
Radiation forcing budgets that add up different factors “we know” is argument from ignorance. There are a universe of possible factors we don’t understand. The excuse that carbon-fills-the-gap is cr..
00
Brian G Valentine Wrote:
You find an experiment not involving any CO2 compelling evidence that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
… Also do you think the current warming is due to “the rel position of the Earth’s plane of orbit with respect to the Sun”, or do you think that the current warming is “the result of no other causes than solar variability”? … or neither.
00
Joanne’s labour went (momentarily) unnoticed by Robin it seems.
The question about CO2 is self-explanatory.
I am afraid you’ll have to elaborate about what you mean by “the current warming” – after you have read what Joanne has written.
00
Brian Valentine Wrote:
Humour me.
The warming of the last 50 years.
00
The article itself explains why, if the supposed greenhouse idea would fail for glass, then it would fail for CO2.
Any warming over the past 50 years is the result of solar variability.
That is superposed on century-scale climate variability responsible for such phenomena as the LIA, which is the result of astronomical influences.
The Earth has not warmed for over a decade, Akasofu and others indicate the periodic variability one would expect on the larger time scales.
Is our time being used productively here – or is our time being used to repeat ourselves so as to wind up exactly where we started?
00
Joanne Wrote:
I have already linked to a paper that looks at temperature reconstructions over the past 7 centuries. There are a wide range of data that go into these reconstructions, but if we agree they are observational, then the conclusion (that the 5%-95% CI for climate sensitivity is 1.5-6.2K per doubling) does support AGW, because the increase in CO2 from 270 to 386ppm is Anthropogenic. (In fact anthropogenic emissions are sufficient for about twice that increase, and the oceans and probably the terrestrial biosphere are sinks.)
Now if the climate sensitivity is 1.5 to 6.2 then that increase in CO2 ends up as an increase in mean global surface temperature of 0.77K to 3.20K. Which is probably most of the recent warming.
This seems to be observational evidence supporting AGW.
The scientific community, particularly in subject areas where human life is at stake, quite rightly rip into poor methodology or unreproducible results.
So it is harder to break the status quo in medicine and conflict zone mortality studies. And global warming denial.
And Kudos to The Lancet for eventually publishing (your [then] fellow Perthonians) Warren and Marshall’s letters in 1983. And response was initially very negative, but the results reproducible … and that is key. End result: Nobel Prizes all round for causing a paradigm shift.
Primarily the career scientist’s first motivation: the joy of the search for truth. But also the career benefits and recognition for publishing work that is “right”, when everyone else in making a mistake. Glory and honour. Nobel laureates also have longer life and happiness. In fact recognition is all we seek.
Of course that assumes that they are “right”, and that doesn’t appear to be the informed opinion.
The IPCC reports are the most peer reviewed publications in the history of humanity. If the community doesn’t accept that there were mistakes, then is it possible that there weren’t?
Svensmark’s paper does have a good correlation with temperature, but it doesn’t explain the warming. For that you need CO2. (Because there has been no overall trend in Cosmic Rays over the last 50 years).
But he also released to the press before the paper was published, and the press release concentrated on AGW denial, which was not the focus of the paper, so he got panned for that. A reaction I feel mixed about. I think that communication of science to the public is a valuable service and should be more respected by the scientific community.
Ridicule is a acceptable form of peer review in many cases. Harassment, intimidation, social exclusion, are not. I’ve not heard that Svensmark has suffered these. I have not heard that he (or any other denier) has suffered “difficulty being published”. Do you know of specific examples of this?
Who pays DeSmog?
I’ve got an analysis of the difference between the scientific and prestige popular press in America:
http://research.yale.edu/environment/climate/pdf/bokkoff_balance_prestige_press.pdf
It exists.
This is something of a shortcoming, considering the place that you’re giving this recovery from the little ice age in the argument.
“We really have not idea what” is too ethereal to be a more compelling an explanation for the current warming than the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect has a known physical mechanism and a measurably increasing effect over the time of the recent warming. With both of these you have strong, falsifiable scientific theory. “We really don’t know what” has no known physical mechanism, cannot be shown to be increasing, and is not really a scientific proposition, because it is not falsifiable.
That is not at all the excuse. Carbon does not “fill the gap”. It is the most precisely understood and calculable forcing there. The cloud albedo is the wild card.
There’s nothing “fill the gap” about radiative forcing from carbon dioxide. The equations of absorption are precisely understood, and with modern computing, very precisely solvable. The effect of radiative forcing is an extra 1.7 W/m2 from CO2 increase since the start of the industrial revolution. Denial poster-boy Lindzen will tell you that. (In fact, I heard that he did at the ICCC, did he not? Including a little talk about what common lines of denialism should be avoided for being simply unscientific?)
00
Bit of a snippy tone in the last paragraph from the global warming fear-mongering poster girl Robin.
Lindzen has ordered influences on the climate so as to place the effect of influences such as the Iris effect in an order for comparison.
The careful reading of Lindzen shows that he places an upper limit on the climate sensitivity for CO2 to make an ordering – he does not state what, exactly, that value is.
You’re right – humanity IS at stake over the useless worry over gloabl warming and the DETERMINED suffering that will result limiting fossil fuel use.
I don’t think you have a viable argument for the last one, and even if you think you do I don’t want to hear it because it will sound to me like Nazism and it will make me angry.
Thanking you advance,
Brian Valentine PhD PE
PS Do you think all the labour (and money spent on them) of the IPCC and others was money well spent?
How many dipheria shots could that have purchased?
How many water treatment plants could that have financed?
Were the benefits comparable for the money spent?
[Rhetorical questions – keep your answers to your self]
00
Today it’s the hare-brained stunts, tomorrow we clean up the gay boys, next week get rid of those whackos smoking a bit of weed, and when we get properly tooled up, it will be brain scans to figure out who is normal, and who is broken (in need of fixing). But one thing never changes, always, always “for their own good” we do this.
If you value independent thinking, then you have to value the loonies as much as the genius, because there’s but a hairline between them, and only afterwards do we recognise the one from the other.
00
Tel, I stand corrected, and I thank you
B
00
Brian Valentine wrote:
Well it doesn’t fail for CO2.
School children these days can do a similar experiment with a couple of jars, one with air and one with CO2. And the greenhouse effect is quite measurable with high school accuracy thermometers over high school laboratory time periods.
I guess that the effect is swamped in a small greenhouse by the warming caused by the drop in heat loss by convection.
00
“School children these days can do a similar experiment with a couple of jars, one with air and one with CO2. And the greenhouse effect is quite measurable with high school accuracy thermometers over high school laboratory time periods.”
Blah.
We know from elementary statistical mechanics that Cv=5R/2 for diatomic gases and Cv=7R/2 for triatomic gases.
This experiment is some more of the same dopey “Mister Polar Bear wants YOU to STOP USING FOSSIL FUEL” elementary school [explitive]
00
Mister Polar Bear likes Windmills.
Mister Polar Bear doesn’t like Coal Fired Electricity Power Plants.
Mister Polar Bear likes Al Gore.
Mister Poler Bear doesn’t like Dick Lindzen.
All Mister Polar Bear can do to get people to stop driving cars and to freeze themselves to death is to weep and wail in front of cameras about it – what else can he do?
Mister Polar Bear’s influence is so limited.
Poor Mister Polar Bear.
00
I was talking about the previous interglacial (not what we are currently on, the one before). One hundred and twenty thousand years ago.
Egat’s, right you are, I made a power of ten error. I’m not comfortable with the “per decade” units. Fortunately I’m not the only one to blunder like this so we can be embarrassed together 🙂
Just to prove I take responsibility for my mistakes, I demand that Joanne pay me only half what she was paying me before. The other half I offer to you Robin, in gratitude.
Getting back to the point, 50 years is a very tight window for extracting underlaying climate parameters from chaotic weather data. Consider the well understood yearly solar cycle and you have essentially only one valid data point per year, that’s a total of 50 points (in a system that we have already found 11 year cycles, 30 something year cycles, and many longer cycles).
As a quick test, I ran some scans over the Vostok ice-core data sets taking groups of 10 samples (they don’t have a sample for every year, 10 samples strides approx 800 years) and I got a maximum rate of change of 0.09°C per decade and rates between 0.05°C per decade and 0.09°C per decade occur 0.5% of the time (admittedly not often, but lots of that time the earth is locked in a highly stable block of ice and snow, and it isn’t entirely implausible that we are living in an unusual time which would explain the adventurous things going on at the moment).
Then again, repeat the same test with 20 sample blocks (strides of approx 1600 years) and you get a maximum rate of change of 0.036°C per decade — only to be expected, with a bigger window you average out the short-term variability.
Bigger again, 40 sample blocks gives 0.023°C per decade. So tell me, which is the “real” answer? All of them, and none of them because the dataset is chaotic with long term cyclic behaviour. However, from the point of view of extinction and stressing the specialist niche-dwellers, the relatively short 800 year strides should be good enough to represent quite a few generations (once you are dead, it’s cold comfort to know that what killed you was merely a brief anomaly with no long-term statistical significance).
And again for one more different perspective, the Vostok data could contain good old fashioned measurement errors, but then again so could the recent measurements from 50 years ago; when you use such a small time window it greatly amplifies this error.
Wait just a moment. There’s biodiversity in general and there’s defending some particular niche — not the same thing.
In any changing fitness landscape, there will be niches come and niches go, without this we cannot have change at all. One example (amongst many) is the cane toads in Australia, local predators never had a mechanism for dealing with the toad’s poison, but local snakes are evolving smaller heads and larger bodies in order to specifically target the baby toads (less load of poison, no physical defense in a baby toad). The landscape changes and a new niche has opened. Adaptation is fast enough to observe within one human lifespan.
There are also a lot better ways to maintain biodiversity than by attempting to freeze the system state. As you pointed out, for plants long distance transport is a problem and a niche may move over physical distance. Humans are very good at long distance mobility. Humans can cheaply and efficiently transport seeds over arbitrary distance (actually, we often do so by accident). A deliberate seed mobility program would improve diversity at a very low cost.
Now you are no doubt going to tell me that every little region has to be carefully locked up (biologists invariably say this) because mobility allows one species to “invade” the territory of another (as if title deeds had been issued) but species have been invading each other since the dawn of life and I suspect there is a lot more beneficial study of a successful species than a no hoper. To champion some types of diversity while fighting against other types tells me that really diversity is not the objective here, the real driving emotion is fear of change.
00
Sorry Tel,
Joanne already owes me your unrecoverd share for the agony of dealing with people like Barton.
00
Robin,
Calculating climate sensitivity is not an observation. When you see a sensitive climate go past your door, call me.
You’ve used Argument from Ignorance again. As if CO2 has to make a big difference because of what it does in the lab and that any warming we can’t explain therefore must be due to CO2. It fills the ‘gap’ in our knowledge. It’s a big gap.
You missed my point. I don’t argue that we are definitively recovering from the LIA therefore CO2 is irrelevant. I argue that climate science doesn’t know enough about the climate to model it. The LIA proves that. Since models/calculations/estimations are all the evidence we are ever given, No I Am Still Not Impressed, that people who can’t predict things 5 years in advance, and can’t explain the BIG moves of the last 1000, can’t agree on what the tropospheric temperature is over the last 50 years even though they measured it with hundreds of radiosondes: these are the same people who make giant models predicting the weather 100 years in advance… Sure.
I know this is difficult given the brainwashing our media currently run. But just for a moment, try to imagine another possibility: imagine there is chance that CO2 makes next to no difference. How would we know that it wasn’t Co2 that warmed us up from 1979-1999, when there are other big mysterious factors out there that we don’t track? You hinted before that you know of Lindzens Iris theory – the way clouds and water vapor (with massive greenhouse effects of their own) – change in ways that stop the atmospheric temperature from wildly veering out of control. Like a buffer in chemistry. What if the clouds do negate the effect of warming?
My point about the ‘things we don’t know’, is that since we don’t know what set off the little ice age, how the heck can we know if it stopped – fully or partly, and whether it’s stronger than CO2, whether there are more mysterious opposing forces we don’t know.
You may not find mysterious forces compelling, but I find logic and reason more compelling than believing the witchdoctors who profess to predict a climate they can’t explain. Argument from ignorance is still silly.
Desmog by the way was founded with $300,000 by a guy who was later convicted of money laundering. (Not that that would matter if Desmog made any logical arguments.) They are run by a PR expert. Their blogger team are apparently paid.
And cosmic rays ain’t all the same. If you read Svensmark instead of just his attackers, you would know the difference between high energy and low energy ones, and you’d know that the ones that matter have not been stable for 50 years.
Let me finish this off by returning to the mysterious forces. Yes, the recent warming could be due to carbon, or it could be a coincidence. Can anyone find a time in the last 500 million years when the Earth got Hotter Because Of Co2? No. Therefore, since I have to pick, at the moment, I’m going with ‘coincidence’. Since there is no correlation with turning points that matter, other things correlate better than carbon – almost any other thing – even postage stamps.
00
I propose a fact-finding tour where we walk into outback public bars and strike up a conversation along the lines of, “We are some greenies here to help you manage your land and industry.”
On second thoughts, kinetic plastic surgery has it’s drawbacks so I did a beanbag tour of the AEC website instead. Here are the Divisions that delivered the top 10 Green votes (looking at lower house, first preference only), for the 2007 federal election:
Melbourne (VIC) — Inner Metropolitan / Heavy and light engineering, extensive manufacturing, commercial and retail activities (including Melbourne markets and central business district), dockyards, clothing and footwear industries, warehousing and distributing of white goods, building and other general goods.
Sydney (NSW) — Inner Metropolitan / Commercial, financial, retail, merchandising, service, transport, entertainment and shipping industries.
Grayndler (NSW) — Inner Metropolitan / Manufacturing and service industries, engineering works.
Denison (TAS) — Inner Metropolitan / Banking and retail, chocolate and confectionery, catamaran construction, brewery, zinc works, food and timber processing, heavy transport, wholesale trade, engineering works, glass products and port facilities at Hobart.
Batman (VIC) — Inner Metropolitan / Light engineering, textiles, clothing and footwear.
Bass (TAS) — Provincial / Aluminium and ferrous metal smelting, brewery, cattle (dairy and beef) farming, manufacturing, mining, ports and shipping, ship building, timber, tourism, fishing, wineries and wool.
Melbourne Port (VIC) — Inner Metropolitan / Car assembly plants, aircraft parts production, stevedoring and various manufacturing, commercial and retail industries.
Wentworth (NSW) — Inner Metropolitan / Finance, property, service, wholesale and retail trade, tourism, education, sport and recreation.
Richmond (NSW) — Rural / Tourism, commercial fishing, agriculture including dairy, beef cattle, tropical fruits, sugarcane, coffee and macadamia nuts, sugar processing, timber, light engineering, boat building and cottage industries.
Cunningham (NSW) — Provincial / Wollongong is the commercial centre of the Illawarra, servicing tourism, tertiary education, steel production, coal mining, brick manufacturing and textiles.
The only Green rural division is the one containing Nimbin and Byron Bay (lots of alternative lifestylers plus retirees). Bass is a bit mixed but the core of the Green vote is coming from inner-city desk jockies, factory workers who never see the sun, and hipster uni students. Sad but true. It gets sadder… now I’ll post the bottom 10 divisions where the lowest percentage of lower house Green votes were returned in 2007:
Flynn (QLD) — Rural / Primary production including coal, oil, gas, orchards, cotton, grain, cattle and sheep. The Port of Gladstone is a major export facility for the area.
Calare (NSW) — Rural / Mining, mixed farming, fruit, timber, vineyards, meat and wool processing, transport, light engineering, agricultural and pastoral support services.
Capricornia (QLD) — Provincial / Primary production, grains, beef cattle, grazing, fishing, coal mining, meat works, dairy products and tourism.
Murray (VIC) — Rural / Sheep, wheat, dairy and fruit processing industries.
Parkes (NSW) — Rural / Wool, beef, pork, wheat, cotton, oil seed crops, lucerne, fruit, vegetables, dairy cattle, horse, sheep and cattle studs, comprehensive agricultural support services, coal and opal mining, timber, wine growing, light engineering and construction industries.
Kennedy (QLD) — Rural / Mainly primary production including grains (sorghum, sunflowers, wheat), beef cattle, cotton, coal mining, gemstones, sheep, sugar, agricultural services, copper, gold, silver, tin, lead, zinc, uranium, fishing (prawns, crabs, barramundi), marble, tobacco, fruit and vegetables, peanuts, dairy products and tourism.
Maranoa (QLD) — Rural / Mainly primary production including coal, oil, gas, orchards, cotton, grain, cattle and sheep.
Lindsay (NSW) — Outer Metropolitan / Agriculture, farming (dairying, poultry, beef, fruit, vegetables), distilling (saki), construction and service industries, tourism, wholesale and retail trade, building materials, engineering and electrical equipment, textiles, plastic and aluminium products, colour TV manufacturing, pharmaceutical goods and concrete and gravel extraction.
New England (NSW) — Rural / Cattle, sheep, grain, forestry, dairying, oats, maize, fruit, vegetables, tin-mining, bricks, trout hatchery, tourism, concrete pipe works, leather goods, tannery, gemstones, tobacco, lucerne, honey, grain processing, rubber industry, plaster works and concrete.
Chifley (NSW) — Outer Metropolitan / Light manufacturing and service industries.
So why is it that the people who most spend time working on the land (growing plants and animals and living away from the city) are the same people who are least likely to think that Green politics are helping this country? Are they all dumbarse hay seeds, too thick and sunburned to know what’s good for them?
If those guys are useless then what do you intend to do? Maybe drive them all broke with regulations until the family farm goes out the window. Don’t worry, giant agri-business will step up to the plate and and Monsanto would be happy to own all the fertile land in Australia. Who would you prefer to negotiate with, a landowning farming family or a worldwide GE food conglomerate?
Politics is messy stuff, Green problems are hard problems. You need a lot of heart to take on these issues, but you need a lot of brains too.
00
From the AEC website, the Divisions that returned the top 10 Green votes (fed lower house, first preference only, 2007):
… and the Divisions that returned the bottom 10 Green votes under the same conditions:
The core of the Green vote is coming from yuppie inner-city desk jockies, factory workers who never see the sun, and hipster uni students. The closer Australians are to the land, the less likely they are to believe our current Green parties are useful.
Dumbarse hay seeds, too thick and sunburned to know what’s good for them? Or maybe they do know something.
Once the family farmers have been driven broke by complex and unworkable regulations, giant agri-business will step up to the plate and and Monsanto would be happy to own all the fertile land in Australia. Who would you prefer to negotiate with, a landowning farming family or a worldwide GE food conglomerate?
Politics is messy stuff, Green problems are hard problems. You need a lot of heart to take on these issues, but you need a lot of brains too.
00
So why would a tea-sipping bureaucrat care about the costs of ETS (or any of its ilk) passed along to the family farmer, anyway?
Those people don’t count. They’re just some more scum to worry about.
They don’t really “care about the environment”.
They don’t know how good Solar Power really is.
All they care about is their own survival.
00
Possibly a little. It would be a less outlandish observation coming from anyone else on this thread though.
I claim you’ve made a dozen posts at least as snippy, and many of them downright rude on this thread. I wonder how you justify this apparent inconstancy?
Lindzen is the most respected academic the denialist movement has. And his field is atmospheric physics, and he’s a professor at MIT. The bulk of the movement does seem to be retired academics and petroleum geologists.
Climate change 2000 compared to the 1961-1990 mean, caused about 160,000 deaths and 5,500,000 person-years of sickness. This is DETERMINED suffering.
I admire your attempt to shut down the discussion. You are referring to Lindzen talk? I recall reading about it in a write up about the ICCC. I couldn’t find it now on google. Probably I have the wrong guy.
Also re:
The earth has warmed over the last decade. Are you defining “over a decade” as “a time interval starting during the El Nino of 1998”? Because that’s blatant cherry picking.
00
Brian Valentine wrote:
You don’t come across as very intellectual, but you say that you consider yourself an educator. What age group do you teach?
The point that I was making was not about the curriculum, but that (despite your claim that using glass settles the argument for CO2), the warming from CO2 is very easy to show:
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
00
Thanks for the response Tel, I enjoy your thinking. (Barring your biodiversity opinions.)
Right. The ice core record does show that that was probably warmer than current temperatures.
And the extinctions to date attributed to climate change are alpine species. <Personal not-expert speculation>It might that these regions experience a more rapid response to greenhouse warming by being physically a long way from the large heat capacity of the oceans.</personal non-expert speculation>
So you would say that claims by Brian and Joanne that there has been a different trend over the past 7 or 8 years about an order of magnitude premature?
It’s a mistake to discard data simply because there is more than one influence on the data. And the mistake is clearer if the influence is cyclic. It can be corrected for like economic or atmospheric CO2 concentration data is. A rising sine wave is not one point, it is a rising sine wave, and although a technique as trivial as a linear regression will obviously stuff up a trend estimation over a single period (depending on phase), there are correct ways to treat this statistically. And the problem disappears if even two cycles are available.
Yes, of course if you take longer averages you shave off the high and low values, because your moving average is a kind of low pass filter.
But there’s two observations to be put out there.
The first regarding short periods of very rapid warming:
This time period includes in the Vostok cores the Younger Dryas … Rapid cooling and later rapid warming, and the period associated with high extinction rates … and also not natural (for terrestrial meanings of “natural”), but (probably) set off by an extraterrestrial impact. (For meanings of “impact” where the object doesn’t impact the ground … an atmospheric explosion of a comet).
The second is that although I mention 0.1°C per decade as though I was talking about a line of best fit through the climate history from now back to 1970, the warming signal can be decomposed into response to different forcings, so the long term trending part can be separated (and projected in a more sophisticated manner than extrapolation of a straight line).
I’m not saying that your argument doesn’t apply, because that’s not what I did. But as us non-climate scientists sit here discussing climate science what we’re looking for is broadly applicable points.
Sure. I think that the temperature proxy is for local temperature, not global. And local temperature is a particularly not great proxy for global temperature.
00
Yes. And we should be grateful it wasn’t a lot worse. If we’d had more cold snaps instead of more heat waves there would be more dead people. Heat kills, but cold kills more.
In temperate regions, human mortality and
morbidity tend to show clear maxima in the winter
and secondary maxima in the summer. While the
secondary maxima are more pronounced in regions
with warmer summer climates, as in the southern
U.S. and southern Europe, even in those regions the
secondary maxima are smaller than the winter
maxima. A warming of even 3ºC in the next 100
years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans
because the reduction of wintertime
mortality/morbidity would be several times larger
than the increase in summertime heat stress-related
mortality/morbidity [Laaidi 2006, Keatinge 2000].
Source: http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf p 36/50
00
I’m pretty sure that arguing whether biodiversity is important to someone who doesn’t think so is worth any effort. Perhaps we can agree that it’s important to some people?
Again, many people would say that the rarity and uniqueness increases the value of a species.
We don’t seek change on a human time-scale.
Mammals are proportionally under-represented in the tens of thousands of extinctions annually, but since there are probably few undiscovered ones, let’s consider them.
The fossil record implies that there should be an natural mammalian extinction every million species years. Faster than that will reduce biodiversity.
At about 5000 known mammalian species, that implies a healthy extinction target should be one every two centuries. Of course, this is probably an unhealthy extinction target in the current environment because reduced genetic diversity from reduced population sizes will reduce speciation rate.
In any case 0 or 1 in anyone’s lifetime is possibly acceptable. That’s not really change, so as you’d notice.
Change on geological times scales is fine.
Sure. In about four species of snake. But small heads is not speciation, so extinctions do matter. And those four species have also suffered a population drop (as has nearly every animal, bar the toads) in the areas the toads have reached … increasing their extinction pressure.
Most people would say that introducing cane toads was a monumental balls-up.
Of course. And this is being done. But it’s not always possible in the case of interesting plants. There are two or three species of underground orchid in Australia. Only seen every five years or so, when it puts up a flower. Devastatingly interesting plant. The NSW one has never been successfully planted, and has never been successfully translocated.
Do you?
Why would the proteins of a prevalent species be more likely to be of medical importance that those of a rare one?
And why would the study of a often seen species reveal more secrets than that of one rarely seen?
I would have thought that a the greater diversity of biological solutions would have been the better field of study. Take Australia’s two species of gastric breeding frogs. Clearly some powerfully interesting chemistry going on in the GI tract to turn a digestion chamber into an incubation chamber. Of use to medicine … almost certainly. Will we ever know? Nope. Is this a good thing? … You’ve made up your own mind, and that’s fine.
…
00
Joanne Wrote:
Hmmm.
I’m not quite sure where to go with that one Joanne.
I guess obviously, you’re right, calculating a climate sensitivity is not an observation.
The observations are the data from which the climate sensitivity is calculated.
The climate sensitivity is the proof of AGW which is, by these observations is derived. (assuming that it’s over about 1, and depending on how long it takes for the climate system to reach a steady state).
… Again, I’m not sure how to take that either.
You speak as if the positive feedbacks are these big black boxes with no physics.
I can’t say off the top of my head what the numbers are, but I don’t believe you’ve not heard of them. Water vapour is, I understand, the biggie. Ice albedo is also significant. The argument is certainly not that we don’t know what’s causing this warming so it must be CO2, its that CO2 has caused 1.7 W/m, and known feedbacks are collectively about tripling that. (And cloud albedo is still a bit of a wild card, but that’s not argument from ignorance, that’s a large remaining unknown.)
… And your original point was that the 1.7 W/m2 from the post industrial CO2 increase was argument from ignorance, and that is starkly not. That is known, well understood, calculable and uncontroversial even amongst sceptics. (Brian’s unique understanding of the greenhouse effect obviously excepted).
Isn’t that the argument from ignorance?
There certainly is evidence that models don’t produce perfect results. Hindcasting does provide a luke warm sense of confidence, but I think that increasing accuracy is certainly not coming too soon for policymakers.
Is the LIA poorly modelled in hindcasts?
Are you discarding calculations and estimations with models.
I don’t think that models are entirely useless, but to disregard calculations is certainly throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I don’t think that they claim to predict the weather, Joanne.
Then the climate sensitivity would be less than 1°C per doubling. But I have presented a few papers that estimate the CS, not using models, and I can point to several that use models. And the CS over the past 420 million years has been robustly over 1.5, the CS over the past 7 centuries has been something in the range 1.5 to 6.2.
So we’d need a physical explanation for why this iris is suddenly ameliorating the changing greenhouse effect when it has never done it in past … including times with both much less and much more atmospheric CO2 than now.
Which is an argument from ignorance without even proposing a physical mechanism. The CO2 plus feedbacks explanation involves much less ignorance.
Right. And mine is that they can explain it. Greenhouse effect plus feedbacks.
I agree with that.
Okay Joanne, you’re quite right, I haven’t read the paper, and I didn’t know that he had found a trend. On your advice, I’ll have a read of it.
Yes. All of it.
Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years, Royer et al. NATURE (2007)
00
Tel wrote:
Agriculture isn’t really an outdoor hobby. It’s outdoor recreation activities, (in fact outdoor recreation in one’ youth) that correlates to environmental sensitivity.
<a href = “http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/2004/317papers/bustam317.pdf”ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY AND
YOUTHFUL PARTICIPATION IN
OUTDOOR RECREATION
I don’t think that it’s any secret that forestry workers and farmers aren’t the best greenies. Their industries are kind of counter to the idea of natural environment preservation, buy using lots of land.
The reason that suicide has become the most popular sport amongst the farmers in NSW is climate change, not regulation.
Negotiate? Probably the GE food conglomerate. A landowning farming family takes a drop in water allowance too personally, because their stake is personal.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t feel sympathy for the farming family. But the amount of water out there has simply dropped, so the land just doesn’t sustain as much farming.
Sure. And the greens have a young voter base because of their left wing economic policy too. The Rudd / Peter Garratt was attractive to a lot of greenies my age, Rudd being about as right as labour right goes, and then some, and Garratt being intelligent and realistic in his speachmaking. (They may wander next election).
00
Sorry, broken link:
http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/2004/317papers/bustam317.pdf
00
Joanne Wrote:
Have you read the paper Joanne?
Impact of regional climate change on human health, Patz et al, NATURE (2005).
It does mention deaths by heat wave … (Which is cardiovascular disease), (12,000 deaths worldwide attributable to climate change from the 1961-1990 mean), but they are not included in the 166,000 deaths, (nor, obviously, the 5,517,000 DALYs, since dead is dead).
The deaths are from changes in rainfall and clean water security mostly. 47,000 deaths from diarrhoea, 2000 from floods (directly), 77,000 from malnutrition, and 27,000 from malaria.
00
47,000 deaths from diarrhoea
– Preventable with water treatment plants, requiring more electricity than can be produced with a solar panel
2000 from floods (directly)
– Preventable by building dams, instead of howling about “global warming”
77,000 from malnutrition
– Preventable by learning modern agriculture requiring irrigation, tractors, combines, and exactly zero contribution from global warming “activists”
27,000 from malaria
– Preventable with DDT and not slogans
What age groups do I “educate” Robin?
None at all that comprise closed minds.
00
Mister Polar Bear wants me to end the discussion and say goodbye to Robin.
Bye bye, Robin.
00
Thanks to Robin for this link
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
Mister Polar Bear thinks this has more to do with the thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide than the “greenhouse effect.”
Turns out that Mister Polar Bear is actually a sceptic.
00
In terms of establishing long term trends and climactic norms, the past 7 or 8 years are a drop in the ocean (obviously). If you flip back a few pages you can find this from David Evans:
I would go along with this as a reasonable description of the century-scale climate during recent centuries. The sunspot cycle of 11 years is very well known and has been extensively studied, yet no one knows exactly when the next cycle will kick over, nor can anyone model the variations in intensity between cycles.
As well as the 11 year sunspot cycle, the “Bruckner cycle” of approx 35 years has also been found in various historical samples (relating to tree growth, etc). The Russian scientist Valentine Makarov measured a 22 year solar cycle in the sun’s magnetic field, and recently two more Russians Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev made substantial wagers betting on 15 years of cooling following a peak back around 2000 AD.
From the point of view of figuring out where we currently sit within these various cycles, the recent 7 or 8 years of cooling are very relevant, but so are a whole bunch of earlier measurements also showing cyclic behaviour. In addition, they are relevant from the political analysis of the situation.
If you pick up the IPCC AR4 “Synthesis Report” (which is the executive summary that all the political hob-nobs read), you will find a total absence of any discussion of solar cycles. Such things either don’t exist, or have nothing to do with climate science, or they are too irrelevant to mention. As a consequence, a great number of our leaders don’t know the first thing about solar cycles and would be stunned to be told that someone can predict 15 years of cooling in the midst of climactic warming.
More than this, the voters don’t understand either. For them, 15 years is longer than the longest thing they can remember. If we have 15 years of cooling, then you can be sure the voters will believe in Global Cooling.
By ignoring the solar cycles and predicting an alarming warming trend, the IPCC were able to attract attention, but at the cost of being very visibly and demonstrably wrong some years down the track. Given the outrageous nature of the IPCC 2007 prediction, it does not take a large window to demonstrate it is wrong, especially when the short-term trend goes in precisely the other direction to what was predicted.
That’s the problem with climate. Even if we did have a brilliantly good working model of the Earth’s climate, it would not provide useful short-term predictions. If you look in IPCC AR4 “Synthesis Report” 2007, Fig 3.1 and Table 3.1 and follow maybe the B2 or A2 scenario for GHG emissions (which is pretty much the “business as usual” scenario and that’s what is happening at the moment) then we should expect between 2 and 3 degrees of warming by 2099. If we get a decade of cooling followed by a few more 30 year cycles, we might barely make 1 degree. Now the IPCC are going to be in a position where no one takes them remotely seriously for 20 years until we are back on the upswing of a cycle. But they did this to themselves with their attention-seeking estimates.
They will no doubt tell everyone that their high estimates were necessary “just as a precaution”, “better safe than sorry” and so on. The problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it equally applies to believing that the world will be ended by a rampage of pink elephants unless we all stick bananas in our ears “just to be on the safe side”. I might for example, argue that it is “good precautionary principle” to cause as much global warming as humanly possible, “just in case” there’s another ice age coming (and the past million years has been MOSTLY ice, so I’ve got substantial data backing me up on that one).
Really though, taking action based on ignorance is as likely to be useful as taking no action, or picking a random action so might as well sin and enjoy yourself, or at very least keep searching for knowledge until we do know what is going on.
The daily cycle and yearly cycle are well understood, we know the physics of the orbit and we have decently accurate sinusoidal models for those effects. You could almost set your watch by it 😉
The sunspot cycle and other solar harmonic cycles regularly take unexpected and irregular steps. It is only possibly to decompose and compensate for those effects you can accurately model (and predict). Our models of the solar cycles are pretty rough and there’s no easy way to probe inside the sun to see what’s going on (other than when the solar storms hit). On top of that, there are chaotic effects on Earth too, such as El Nino. We don’t have the ability to predict El Nino a few years in advance, so each year we have to just look to see which way it goes. Applying these compensation factors comes down to seat of the pants.
I do think that money would be better spent drilling more ice and testing the Vostok results for reproducibility, than buying yet another supercomputer.
I’m not against taxpayer dollars going into pure research to some degree (I do think that applied research and industrial research should be mostly privately funded), but I’d like to see a lot more measurements and full publication of the raw results (if I’m paying for it, I don’t want it locked up in some secret database).
00
People are going to want to eat. If you have a plan based around people not eating then your plan will fail. If you know a method to make more food out of less land and less water (and I mean food that tastes better than tofu), then don’t worry, just make heaps of money with your amazing efficiency improvements and then sponsor any political movement you like.
It may be a short term solar cycle, which is still long term compared with the interest payments that the bank demands.
I’m not going to pretend I fully understand all the problems of rural communities but please at least give them credit for having some understanding of their own problems. For whatever reason, those farmers don’t expect Green politics to help them in any way. They don’t see environmentalism as providing a future for either them or their land.
The way I see it, unless the Green movement can start listening to the rural point of view, and learning to cooperate rather than dictate, it ain’t gonna fly. I’m very nervous that the people who are most enthused on telling other people how to manage their land are those who are without practical experience in those areas themselves — sounds like an accident waiting to happen and ready to take me with it.
Hmmm, central-planned Green politics working with central-planned mega-corp sounds kind of cozy, until corruption becomes the ultimate winner and the mega-corp just routes around you, buying off key government staff. For the corps it’s not personal, it’s just business, and money, and people who might get in the way of business, and money.
Yeah, I find that a bit strange when you consider the track record of Socialist countries and the environment. I knew a guy who did Chemical engineering in the post-Glasnost Soviet states when they were inviting western investment. He told me about a town where they modernised the massive Soviet chemical plants and kicked two thirds of the workers out of a job (automation is much more efficient). After the new plant had run for a while, residents of the town started explaining to him that they had never actually seen the sun before; growing up under the filthy haze of primitive Soviet industry.
You could say the same about China and their coal smog, which they only cleaned up for the Olympics (but China is steadily moving away from the extremes of Socialism and that’s probably good for the whole world).
Cuba have managed to do a lot with not much (the unfair US embargo deserves some share of blame) but by many accounts their forests are much smaller than they used to be and they are still short of food. The Cubans seem a bit better than most Socialist countries at adapting themselves, but they are still struggling, maybe they will turn it around.
00
I doubt there is any evidence that evolution works in a steady stream without stops and starts. Obviously human technology has so dramatically changed the scene over the entire earth (just from a mobility perspective alone, not including changes of land use) and human population is growing at an exceptional speed, likewise our deployment of new technology. To pretend somehow that we are still living in the same earth of pre-industrial times is just putting your head in the sand.
Are you going to pretend to have either the means or the stomach to substantially reduce the world population of humans? Without further argument, it ain’t gonna happen. How far will the roller-coaster go? I’m not sure, but probably quite far, so start building plans compatible with at least a mildly probable future.
There’s a lot of stuff to study and far more than we have resources (or incentive) to study it. Unavoidable conclusion: something will miss out and be lost.
As a parallel example, there are human languages going “extinct” at a massive rate because the Internet and mass media provide blanket coverage for the mainstream languages. Should we force people into isolated communities to preserve their pristine culture? If I grew up speaking some microscopic dialect I’d be telling my kids to bloody learn English so they have a chance to do something with their lives. Maybe some old niche language contains a deep insight that would lead to world peace and the dawn of a new age, but too bad `cos it’s gone now (or will be soon). Think of all the hard drives that are going to the trash (or maybe recycling) every day with people’s hopes and dreams on them, maybe one of them contains the answer to the universe, we will never know.
Medicine will always have more to study. They haven’t even come close to understanding the chemistry of a human (which has been looked at a lot more closely), let alone a frog. There’s buckets of DNA out there that no one has decoded yet. Every new discovery leads to more stuff that we need to study so prospective subject matter is not in short supply. If anything, the only way to even scratch the surface is to breed a whole heap more doctors and researchers to actually go and take measurements (i.e. the shortage is on the human side, not the subject material).
This is of course until we get decent protein design software, coupled to a cheap synthesis device (probably only a few decades away), after which we can just go ballistic in simulation land (still we will be ignorant of 99.99% of the natural world) and then crank out so many new medicines that our glorious world leaders will need to tightly restrict these discoveries for our own good (finally we will study our belly buttons to an incredible level of detail because it will be the only safe and government approved activity).
00
“… (finally we will study our belly buttons to an incredible level of detail because it will be the only safe and government approved activity).”
Negative. The Government will consider the activity to be symptomatic of extreme Yogindism or pathologically detached Vedic Bhuddism requiring (unelected) commitment to therapy in a Government-approved (or Government-owned) sanatorium.
00
Robin #323: Argument from ignorance “is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
(So it’s definition is not as obvious as it sounds).
Climate alarmists use it all the time. They say ‘it must be carbon because we’ve looked at everything else and nothing else explains the warming’. The problem with this is the universe is a big place – if they’ve ‘forgotten’, ‘ignored’ or are unaware of another factor, carbon might just be responsible for next to none of the warming.
The IPCC says (effectively): “we’ve calculated how much warming is due to x y z, and ‘q’ degrees is unexplained, therefore carbon caused all of the ‘q’ degrees we can’t find a better explanation for”.
Maybe carbon did do it, but it’s fallacious reasoning to state things that way. Just because the IPCC use fallacious reasoning doesn’t prove carbon is irrelevant, but it does show they don’t understand logic and reason. That in itself is fairly damning. If carbon is a major driver of temperatures we would see it in the geological records. We don’t.
Svensmarks book “The Chilling Stars” (with Nigel Calder) is the one to read to find out the science as well as the politics.
“The CO2 plus feedbacks explanation involves much less ignorance.”
If only. We are not sure whether water vapor gives a positive or negative feedback. the IPCC assumes it’s positive. If Lindzen or Svensmark or Miskoski (can’t spell it,sorry) are right, then feedback from water vapor could be zero or negative. The missing hotspot pretty much shows that water vapor feedback was not there from 1979-1999. Theoretically water vapor feedback will lift CO2’s warming effect from 1.2 degree to 2.5-3 degrees. It’s majorly important to the IPCC. It’s wildly hard to predict or model. That’s ‘ignorance’, converted into ‘certainty’ via a model. Tho’ technically it’s not argument from ignorance the logically fallacy. It’s just a poor assumption.
“So we’d need a physical explanation for why this iris is suddenly ameliorating the changing greenhouse effect when it has never done it in past … including times with both much less and much more atmospheric CO2 than now.”
No we don’t. That would be good. But any ‘explanation’ is still only a theory. What we need is observational evidence that the Iris theory predicts the climate better than other theories. (And predicts – specifically – patterns of cloud cover as well as temperatures.)
00
My view to the climate modelers (and I have told a few)
– get the rainfall patterns correct first, and then I’ll talk to you more about it.
[This id the only indication that intra and exo-atmospheric heat transfer is anywhere near correct.]
00
Joanne et al:
There’s no point in arguing for logic or the use of real observation when it comes to the warmists; they’re either pawns or vested players. At this point those financially vested warmists haven’t found a way to incriminate man for causing the sun to radiate too much heat, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn they’re working on a way to establish urban heat island and water vapor credit, cap-and-trade systems. Their greed probably has no bounds.
Man’s carbon emissions are the most politically expedient excuse for “greens” to have significant impact on us all — that is, to establish the ability to abscond with a measured amount of our collective and individual wealth by writ of law; like mortgage PMI provided to lawyers who, primarily, do NOTHING to earn the money.
Why stop believing the big lie when doing so will diminish one’s financial imperatives?
00
Sounds like some folks need to pull their socks up and start thinking about actually working for a living, David, instead of dreaming up some more ways to rip people off.
There’s enough scam artists (or not so artful) out there already, the advent of the Internet produced some real works of fraud art, we’ve got enough flim-flams as it is now to last us for a while.
00
Brian Valentine Wrote:
Interesting thought of Mister Polar Bear’s.
I suspect that conduction won’t make a lot of difference because convection will dominate the distribution of heat in the tanks.
To make a ball-park estimate of the proportion of convective to conductive heat flow, I found this equation for convective heat flow in “Schaum’s outline of theory and problems of beginning physics I”:
H=hAΔT,
Where H a good approximation of the rate of convective flow, A is the area of contact between the gas and the black sheet of cardboard, and ΔT is the temperature difference between the sheet of cardboard and the bulk of the fluid away from the cardboard.
h is the coeffienct of convection, and for air over a horizontal plate it is:
h = 2.49 (ΔT)^(0.25) W/(m2 K)
So if conductive flow dominated, and there was a linear temperature gradient to the top of the tank, half way through the experiment we would get:
H = 2.49*(13)^(0.25) * (0.2)^2 * 13 = about 2.5 W
If the cardboard is about 20cm square.
At the same time conductive heat transfer between the cardboard and the top of the tank would be (Using a cubic tank):
0.024 * (0.2)^2 / 0.2 * 13 = about 0.06 W
Since
Thermal conductivity of air is about 0.024 W/(m K)
Area of the sheet of paper is about (0.2)^2 m
Distance to the top of the tank is about 0.2m
and the temperature difference is about 13 K.
Neglecting heat transfer through the sides of the tank, but it’s a ball-park figure I’m looking for here. It probably should be at least doubled, but convection is still an order of magnitude stronger.
So it seems to me that convection would dominate the heat flow in the tank and that the thermal conductivity of CO2 compared to air wouldn’t make that much difference.
(I’m guessing that convection would also dominate in the CO2 tank, since the thermal conduction is lower, and I’m assuming the coefficient of convection is similar in magnitude to that of air).
00
Brian, Robin:
Pardon my lack of experience in the laboratory.
What happened to the temperature of the two samples after the lamps were turned off?
Also, was there an attempt to observe the same two samples exposed to extreme cold? Would the carbon dioxide sample absorb and retain cold longer than the other sample?
With very little exception, the sun does not shine on any specific portion of earth’s surface 24 hours a day: CO2 does not chase the sun’s rays as do flowers in the field, so it cannot constantly absorb heat; conversely, CO2 in the real environment is exposed to numerous and dynamic forces including wind, moisture, dust, unstable compounds, botanicals, etc.
I can only assume CO2 will absorb and retain cold as well as it will absorb and retain warmth — the forcing would “equal out”; but that in Earth’s atmosphere, CO2 tends to sink at a critically low ambient temperature, right? Doesn’t such sinking contribute to the formation of calcium carbonate (aka limestone)?
Common sense says carbon dioxide’s impact on ambient temperature is, indeed, a wash.
00
Robin, Mister Polar Bear said it had to do with the thermal conductivity and he did not say it had to do with heat conduction.
We have free or natural convection in the enclusure.
Using dimensionless nomenclature, we have for the instance to hand
dimensionless heat transfer coefficient
Nusselt number = Nu = hL/k
proportional to
Sqrt(Pr)*Sqrt Sqrt(Gr)
Prandtl number = nu/alpha
Grashof muber Gr = g*beta*DELTA(T)*L**3/nu**2
L the free length
beta = 1/T of the average bulk temp of the gas
nu = kinematic viscosity of the gas
alpha = k/(rho*Cp)
rho the average bulk density of the gas
The differences in Nu for the 2 instances arising mainly from the differences in the thermal conductivity k of the gases
Mister Polar Bear is a VERY difficult guy to fool
00
Brian Valentine Wrote:
Or (in many cases) a well, requiring a hand pump.
Diarrhoea kills more than that many people in any given fortnight, even if you only count children (for whom the statistics are easier to google for some reason).
Nobody stopped it with coal plants prior to Kyoto. Perhaps the reason for the lack of action isn’t solar panels after all.
Probably not. A certain geology and topography is necessary before you can build a dam. And if you plan to dam the entire length of tropical coast against changing monsoon patterns and sea swell, then Professor Sir Nicholas Stern, Baron Stern of Brentford’s 20 times for the cost of adaptation to the cost of amelioration will look awfully conservative.
Neither does ‘howling about “global warming”‘ come directly out of funds earmarked for dam building in Pakistan and Central America.
Not necessarily. Those things don’t protect a crop from destruction by floods or storms. Or enduring droughts.
yes, DDT is used for malaria prevention. The range of infection is extending uphill, and these two things are not really related.
And the age of the others?
00
I meant to add, you were exactly right about convection, of course, you were right on target.
I was (as far as I know still am), adjunct associate professor of engineering at the University of Maryland.
I have taught thermo, fl meech, stat mech, other course to senior and grad students there
I left mid-semester Spring 2005 to go to Iraq because I hated to war and was sick of complaining about it so I wanted to do something about it.
I didn’t think I would return.
Surprisingly to everyone I did, including the Dean of the College of Engineering, who was not happy that I left mid semester of a course I was teaching.
The Dean has not met with me since my return, I had no tenure there of any sort.
When I talk with him again, I will let you know the outcome.
I think my bitterness over Global Warming Anxiety has a lot to do with my war experience.
You see, I was witness to millions of poor people who would simply die without access to fossil fuel
I returned to the States to keep fighting I guess
00
Investment Tip of the Day:
Banking on Nick Stern’s assessment of ANYTHING AT ALL is an EXTREMELY unwise investment.
(Free investment advice, complementary)
00
David Walker wrote
The high school experiment didn’t say. If they were left, they would return to room temperature, the air one faster than the CO2 one.
Cold is the absence of heat. You don’t really talk about it being absorbed or retained. If you hung a lump of dry ice over the samples, they would cool down, the CO2 one slower than the air one.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it is transparent to the sun’s heat, but blocks the longer wavelengths that are radiated by the earth. It doesn’t absorb the sun’s rays it absorbs the earth’s rays.
This is why the stratosphere has cooled. (There is less heat radiation getting through from below), and why the warming has affected night time and winter time more than say time and summer time. (CO2 slows the rate of cooling, but leaves the rate of warming the same.)
It’s pretty stable. It’s greenhouse properties are a function of the relative energies that it’s electrons can get to. They are similar as long as it remains CO2.
Don’t assume that, mate.
And CO2 is heavier than air but it is pretty well mixed. (Which is just as well. If it all fell we’d all die of CO2 toxicity, which knocks you out at about 8% by volume, and kills at a couple of percent more than that).
Weathering does remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
…
00
I will follow up with David to morrow
00
Brian Valentine Wrote:
Surely the one is nothing more than a constant that defines the rate of the other.
So if it has to do with thermal conductivity, then it does have to do with heat conduction.
Yes, that’s what I said.
Moreover I said this will dominate. (In fact you’d get an updraught in the middle of the tank, and a downdraught at the edges, mixing the gas into a much more homogeneous temperature than it would take for the thermal conductivity to make a difference.
Okay, so you’ve googled and found the equations. And yes, the nusselt number is the number we want, the ratio of convective to conductive heat transfer.
But I found this when I was googling, and not being in my field, I couldn’t find the relevant numbers for the case of air or CO2 over a horizontal plate.
Which is presumably what happened to you too, since you’ve produced these equations, also without putting in the numbers.
So what?
What are the values of Nu the difference between which you discuss?
My (very simplified and very rough) calculations show Nu to be about 10 or 20, therefore thermal conductivity doesn’t make a lot of difference to the heat loss. The heat in the tank will be mixed by convection, and it’s loss controlled by the conduction only through the glass, plus radiation.
Since the CO2 blocks the radiation, and the conduction through the glass is the same for both tanks, the temperature difference is the greenhouse effect.
00
The equations came right outa my head, honey bunny.
00
Brian Valentine Wrote:
Well, I apologise for the tone of my previous post then.
I would be interested in what values of numbers for Pr and Gr are in the case of these tanks though, because I’d like to be more confident that this isn’t significantly due to the lower thermal conductivity of CO2.
00
ask your mom
00
Brian Valentine wrote:
Whoa!
You think it was lack of access to fossil fuels that killed them?
In Iraq?
What about … healthcare, medicine, security from knives, bombs and bullets?
… 24 hours of electricity … water and sewerage infrastructure?
Iraq doesn’t traditionally have low access to fossil fuels. It’s a post invasion phenomenon … I assumed is was cost recovery for the invasion.
00
Brian Valentine wrote:
Hmm. Perhaps I should put up a photo.
Not her field, she’s biochemistry.
And I want to know if you’re blagging about knowing what you’re talking about.
00
Robin, you are positively charming.
00
Tel wrote:
Just explaining why National is not very pro-environment and Greens don’t get much support from the farmers.
Environmental sensitivity is higher amongst those who enjoy the environment as a hobby, and that doesn’t include as a career.
They understand it fine. There’s not enough water. They want to drain the wetlands and use all of the rivers. And I understand that. But the land doesn’t support as many farms as it used to, and killing off rare and to people other than you, valuable ecological communities, will only delay the realisation of that fact. Better to reduce the farming now, and leave the wetland and freshwater ecologies survive.
It’s flys now and again. They’re often a force to be reckoned with in the senate.
I don’t think it is manageable for everyone. Some of the land just has to lie fallow until the climate changes again.
That’s why you need to change your politicians regularly.
And public image including environmental responsibility. Big companies love being environmentally responsible. Their risk lawyers tell them its a good long term plan.
00
Tel Wrote:
Wiki suggests that there were only six such years in the 1700, none of them consecutive. (or in the same decade). Do you know where this “every winter” came from?
I would say that we understand something of the mechanism for those, and they’re not cyclic.
I’ve got $5 (Australian) that says they’re going down $10,000 in 2018.
I haven’t heard of this Bruckner cycle though … What causes that?
I think they focus on stuff that’s new since the last report.
Predict? From Solar Cycles?
The SPM said 0.2°C per decade or 0.1°C per decade if emissions stop at 2000 levels. That, AFAIK, is still a good guess.
Okay.
I suspect that we are in a continued warming, and that by the year following a turn in the sunspot cycle we will hit new warming records again. Or earlier if we get another El Nino like 1998.
The common opinion amongst scientists is that the estimates are conservative in terms of emission scenarios and about right in terms of predicted climatic response.
I doubt they will say anything of the sort. Their objective is to review the scientific understanding and report on it. I think that that is what they’ve done. (and then the political review phase waters it down a bit.)
Climate science isn’t really Pascal’s wager. There’s evidence and theory that explains observations, and makes predictions (to a certain range).
Sure. But we’re not taking action based on ignorance to try to limit carbon emissions. We can see that we’re changing the climate, and we can predict what some of the costs of that will be. And we can predict the costs of amelioration to a certain extent (although such predictions always overestimate costs, because industry is much better at finding techniques and technologies than is dreamed of by bureaucrats.)
The cost of amelioration is the cheaper, so we would be stupid not to do that.
And there is a 5% chance that we’re wrong about that, but the change to the economy to fossil fuel technologies will be valuable as fossil fuels become rarer, so there is some benefit from that. Even extending the lifetime of the fossil fuel era is a benefit.
You don’t need to be able to predict to work out what was the causes of the last 50 years of warming. You can use measurements of solar activity. (Or records of sunspot counts, which is a fine proxy)
Sure. Prediction over short time periods is hard.
They’ve got a few points around Antarctica. And Greenland. I wish we could ice core the Sahara.
You want raw ice core data? Dating the air against the ice is very non-trivial. What good would it be?
00
Robin, I am certain that you have thoroughly convinced everyone who has read your incantations.
People tend to be enamoured with the arguments of show-off little kids who mock and condescend.
By golly, they’re probably the most persuasive item there is.
00
Robin and Brian, those formulas for convective heat transport that you are quoting should be taken with several pinches of salt. There is much disagreement even about the power law, let alone the coefficient. Robin’s ‘Schaum outline’ seems to say it is (Delta T)^(3/4) whereas Brians formula says (Delta T)^(1/4) if I’ve interpreted it right. It depends very much on how large the Grashof (or Rayleigh) number is. If it’s large, as it is in the atmosphere of course, the general concensus seems to favour a 2/7 power law. The flow is highly turbulent, intermittent and irregular.
Convection is a very important heat transfer mechanism in the atmosphere, and it is not handled properly in climate models (if at all).
By the way, I’d like to compliment everybody on the high standard of debate on this blog.
00
You are absolutely right Paul, it is the Rayleigh niumber that dominates the whole thing, and the power depends upon configuration mostly, as natural convection is certainly turbulent in most configurations.
Yes the standard of debate on this blog is not a standard of debate is it.
00
You make this sound like a zero-sum game, and I don’t think that’s either fair or accurate. Allow me to present a basic difference in philosophy between rural people and greenies that has nothing to with “environmental sensitivity” and everything to do with point of view.
Someone trying to run a business on the land has the basic idea that you buy a piece of land, and you DO SOMETHING with what you have. Take it from what it is, and change it into something that you want it to be. The greenie sees this as consumption, eating the land up like a chocolate bar and then it’s all gone. The greenie wants to get a piece of land and DO NOTHING with it, because they believe that any change of any sort must automatically be worse.
If a farmer owns a piece of land, they have a strong stake in the long term value of that land, and the long term viability of their farm. Of course they must be sensitive to the environment, because if their farm is destroyed, so are they. For this reason they are always looking for ways to improve their land (i.e. change it into something more desirable to humans). The greenies keep telling them that the best possible thing is to do nothing, but experience and common sense keep telling them the opposite.
Farmers don’t have any particular interest in seeing new land opened up for farming, that’s just devaluing the land they already own and exposing them to more competition. They have an interest in finding ways to make better use of water (or other resources), because that gives them a productivity bonus, delivers an edge over competitors who don’t use that particular technique. In turn, increasing the land value.
If farmers genuinely believed that a carbon tax would deliver more rain, they would be onto it in a flash. They don’t trust the greenie mumbo-jumbo for the simple reason that from the rural perspective, greenies have never delivered anything useful — they take, but they don’t give.
Although Australia has plenty of food right now (we have been increasingly depending on imports), on the world scale, food shortages are becoming more and more common. Since a lot of our farming is fuel intensive, I suspect that as fossil fuels run out, food prices in Australia will rise substantially. If I had to go a few days without food to save some frog, then I’d eat the frog, and so would most people. Robin, if you had a few young kids to feed then you would be chopping up the frog to share amongst the family because all the mums who don’t have that instinct hard-wired into their brains have been dead for a long, long time.
What I’m trying to get at here is that the only long-term viable approach to environmentalism is one that rural communities take to heart, and something they can work into their design without devaluing their land, and hopefully something that also boosts their productivity to boot. This is going to involve change, and finding new niches for both ourselves and whatever species we can work with. If you think there is intrinsic value in diversity then you better be finding some practical applications of that, sufficient for a thicky hayseed farmer to understand. It’s also going to involve real research, real results, and no trickery.
The great idea, “Wow! we could really do nothing with this piece of land,” is not a winner.
There’s an excellent example of this conflict of philosophy with the attempt to drop iron fertilization into the oceans. Environmentalists are screaming about how dreadful it is, “We DID SOMTHING! Oh no, the world MIGHT CHANGE! We will all pay for that!” The stupidity of this reaction is that iron fertilization (and probably additional minerals like silicon are going to be required) could provide more food and a carbon sink over a massive scale. Probably there will be some animal somewhere that ends up worse off, but really we have to think about the bigger picture and quite likely the large additional food supply caused by increased photosynthesis on the ocean surface has got to be beneficial overall. At any rate, it makes sense to give it a serious try rather than writing it off out of nothing more than superstition and fear of the unknown.
Another excellent example is “Earth Hour” where everyone lights candles (producing bugger all illumination and heaps of CO2) in the name of saving the environment. Not only is it NOT saving the environment, and a sad wanky exercise in tokenism, but it is drawing strength from a deep neo-Luddite movement of people whose main interest is rejecting technology (turn back the clock to a simpler day where we can all be happy — a simpler day when the earth’s population was 1% of the current figure, and slavery was legal).
They light candles because of the urge to hold a fire in their hands. Doing this in the name of the environment is equally as valid an excuse as doing it in the name of God, or fertility or anything else. This is an act of ritual based on nothing more than superstition and ignorance. Greenies support it because what the greenies see is fealty and obedience and it makes them feel powerful. I’m sick in the guts seeing that Green-politik smugness because nothing good ever comes of promoting ignorance, and the more ignorance you bring to your cause the less your cause is worth.
00
Me sick too, Tel.
Real, real, REAL sick.
00
Of course I’ll cover your trivial bet. Based on St George Bank’s account keeping fees, the administration overhead is about 130 times more than the winnings. Maybe Jamie Packer can help.
Most of the proposed weather cycles exist as observation only — someone found strong spectral energy at one particular frequency in a time series, but no one knows exactly how it got there or what significance it may have. I believe Bruckner found something like this and put his name to it. You can google for it, there’s lots of articles but I doubt anyone understands the mechanism.
In principle you build up an empirical model based on the time series so far, then figure out what phase you are at in the cycle and go from there. Not perfect, better than nothing. Won’t hold up in the long term, but neither will anything else (I’ll get to that).
You were advocating this so called “precautionary principle” a while back which is just Pascal’s Wager wearing a silly hat. If you’ve changed you mind over the usefulness of any “precautionary principle” then I apologise for banging on a dead issue.
Adaptation has a solid track record of success, global scale geoengineering does not. Besides that, I don’t trust your cost estimates, I suspect you may be biased by your position.
In a non-linear system, there’s no particular reason that subtracting out one component leaves the contribution of the other components. If you can bicycle at 20 kph using two pedals, would it be fair to conclude that you would travel at 10 kph using only one pedal? After all, we can reasonably presume that for the 20 kph measurement equal input power goes into each pedal, thus one pedal must be half power.
Also, a great many lags and delays are known to exist between input and output, when subtracting the input contribution, how do you allow for these?
Chaotic systems are notoriously resistant to traditional Fourier analysis or simple low pass filtering like you might do with a random variable. Inside the sun are rotating layers of ionised gas tangled up with magnetic field lines. The field lines stretch and snap back dragging gas with them, every piece effects every other piece.
http://www.solarviews.com/browse/sun/sunmag.gif
Gives you some rough idea of how complex the “weather” on the surface of the sun is, and note the strong cyclic nature of the overall sunspot intensity… except that the expected sunspots due for around 2010 haven’t started to turn up yet. Things have been exceptionally quiet up there and no one knows why. Bloody chaotic system.
Even more annoying, some very simple chaotic systems will show ultra low-frequency spectral energy (i.e. very long time periods). For example, what causes the 100k year cycles of ice-age and interglacial? Why are the glaciation cycles somewhat different in length but yet somewhat similar in overall shape? Why are we currently overdue for an ice-age?
On a smaller scale to the glaciation cycles, we see faster, smaller 10k year cycles (but the period length does change and the faster cycle is not really consistent). Happens too often to be just random chance, not often enough to be reliable.
The general rule for chaotic systems is that prediction over a short period is easier than a long period. For example, I can create a simple prediction rule that the weather in 5 minutes time at any place on earth will be the same as the current weather at that place on earth. It’s a good predictor, and it’s right for a large percentage of the time. Now and then, it’s completely wrong. Predicting the weather on this day next year is much more difficult.
The temperature on Earth shows a lot of the hallmarks of a fractal object: degrees of self-similarity, some elements of quasi-cyclic behaviour, and new and surprising features at pretty much every timescale we have been able to measure.
If we want to take a climate measurement by averaging a lot of weather measurements (i.e. low pass filter) we need to keep averaging down below the lowest of the lowest frequency spectral energy (sadly, that’s over 100k years). If we want to take a climate measurement by subtracting out the chaotic components we need to be able to understand the full effect of those chaotic components in order to have a meaningful result when we subtract.
I find it hard to trust people telling me that there is secret sauce that they won’t let me see because I wouldn’t understand it anyhow. There’s a principle in science of openness and reproducibility.
With the emphasis on “image”. Big companies love the image of being responsible.
Nokia and Panasonic were happy to whack their logos on the Catlin Arctic Survey and get some “Green Cred (TM)” out of that one.
Consider what really happened though: some advertising exec at Nokia decided they needed something spiffy to look Green. Some business development manager at Nokia approved a budget. Prince Charles ran around waving a bit. Some young people got enthused and went looking for adventure, took a few measurements that could more easily have been taken by automated probes. They got stuck and got rescued and waved some more for the crowds at home.
At no stage did any of the people involved have any solid understanding of what they were doing, either for science, or for the environment. None of the decision-makers had any knowledge about the issues. Complete disconnect between brain and action.
Sadly, the sponsors are all coming out of this with a successful promotion — they got their brand in front of viewers and they got their green tick, and hey, it’s the thought that counts. This is the kicker… no one cares about what was achieved. No one cares because “image” was the objective.
I mean, if you think that’s silly, imagine trying to sell people heavyweight polypropylene bags (soaked in green paint) with the slogan, “Say NO to plastic!”
That’s what corporate advertising budgets will get for you, stunts and games, fodder for fools.
00
The Catlin team could have prevented a lot of misery and and a rather ungraceful finale had they paid the least attention to the advice given in my book, How to Get Rich Quick with Frauds and Scams.
In the book, I specifically advise not to waste time with scams that rely on cooperating weather.
00
By the way there is a larger reason why corporations spray themselves with rather dreadful coloured green paint.
The reason is fear: They are too cowardly to stand up against the threats of boycotts and other retaliatory actions of hate groups such as Greenpiece.
I really think that such groups have become the KGB of some Western governments.
00
Brian,
You’re only half right: Many companies have painted themselves green because they now fully appreciate how to manipulate laws in order to ensure profits. General Electric’s CEO, just this month, made it clear his company aims to profit immensely through mandates involving the healthcare system, at the behest of the federal US government. Immelt went on a tangent about how capitalism will change, perhaps purposely mistaking socialism as capitalism.
Get rid of the mandates, put a moratorium on those pending, and a whole lot of force-pleasing will go away with, hopefully, some bloated and obselete corporate structures.
00
Thomas Alva Edison – capitalist, inventor, and founder of the General Electric Corporation, would vomit all over the floor if he knew what a manipulative mess GE has become.
00
Tel Wrote:
Well current technologies are such that water removed from the Murray for irrigation is such that that water is unavailable to farmers and fish downstream.
And it is a good idea to try to increase the value of your land, but its value is also tied to climate.
The reason there is no agriculture in the Great Sandy Desert in not that there are no farmers trying to add value to the land, it’s that the climate doesn’t support it. (And there’s no soil, but that’s a medium term function of climate).
So when the climate changes in farmland, it’s not that there’s some greeny saying “hey let’s do nothing with the land”, its the grim reality that without a climate that allows agriculture, there’s nothing that can be done with the land. (That maintains its value).
And farmers are right that reducing emissions won’t revert us to a previous climate. It’s a one way street, because the residency time of atmospheric CO2 is centuries, and even if sequestration technologies become available (and running those economically would require a world market in carbon credits, which looks unlikely at this stage), atmospheric CO2 is in equilibrium with oceanic carbonic acid, and the oceans are ready now to resupply the atmosphere if concentrations drop.
The only question is how much more climate change would you like with that new desert?
And yes, increasing fuel costs will initially increase the cost of the production of food, which may raise the price. (In basic economics what it does is reduce the profit, only reducing supply or increasing demand will raise the price … but Australian farmers are protected from many imports, so probably something in between).
But the economic analysis of climate change has been done, and that’s the cheaper way. Because losing food production to climate change also raises the price of food.
The iron fertilisation experiment has already been carried out on the southern ocean on a smaller scale, by a group including the CSIRO. It wasn’t economic. Doing it on a large scale is dangerous. As dangerous as climate change, because it does the same thing … strongly perturbs biological systems.
And I’m no neo-luddite. We need power generation, we need low carbon emission power generation, and the tested technologies means nuclear and wind in Australia, and we need to increase production to the grid about sevenfold, because we’re going to be moving to electric transport.
I partake in earth hour, because it’s a awareness raising thing, and you can do some kick arse star gazing that night, but I don’t intent to reduce my carbon footprint the required 80-90% to hold the climate steady, by using 80% less power. It has to be generated 80% cleaner.
… And we are centuries away from producing new proteins and recognising their human-biology uses technologically. It’s is way too sophisticated. CJD (the mad cow thinggy), is a normal essential protein that is folded in a way that is pathological and contagious.
Pathological origami of organic molecules. When you can predict all the possible effects like that by modelling a human cell (much less a body), you’ll have the technology to tell the climatic effects in ten years time of flying a kite.
00
Last “Earth Hour” I turned all the lights up and played “It Don’t Mean a Thing” on my hi-fi at full volume.
Nobody in my whole neighbourhood dimmed a thing as far as I could tell.
The only thing I am aware of is the sickness I experience even THINKING about greenie weenies, I don’t know if it is some kind of pathology or not nor do I care.
Nor would I try to cure it if I could. As I see it, SOMEBODY has to balance the extremes of Al Gore, Greenpiece, etc
00
Allow me to resign from this game before it becomes a war of attrition. Hopefully I’ve been able to explain some of the problems of the current Green movement and why they are their own worst enemy.
The Green movement has done a good job of awareness raising. 20 years ago it made sense to encourage environmental awareness, today the awareness is out there, people have heard about Global Warming.. they may not believe what they are told, but they are aware there’s an issue. Next step is intelligence raising, which has been the next step that so many political movements have stumbled on. There seems to be an upper limit on human understanding, presumably because self deception is such a powerful survival advantage.
I’ll finish up with another $5 wager that after ten years Robin you have more questions and less answers, than you do now. I’m happy to let you be the judge of who wins that bet, should we bother to revisit when the time clocks round.
00
I’m sure that Tesla would just nod and say, “Figures.”
00
In chess, a play for the pawns is often a winning strategy.
The Devil knows all the best dance steps, but I feel reluctant to criticize someone who makes the most out of the situation they find themselves in.
00
I’m not so casual about opportunits.
Self-enrichment is one thing and harming the general public in the process is quite another.
If anyone wonders, “isn’t there anyone out there fighting Greenpiece and similar nefarious misery makers?”
– well yes now you know there is at least one individual.
00
Brian et al,
Proudly, I spent the last Earth Hour driving my 1965 Chrysler Newport Convertible powered by a 383HP/727 Torqueflite (automatic). It’s a delightful cruiser, even if it only gets 12 mpg.
Sometime during the summer, I’m going to cruise to Nashville to take what detailed pictures I can of Albert Gore’s palace; then on to Clear Lake to snap his monstrous yacht; finally, I’ll end up in Carthage to see what, if anything, remains of the family estate/rental houses.
Scary to think my family and the Gores share cousins.
00
I won’t hold it agin’ ye.
00
Tel,
Many of the green players are no longer making the most out the situation they find themselves in; they’re creating perceptions, however illusionary, providing solutions to the problems they perceive, then promulgating the rules to ensure their profitability. Albert Gore is one of the masters of such spin and profit, and anyone who’s honest with him/herself should have a problem with such bad behavior.
00
Tel,
One of the greater US Presidents whose statements are now timely and popular is Andrew Jackson. Jackson understood that many of the politicians, lawyers and businessmen in the federal Congress, as well as their aligned friends, wanted a central private bank to help quell the use of foreign specie, to provide for a uniform American currency, and to make themselves filthy stinking rich in the process. Usery and currency were conveniently perceived problems; you know how perceptions are used to make mountains out of mole hills.
Anyway, Jackson was wise to the Congressional philanderers out to exploit us “common” folks, our general lack of knowledge and connections. He said,
“Many of our great men are not content with equal protection and equal privilege, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress.”
In other words, he was calling attention to their conspiracy to enrich themselves by force of law, and he rightfully had a problem with it.
Jackson went on to say,
“I believe just laws can make no distinction between rich and poor, and when men of high standing attempt to trample upon the rights of the weak, they are the fittest objects for example and punishment. The great can protect themselves, but the poor and humble require the arm and shield of the law.”
Think about what Jackson said whenever you hear the hype and dogma spilling from the mouths of Albert Gore, Maurice Strong, Jim Immelt, William Yellowtail, etc. In my opinion, their statements make it clear they’re promulgated the rules for us to live and sacrifice by while they get rich. Rackets are illegal.
00
And more people need to know who would like to have the Government complicit in fraud and grand larceny, David.
I will yell my fool head off wherever and when ever I can about the green slime conspiracy.
So far I have not been allowed to an Al Gore speech.
I am blacklisted – can you believe it – and of course I would use none but my real name to ask for tickets.
HOLY COW is that guy lucky I have never been in his presence before an audience.
Event security would have their hands full that day with me, guaranteed.
00
The last Al Gore speech I attended was October 23, 1992. When I showed up, I was immediately invited to the VIP section by the host’s brother, who happened to be a fellow artist and co-worker. If I didn’t care about him and the aftermath, I would have gladly gone to the VIP section and raised Holy Hades. It would have been a rollicking time!
00
I put it that the general public deserve at least three quarters of what they get. They genuinely believe that handing over self-sovereignty to the alliance of greedy big business and greedy big government will save them, and the only thing that you can do with a genuine believer is let them get on and live with the results.
Then again, they probably say the same about me, so I guess we’ll see where it goes. In another 15 to 20 years we will have a generation of self pitying “Emos” trying to figure out how to stop stabbing themselves long enough to run the world, that’s gonna be fun 🙂
00
Don’t worry, I know my Libertarian scripture too:
– Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England
– Woodrow Wilson
– Benjamin Franklin
But the world is a balance between order and chaos, there’s always power nucleation around some cause of other, and the revolution always gets betrayed. People live hollow lives desperate for something to cling to and the miracles of the Medieval Christ figure seem quaint and embarrassing to a child of the modern age so they cling to something else.
People attracted to the security of authority constantly fret that they world is about to boil into frothing anarchy, people attracted to the sweeping plains of freedom worry about the world freezing into a brick of rigid obedience. I’ll admit it, I do my share of worrying. Getting angry hasn’t helped me yet.
00
Tel #377,
Yer too bitter. Ye diina hae a bit o’sympathy in ye. : )
00
I left one out:
– Jefferson
00
From a consensus of ecoscientists with non-divergent hypothesised theoretical theistic opinions supported by computer models devised where only certain proxy data gathered may be used while considering extremely narrow acceptable outcome based position statements supporting predetermined populous control mechanisms?
00
Quite.
00
PaulM, your two posts on this thread have both been informed and informative, as well as being concise and without ad-hominem.
Thanks for sharing your expertise.
PaulM wrote:
Now I thought that the mechanism for the (much maligned) hot spot was convection taking hot humid tropical air up to the tropopause, and then forming clouds, releasing the heat of condensation of the water.
From that understanding I had thought that models generally do model convection (at least at all), and moreover correctly reproduce Hadley cells, (driven, as they are, by convection).
Does your knowledge of heat transfer extend to understanding of what causes the hot spot in models?
Or how models produce Hadley cells without handling convection? (They do tend to produce them. Googling “climate model” and “Hadley cell” produces (amongst other things) this paper:
Hadley cell bias in climate models linked to extratropical eddy stress, that looks at the Hadley cell strength from 17 models.
00
Brian Valentine Wrote:
The evidence from the spatial and temporal distribution of the warming is indeed thoroughly convincing that it is greenhouse warming.
Although you don’t really need that evidence, because we know from first principles that if you increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas, you increase the greenhouse effect. Ergo we expect a warming.
Measurement by surface stations, ships and buoys confirm the theory’s prediction of warming. So do measurements by radiosonde. So do measurements from satellite.
Perhaps if you could find something in the post that you disagree with, and constructing a sensible argument, you wouldn’t feel so mocked. And condescended.
These general ad-hominems and disinclination (or disability) to construct an argument, (or clarify any technical aspects of arguments you have made) does attract suspicion of whether you are a show-off with no substance to your claims, Mr Ph.D, former, and as far as you know current, adjunct associate professor of engineering at the University of Maryland.
…
00
Robin,
You win. Hands down, you are the mightiest. I acquiesce.
By the way there may be a critical Rayleigh number Ra = GrPr for Hadley cells, in the same way there is a critical Ra for Bénard instability.
00
Hah – I already guessed your next statement
“Wouldn’t the onset involve the Reynold’s number Re of the transverse wind velocity?”
Answer – not necessarily. i think above a certain Re the onset is independent of Re
00
The evidence from the spatial and temporal distribution of the warming is indeed thoroughly convincing that it is greenhouse warming.
– I must have some sort of illness or personality disorder because it isn’t convincing to me
Although you don’t really need that evidence, because we know from first principles that if you increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas, you increase the greenhouse effect. Ergo we expect a warming.
but but but but but but didn’t we agree that @750 ppm of CO2 the expected increase in temp was about 1.3 deg?
Outline a procedure for me to distinguish THAT 1.3 degree increase from ANY RANDOM OR DETERMINATE variation in annual surface temperature increase UNRELATED to the CO2 variation and I assert:
I will say I was completely wrong to be a denier.
00
[ in my dream world, demonstration of the truth content of the contrapositive would complel you to be skeptical
BUT
this is the real world, and if there is one thing I will never have the power to do, is to change people’s minds once they have made up their minds]
00
My conversation with a wheat farmer, driving his lorry truck:
“What to do think of Al Gore and the ‘global warming’ idea?”
“If that ain’t the biggest bunch of [rural slang] I ever heard in my life, then I don’t know what is.”
The man probably never finished elementary school, and even he knows a hoax when he hears it. Plain old common sense is enough for him.
00
Brian,
That’s why the discussion should be shifted away from the co-opted science and toward the vested interests promoting global warming alarmism: Doing so will help restore the reputation of the science, expose the frauds and racketeers, and invigorate genuine environmental pursuits.
00
Had I said,
“Mister Farmer, there’s people who don’t want to see you make a living farming wheat”
the response would probably have been
“you ain’t tellin’ me nothin'”
00
Brian G Valentine Wrote: “By the way there may be a critical Rayleigh number Ra = GrPr for Hadley cells, in the same way there is a critical Ra for Bénard instability.”
Okay.
Can you, as someone who considers themselves an educator, explain what the cause and effects of a Rayleigh number being “critical” are?
00
Brian G Valentine wrote: “Hah – I already guessed your next statement
“Wouldn’t the onset involve the Reynold’s number Re of the transverse wind velocity?”
Answer – not necessarily. i think above a certain Re the onset is independent of Re”
Okay, can you, as someone who considers themselves an educator, explain my next statement.
How is Roynold’s number related to transverse wind velocity and in what was does this affect convection?
00
Brian G Valentine wrote:”- I must have some sort of illness or personality disorder because it isn’t convincing to me”
No. Interestingly enough it is still convincing.
What do you consider to be the cause of the warming over the last 50 years?
00
See if I can make this brief and comprehensible (probably not)
Benard instability will occur in a shallow dish of liquid heated from the bottom, natureal convection (bouyancy) of course will make the liquid rise, gravity, bring it back down.
At a critical Ra, a hexagonal pattern of convection cells will appear. This is the result of surface tension acting to minimize the surface area over which convection occurs, counter balanced by a liquid motion arising from a surface tension gradient (Marangoni effect).
The size of the cell, and onset of Benard instability, is quite independednt of the surface tension of the liquid (within some margin). Evidently the the only thing that needs to be present is some surface tension at all.
Now we may have a similar effect within the atmosphere, with a emperature gradient replacing almost all the influence of gravity in a liquid (hot air rises).
The effect of the transverse shear, replacing the influence of a surface tension gradient that has been identified as a source of transverse motion in a liquid.
Now for the (omega1 + 1 st = omega1)th time, any global effect on temperature (amidst a myriad of others) must be, as Dr Akasafu has stated, the recovery from the LIA,
and any such thing as that, can only be, astronomical of origin
beware the jabberwok!!!!!!
00
Brian G Valentine: “Now we may have a similar effect within the atmosphere, with a emperature gradient replacing almost all the influence of gravity in a liquid (hot air rises).”
How big are these hexagonal cells, in the atmosphere?
How big are they in a shallow dish of liquid of any viscosity?
I don’t understand how a temperature gradient can replace the influence of gravity. Can you (as someone who considers themselves and educator) make that a bit more plain?
Trying to state that more clearly, you think the prime cause of the warming of the last 50 years is galactic cosmic rays seeding less and less clouds?
00
I’m so tired right now, if you have any more questions, you’ll have to ask Sinbad the Sailor or Jinbad the Jailer or Ninbad the Nailer or Binbad the Bailer or Quinbad the Phthailrer or Darkenbad the Bright Dayler
00
Brian G Valentine wrote:”but but but but but but didn’t we agree that @750 ppm of CO2 the expected increase in temp was about 1.3 deg?”
Did we?
I didn’t notice that you’d moved your position from there is no greenhouse effect at all.
Did it happen during the discussion of the highschool experiment?
… but no, the direct effect of CO2 is no the expected increase in temperature. The expected increase in temperature includes the feedbacks that one finds in the climate system.
The effect of 750 ppm CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels is about 4.5°C.
(And a group based at MIT says 9 degrees by 2100 – see: http://www.reuters.com/article/mnCarbonEmissions/idUS148975034620090522)
We agree that the greenhouse effect itself will increase temperatures 1.3°C. But that will lower albedo by melting ice, and increase the greenhouse effect further by evaporating water.
00
Brian G Valentine Wrote:
Well the point is that if the warming were caused by a decrease in planetary albedo by a decrease in cloud cover, the warming would be more in the day and less in the night, increasing the daily temperature range. This is because the temperature drops very rapidly at night if there are no clouds.
This is the opposite to what is observed, a decrease in daily temperature range.
However the decrease is what is predicted by the greenhouse effect, because this slows the rate of cooling.
00
mister barrister, your witness, sir
Ah yes, thank you, my Lord. Some years ago I did consider global diurnal temperature difference decreasing over time to be consistent with a greenhouse effect, and independent of matutinal high temperatures.
The historical record of diurnal temperatures remains spotty however, but more importantly, there are countervailing influences present. To wit:
– Depending upon the emissivity of the surface present, water’s nocturnal evaporation rate from the ever-changing never-changing oceans and lakes may either increase or decrease, the influence of CO2’s radiation overlapping that of water, thereby abating the radiation loss from the liquid’s surface to the blackest of voids beyond, thereby decreasing the evaporation rate.
Globally, the effect would be to decrease nocturnal humidity if in fact nocturnal evaporation were decreased over that without CO2 present in the atmosphere, thereby widening the diurnal temperature difference and mostly independently of matutinal high temperature, the water’s surface temperatures being more dependent upon seasonal than daily variation.
– If not so, the increase of evaporation rate by a temperature increase alone would enhance cloud cover, which is not observed.
By all rights a greenhouse effect must increase average matutinal temperatures globally, there being less radiation loss at night, the heat can go nowhere but the oceans or the atmosphere or the good Earth upon which Joshua stood, and thus far, none of these putative sinks have revealed the hidden or somehow purloined heat.
Council for the defence, Sir …
00
The expected increase in temperature includes the feedbacks that one finds in the climate system.
The expected increase in temperature includes the feedbacks that Robin wants to find in the climate system.
The expected increase in temperature does not include the feedbacks that Brian Gregory Valentine PhD PE believes to be present in the climate system.
00
Come along now, Robin, I don’t wish to be the Last Man Standing.
I want you to be.
00
Whoever stands last, I officially declare Robin the winner, if I may.
Robin thank you, and I am sincere.
You have taught me that I am no educator of anything, if all that I say isn’t crystal clear and sensible.
With all I say in light of that henceforth, I will remember how you strove for complete clarity, for nothing can be conveyed to be understood, if it isn’t presented clearly.
In the words of Boileau,
C’est-te qu’on conçonsois bien
S’announce clairment.
Et les mots pour le dire
Arrivent aisement.
[Arts Poetique]
00
Brian Valentine wrote:
As one of the world’s top economists, and being, as he is, aware of economic in the developing world, from his time as Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank, Professor Stern’s assessments are worth considering.
Your post has no material basis for this ad-hominem on Stern. Do you have one? Or are you merely trying to lower the level of discussion on this thread for its own sake?
00
You are indeed the winner!
Hands down. My cats agree too.
>^. . ^< meow
00
Brian G Valentine wrote:
How many years ago was that?
What changed your mind?
What do you mean by “pretty spotty”. Are you claiming that the diurnal temperature range hasn’t decreased?
What changes the emissivity of the surface of an ocean or lake?
What do you mean by “ever-changing never-changing” oceans?
Why would abating the radiation loss from the surface of the ocean decrease the evaporation rate? Wouldn’t it increase it, by leaving the surface warmer?
Well, except where it actually rains the nocturnal humidity would be very close to the diurnal humidity. Water vapour is resident in the atmosphere for an average of about 10 days, and is not dominated by the last 8 hours of evaporation rate.
The winter to summer temperature range has also decreased; another sign that the culprit is the greenhouse effect.
That’s not right. The increase in temperature also keeps more of the atmospheric water in vapour form. Whether or not we expect more clouds with a higher temperature is complicated and controversial. Observations are not outside the range of expectations.
Yes, that’s what I said. And moreover this is confirmed by observations.
00
aggh
When my daughter was about 2, she used to play the “why” game
When she was about 3 she used to do things like attempt to flush a teddy bear down the toilet and then I would be the one asking “why”
I don’t think either of us of ever received a satisfatory answer to our question “why”
So, let me see if I can give some unsatifactory answers to your questions.
– The Pacific Ocean is the Pacific Ocean is the Pacific Ocean, but last month’s Pacific Ocean isn’t this month’s Pacific Ocean for a number of reasons.
– Surely you don’t think that something like the emissivity of a surface of something like an ocean or lake is a statical property that remains constant for the same body of water, let alone has a unique value that can be assigned to every similar body of water
– By “spotty” I mean, incomplete (or not complete enough to draw global conclusions, anyway).
I think the main stumbling block of what I have written, is as follows:
Water on the ground evaporates into the air, by transferring heat, obviously. The enthalpy of vapourisation that must be supplied to water to evaporate it (at a given temperature of the water) comes from the surroundings, normally.
Suppose that water on the ground is warmer than the surrounding air (ususally the case for a large body of water). Can the water still evaporate? Why yes, certainly, at night, the water radiates heat to outer space, which is at an effective temperature of zero Kelvin (or 2.97 degrees Kelvin, if one needs to be fussy).
Exactly how much heat will be radiated, depends on the emissivity of the surface (among other things).
Within certain bands of radiation, CO2 in the air overlaps the absorptions bands of water. Effectively, there is more water present in the atmosphere – as far as (some of the) rsadiation from surface wtater is concerned.
This, thereby, decreases the radiation loss from the water surface at might, and thereby decreases the evaporation of water from the large body of water.
Then we have less surrounding humidity.
Then we have lower nocturnal temperatures.
The effect of CO2 has been to INCREASE the diurnal temperature difference.
This effect must be small, you think.
Not as small as you think, from what I calculate.
Why has no one reported of this before, you wonder.
Life is filled with things that no one, by any chance, thinks about.
I really have to do a lot of things. Please if you like or anyone else, correspond with me directly
bgvalentine@verizon.net
00
And I want to know if you’re blagging about knowing what you’re talking about.
The answer to your question is yes, most assuredly yes, yes indeed yes, absolutely yes, positively yes, yes I am Yes.
00
Kt x p +
00
Brian G Valentine wrote:
I’m not sure what that is supposed to explain.
Yes, I would have thought that the emissivity of an ocean would be about constant. Certainly I don’t see a mechanism for a trend in ocean emissivity that explains the decrease in diurnal temperature range.
Well, that wouldn’t cause the observed effect. But again I would have thought that the emissivity of a lake would be similar to that of a sea.
That’s what I thought you meant. I was hoping that by asking about it, you would get that I was giving you the opportunity to back up your speculation with some data or references.
Climate scientists seem to draw global conclusions about it. For example:
“Observed reductions in DTR over the last century are large
and unlikely to be due to natural variability alone.” – Diurnal temperature range as an index of global climate change during the twentieth century
So I think that you’re mistaken about it being “spotty” and “incomplete”.
No, other way around. Decreasing the radiation loss leaves the body of water warmer, which increases the evaporation rate.
As so, more humidity, and higher nocturnal temperatures.
Mate, your calculations don’t have the right sign.
Because no one else made such a trivial error?
…
00
Mate, your calculations don’t have the right sign.
Mate, the ocean, and the atmosphere, are what we call “reservoirs” – meaning, that incremental processes of heat addition or removal, small in comparison to the total energy content they contain, leave their temperature
unchanged.
Kt x Q + and mate
00
Brian G Valentine:
No, mate, it’s colder at night.
Sea surface temperature is about 1°C cooler, depending on wind. The atmosphere over land, about an order of magnitude more than that.
By what mechanism do you claim that “decreasing the radiation loss from the surface at [n]ight decreases the evaporation of water”?
00
Brian G Valentine wrote:
Yeah, it sounded like you were blagging.
Well, that explains why the University of Maryland’s Mech Eng. department’s back issues of its newsletter or News archives don’t mention you.
I thought it was a bit strange that you’d never assisted a student PhD never received any award or recognition, never received any funding, never stood in a photo, even of the CEEE projects in which the DOE was a partner to the university, and were left out of the staff lists on all the back issues 2001-2009 that they have online. (http://www.enme.umd.edu/news/newsletter.html)
And your name never appeared in any of the News Archives. (http://www.enme.umd.edu/news/news_archives.php)
I take it you never were an associate professor?
00
Note to self – never again get into any arguments with anonymous global warmers,
They kick, they howl, they accuse, they use the Internet to show the world what frauds other people are when they don’t come out so well in discussions.
Joanne goes through the routine on a daily basis.
Of course I am in a few CEEE group photos, I don’t know if they are still posted on the site or not. I am standing right next to Mike Ohadi in the photos.
Write to Professor Ohadi to ask when and to what status I worked at the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Maryland at College Park.
ohadi@eng.umd.edu
I’ll bet you won’t, because you seem to me a little too cheesey to me to do something like that.
hee hee hee
ha ha ha
hee hee hee hee hee
00
It’s a Great Day for Bananafish!
00
Note to bloggers using their correct name:
DON’T TELL LIES ON THE INTERNET!
You can make yourself look awful that way
00
I’ve been through it a thousand times, it is rather routine for me now
-I’ll make a claim about AGW on the Internet
-Anonymous global warming blogger tells me I’m full of [nonsense]
-I demonstrate otherwise
-Anonymous blogger starts denying, ranting, throwing mud, name calling, and everything else but admit they could be wrong.
Advantages to using one’s authentic name to write on the Internet: Eventually, one earns some regard from the opposition, and the attacks and abuse are toned down. For example, Eli Rabett and Tamino and some others do not attack me in web columns
any more
00
Brian G Valentine wrote:
I was trying to encourage you to answer the questions that I have put to you, rather than generate another red herring to chase for a few posts.
The most current one being: By what mechanism do you claim that “decreasing the radiation loss from the surface at [n]ight decreases the evaporation of water”?
But feel free to answer any of the unanswered above too:
1)Brian Valentine wrote: “Negative, guy. It doesn’t even work in FURNACES, at least, not as how you are interpreting the “greenhouse” effect.”
How should I interpret the greenhouse effect, such that it does work in furnaces?
2)What’s the problem [with validating the PCM by hindcasting], as it stands?
3)Could you explain what you mean by confusing heat capacity with IR absorption [by saying that the greenhouse effect is an absorption spectrum phenomenon], because I don’t think I’m doing that.
4)Brian Valentine wrote: “No, eventually the water condenses someplace, and the heat is dissipated, at longer wavelengths still, wich is absorbed by nothing.”
Why is the heat at longer wavelengths still?
5)Many other people’s calculations yield that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere results in a drop in radiative flux out of the atmosphere of around 3 W/m2, and this is simply wrong?
6)Brian Wrote “the equations of transfer are highly nonlinear in temperature.”
By “non-linear” do you mean not proportional to temperature (but more proportional to it’s fourth power), or do you mean “non-linear” as in the superposition principle doesn’t apply?
7)Brian Wrote “The divergence of any source-free field is zero. CO2 is not a “source” of radiation in the presence of radiation.”
PaulM wrote “Div q = 0 in equilibrium. If div q < 0, things warm up a bit and so increase their heat emission until div q=0 again.”
Why did you need Paul to explain this?
8)Brian Wrote “Okay, take the kernel and the Jacobian of the transformation, and the question becomes irrelevant.”
No, the question was what integral transform are you talking about? It’s still relevant because you’re not yet making sense.
9)The Jacobian returns the tangent plane to something doesn’t it. What does taking the Jacobian of an integral transform even mean?
10)“[Hulme – who you say should know what he’s talking about] says “I am firmly convinced that humans are indeed altering climate worldwide”. Is this also your view?”
11) Do you believe Dr Akasofu that the current warming is due to the “rel position of the Earth’s plane of orbit with respect to the Sun”, or do you believe that the warming is solely attributable to changes in solar irradiance, as per the work of the Royal Danish observatory?
12) Brian wrote “The Earth has not warmed for over a decade”.
The earth has warmed over the last 10 years. What do you mean by “over a decade?”
13) How can you get Bernard instability in the atmosphere? (Given there is no surface tension at the tropopause)
14) Brian wrote “and any such thing as that, can only be, astronomical of origin”
Do you mean that you think that prime cause of the warming of the last 50 years is galactic cosmic rays seeding less and less clouds?
14b) Doesn’t this contradict your claims of 11 that it is entirely changes in solar irradiance, and also due to the “rel position of the Earth’s plane of orbit with respect to the Sun”
14c) Did you notice that you’re explanations of the warming are very inconsistent?
15) What are the values of Nu the difference between which you discuss? (In the tanks of the high-school greenhouse effect experiment.)
15a) Brian wrote: “… it had to do with the thermal conductivity and … not … with heat conduction.”
Had you forgotten what “thermal” means, or were you hoping that I had?
You seem to be very apt at avoiding questions, but as the skeptic’s handbook says “As long as the question you asked doesn’t get resolved, repeat it.” So you’ll probably get these again.
Upon your request, I have emailed Prof. Ohadi. I have also emailed the Payroll/Personnel Coordinator at the Department of Engineering of the University of Maryland with the same question.
For good measure I have also emailed the registrar at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute to confirm that you have a PhD from there.
I will post if any of these people respond.
The only remaining question is over your position at the DOE.
Your CV at linked in makes the claim that you are a “Mgr, Renewables & Environment industry”, whereas the only Brian Valentine on the DOE phone list, is “General Engineer, Office of the Industrial Technology Program” – specifically petroleum technologies.
Now if I emailed Douglas Kaempf (who looks to be your boss, from the phone list), the Program Manager of the Industrial Technologies Program, would he confirm that you are Program manager, energy efficiency and renewable energy, itself two organisational levels above the Industrial Technology Program?
And have been since June 1986? (Or should I refer you to your post 416?)
00
Holy Freakin’ Crap
I could have saved you any time by just emailing my transcript, letter of appointment, etc in the first place
I don’t care who the hell you email Robin, I don’t care what you do, I couldn’t survive if I told lies on the Internet, you seem to survive by being an anonymous (to me) blogger who has set a target on me?
RPI will confirm I am ME 08/1981 and PhD 12/1986
Mike Ohadi will confirm anything I have said
As far as DOE goes, I can email you my personnel folder, if you have the courage to email me with your correct name
Which I will know anyway if you have emailed Mike and have identified yourself
and I am certain, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you are not some little nitwit who would email Mike and try to disguise yourself like you do here
00
Robin, you’re one of the more interesting people who I have become (somewhat) acquainted with.
I am quite flattered, actually, that you have taken so much interest in finding out all you can about me, you are the first, as far as I know, who has probed quite so deeply
(outside of my gov’t background check, and the only thing they know more than you do is my credit report)
Would you like a copy of that?
Be glad to email it to you.
Thanks again for your interest.
Remember: I could not survive if I told lies at all. My credibility wuuld be gone in ten seconds if I did.
00
Technical note about DOE terminolgy
I have been “general engineer” since 06/23/1986 at DOE.
Until a reorg in 2004, all “general engineers” were labelled “program managers” bec that is what they did.
The managers were called Division Directors and Office Directors for each Program office.
Since the reorg the div directors are called “supervisors” and the office director is called “program manager” to conform with changing the name of Office of Industrial Technologies to Industrial Technologies Program
Then the former worker “program managers” became “technology managers” which I am now; but my actual Govt job title is “general engineer”
cripes if this makes a difference to anyone.
DOE is a nice outfit to work for, I am very glad to be there
00
OK now, any or all discussions with Robin – I hereby cease on Joanne’s website, and I will address no more of her questions nor speak to any more of her remarks.
The only way for Robin to communicate any more about anything with me is to email me personally,
bgvalentine@verizon.net
Note: I ignore anonymous or semi-anonymous email.
So Robin cannot claim that I have somehow “written her off” and unilaterally decided to ignore her.
To get back to a more enlightening subject, consider the Earth and the climate system. Of course, the system is approaching a steady state, not an equilibrium, since the Earth is not closed to energy transfer.
Now the entropy of a system is defined away from equilibrium, and there is more than one way to define it.
Above all the second law has to hold for the system, meaning that the entropy of the system, together with the entropy of the surroundings, (i.e., the entropy of the Universe) must increase, at all times, globally –
and the question is, what conditions must hold for the Greenhouse effect so that this condition remains true?
What do you think we’ll find?
00
Does Robin really love Brian? Opposites do attract! Maybe robin wants to be convinced through the gentle art of factual persuasion!
00
So Dallas – do you think there is a local potential defined for the climate sensitivity?
(ref Prigogine and DeFay)
00
Exchanging fluids to produce the desired outcomes?
00
Substituting Brian for Dallas, Brallas, asks Brian a coherent question.
Substituting Dallas for Brian, Dallan, then gets a coherent answer to the question.
00
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
00
You’re too kind.
00
(I had been thinking – Batterham –
No, no, way too young
It will come to me …)
00
I was wondering why everyone assumed Robin was female …. 😉
00
I had assumed she I mean he was a female because of a note Joanne sent to me – asking me to be nice to HER.
I therefore thought – Joanne knows of her I mean him and Robin is a female
Her I mean his picture looks familiar – I can’t place her from where I have seen her before
I mean him
sorry
00
Did anyone go to the 3rd International Conference on Climate Change yesterday? Oh, wait a minute, it’s still 2nd of June in the US – make that “today”?
00
Apparently a comprehensive new Report was released; “Climate Change Reconsidered”:
http://www.nipccreport.org/
Quote from webpage: “In “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals.”
The report is downloadable from the website (8,139 kb), or you can spend $154 and buy the paperback version, AND you can donate to help support complimentary distribution of the report!
00
Yes but briefly.
Look here http://algorelied.com/ for a video of Professor Singer speaking to the press on America’s ETS
Jeg elsker Heartland!!!
00
I have a free copy of NIPCC as a reviewer and will gladly send my free copy to anyone upon request because I have the draught anyway
00
Brian wrote
I’m not convinced that you have any credibility. Certainly the discrepancy between your claims of professorship at the University of Maryland and any mention of you on their staff lists has been noted. And frankly, “as far as I know I still am” is not credible deniability. You’ve not been on the staff there at least since the 2005 METRICS, and there is no evidence of you in the 2001, 2003 or 2004 ones; whereas most professors are at least mentioned as the students that they supervise get their PhDs, even if they aren’t involved in any newsworthy research or projects.
As has the discrepancy between your claims of working in “renewables and the environment” when your job description is general engineer, and your field is petroleum technologies.
To my surprise RPI has confirmed that you have a chemical engineering PhD. A petroleum chemist, then, but a PhD nonetheless.
I feel myself warm considerably. How strange. You must have been doing a convincing imitation of someone who is merely blagging. If you have an education though, there is no need for you to avoid the questions that I have put to you, and there is no reason for you to post statements that are plain wrong such as “∇ · q = 0″ when talking about a warming atmosphere or that thermal conductivity is not to do with heat conduction.
Feel welcome to answer some of the 15 questions above, before raising more regarding thermodynamics.
The sun is exporting stacks of entropy to the rest of the universe, so the 2nd law of thermodynamics, vis. puts not constraints on the entropy of the earth in isolation.
BTW, no confirmation to date of you having been a professor at Maryland University. (Not that my e-mail was the sort of thing that I would imagine Prof Ohadi would prioritize actioning, but maybe he has a interest in supporting the petty online squabbles of his alleged colleague.)
00
second try:
The sun is exporting stacks of entropy to the rest of the universe, so the 2nd law of thermodynamics, vis. puts no constraints on the entropy of the earth in isolation.
00
—–Original Message—–
From: Brian Valentine [mailto:bgvalentine@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:43 PM
To: ‘ohadi@eng.umd.edu’
Subject: Hello Mike
Hello Mike
I haven’t spoken to you in a while, I hope your family is well,
Nowrooz Pirooz!
Nowrroz Mubarack.
Are you still in the Middle East?
Mike someone has been inquiring about my work as adjunct associate professor at UM – possibly named “Robin”.
If you see their message please answer their questions and kindly forward the answer to me
Best
Brian
00
A petroleum chemist?
My PhD thesis was of evaporation, the subject engineering physics, title of my thesis was “Analytic study of evaporation in the interline region”
00
Robin dear I just plain old ain’t answerin’ none o’ yer questions, dear,
I jus’ plain ol’ ain’t!
Die Energie der Welt ein Konstant ist
Die Entropie der Welt sterbt ein Maximum zu.
00
“The sun is exporting stacks of entropy to the rest of the universe.”
Christ, I’m gonna write a book based on THAT one.
00
Robin you don’t have a damned CLUE what you are talking about.
None.
00
—–Original Message—–
From: M. M. Ohadi [mailto:ohadi@umd.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 11:05 PM
To: Brian Valentine; ohadi@eng.umd.edu
Subject: Re: Hello Brian
Hi Brian:
Sure, will do. Where are you these days? Back in the U.S. and the DOE?
Yes, I am still in the Middle East on leave assignment from the U of Maryland.
Rgds
Mike
00
The office of the registrar at RPI said the subject was chemical engineering.
00
ha ha ha
HAH HAH HA HAH HA HAH HA HA
hah ah ha ha ha ha
hah ah ha hah ha ha
00
That was the DEPARTMENT that supervised my thesis
that and the math department
00
Jeg kan IKKE fordroge Robin.
(Only Anne Kit will know what that says)
00
There is one small detail that Robin left open to check
That is, I write PhD PE after my name!
PE menans that I am a Professional Engineer, licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia, United States.
Now for THAT one I can offer a means to confirm directly
(be sure to check box “professional engineer”)
http://www.dpor.virginia.gov/regulantlookup/selection_input.cfm?CFID=6727968&CFTOKEN=20911450
00
I
could
not
survive
if
I
told
lies
on
the
internet
attaching my name to what I write
00
Det kan jeg heller ikke – han er en ubehagelig lille skiderik. Hvor har du laert dansk? Har do boet i Danmark?
00
“du”, not “do”, can’t even spell my own language anymore …
00
Ikke, jeg lært et antal sprogene nemlig en barn nemlig underholdning — og Dansk var sig i den sprogene at jeg lært.
Tak MEGET for lån nemlig al jer lave!
00
You do lie about being a professor at Maryland University. It doesn’t affect your ability to post here. You don’t need credibility or respect for that.
Your claim that you don’t know whether or not you’re a professor at Maryland University is laughable.
Strictly speaking, you should stop using the PE too then. Your license expired in February.
Not that four months is a biggie, but since you claim you couldn’t survive if you told lies on the internet, perhaps you should be careful to not tell them … what with all that non-survival you claim would happen.
00
Mike is away. Mike has been away since I have been in Iraq. I taught courses and PhD students with Mike.
When Mike returns – do you think Mike will ask me to come back?
(answer: not if you have anything to say about it I supppose)
Thamks for reminding me about the $85 renewal + $50 late fee I owe on my license.
I can’t
I just can’t …
I just
can’t
shake this
feeling
that
somehow
for some reason
you
you
you don’t
you don’t like me
00
Better watch out, Robin – people are going to start asking you: if you’re so sceptical about HIM – then why don’t you focus some of your scepticism efforts on the IPCC too?
Answer — Because you have accepted AGW as your religion and you view unbelievers (and proselytisers of disbelief) as frauds who need to be summarily exposed as frauds!
Before they pollute minds!
00
Robin, you didn’t write the following blog anonymously, did you?
(Note: The entry is posted under the anonymous byline “The Insolent Braggart”)
At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers
June 2, 2009, 9:42PM
What is so frustrating about these fools is that they are the politicians and greedy bastards who don’t want a cut in their profits who use bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool who will distort data for a few bucks. The vast majority of the scientific minds in the World agree and understand it’s a very serious problem that can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.
So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events – how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?
00
Link for that story.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers–Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now
I believe the actual comment has been removed from the original blog now. Possibly that blogger realized inciting people to murder others was just a tad too unscientific…
00
Robin, may I note that you have inadvertently accused Dr Ohadi of telling lies
– You stated you wrote to Dr Ohadi
– Dr Ohadi never mentioned any such thing to me about receiving such email
– That means that you have accused Dr Ohadi of telling me a lie, and so Dr Ohadi did in fact receive your message and did not tell me
– Dr Ohadi chose to ignore your message, or never received it through the email for some reason
The probability of the last is very low
You didn’t tell lies about that did you, Robin?
00
I apologise to Robin for being so harsh. No mind was ever changed with harshness.
May I suggest, that personal or personnel differences be better handled off line.
Robin if you question my job with UM, I don’t blame you one bit!
I take it as a compliment that you have the interest to find out.
You could easily have emailed me as I offered, and I would be glad to send you a copy of my letter of appointment from the Provost of June, 1999 appointing me adjunct associate professor of engineering.
That appointment is for good, Robin, there was no time horizon set forth in that letter nor did I receive a notice rescinding that appointment at any time.
Then Joanne’s and everyone else’s time isn’t wasted with you stamping your feet and rattling off accusations and me defending myself using a lot of sarcasm for which I apologise.
Anyway, I can’t reasonably answer your questions about the climate &c here because that will only inspire some more repetitive questioning and no one has any interest of it.
Again I cordially invite you to write to me personally to discuss anything you like.
Eventually, perhaps, we may reach some level of mutual understanding.
00
There are some games that are best won by not playing.
What I see here is a lot of entropy being pointlessly created by playing a game called “Now I have you, you SOB!”
Isn’t the real issue the existence of AWG, its significant, can we do anything about it, and is it worth doing anything about it if we could?
Does the content of a person’s CV have anything to do with the validity of his position on an issue such as AWG?
Do you really destroy an argument about anything by destroying the reputation of the person arguing or by pointing out weaknesses in his personal or even professional life?
Isn’t the only relevant thing with respect to the AWG issue the best evidence available, interpreted without contradiction, in the widest context that is possible to achieve?
Aren’t personalities, their lives, their nose counts, and their emotional pathologies irrelevant to what is true about AWG?
Oh, I know a good harangue relieves anxiety. A successful and sharp put down of another can be soothing for one’s feelings of inadequacy. The exchange of barbs can stimulate the blood to flow faster and relieves boredom. What this has to do with AWG and its possible impact or lack thereof on our future is beyond me.
I suggest we all refer to http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ and start learning how to avoid committing such fallacies. If we did that, we could make much more progress in mutual understanding and speed the solving of the real problems.
00
Brian Wrote:
I am not aware of a more peer-reviewed document than the IPCC reports. The papers upon which they base their statements are well referenced. So the reason for believing any particular point made in the IPCC reports can be explicitly followed through from the research.
For example the estimate of climate sensitivity of about 3°C per doubling of CO2 is based on about 20 papers taking diverse lines of reasoning, that confirm each other’s findings by reaching the same result from independent methodologies. (What is sometimes called in philosophy of science “triangulation in logical space”.)
Your points are the opposite in many ways.
You have different conclusions from the data; that the recent warming is due to changes in solar irradiance, that it is due to the position of the earth’s orbit, and that it can only be astronomical in origin (and in this last point you seem to be referring to cosmic rays).
This is a divergence in logical space, which fails to confirm the results, and moreover shows that most of them must be wrong.
Your claims are not peer reviewed, and, in fact, disagree with the established scientific position. (When I find that my thinking is different from that of the experts in the field, I generally wonder what it is that I’m doing wrong. Most people would be the same.)
Your claims cannot be followed through from any research, and in fact you simply ignore the plethora of questions that your statements have raised.
This is why you attract more scepticism than the IPCC.
00
Different approaches may very well have yielded the same value of the climate sensitivity, but none of them may be correct – if in fact all the approaches applied the same underlying assumptions, which were not true.
That is the approach I have taken, and I will not be the judge of the truth of what I claim, innumerable other people will be.
I am aware as anyone in the difficulty of demonstrating something of that magnitude and I cannot claim that my demonstration will be accepted in any short time.
I’ll agree most would see a claim such as this as crank right now, and I envision the following scenario:
– I submit for publication at least three times, and rejected (real publication not fake “ArXiv” do-it-yourself “publication”)
– Rejected each time
– Finally accepted for publication
– Causes uproar like Gerlich and Tseuschner have done in J Phys B, inviting untoward criticism and counter demonstrations, laughter, and rebuke
– Finally accepted as truth by more than half of the original critics
That’s about the best I can hope for within the span of my lifetime.
You might well dismiss this as the ranting of a fool.
Everybody knew that parity was always conserved in all physical interactions, including weak interactions, and so everybody knew that the theta and tau particles were distinct entities, everybody who thought otherwise was a crank.
C N Yang and T D Lee just didn’t believe it
00
Reactions to what I have written above will range from
“I wish you well in your endeavours”
to
“heh heh heh it doesn’t bother me or anybody else that you’ll waste more of your time doing your crank thing and fall flat on your (face) and I won’t be the first one to laugh”
It is this difference of point of view that makes life interesting
00
People ask me, “Why are you doing this, Valentine? What do you hope to get out of it? Fame? Are you trying to get yourself a high paying job with a right wing think tank or something?”
No. The only “reward” that I’ve earned so far is a lot of abuse and accusations – rather like Robin’s (sorry Robin to use you as an example).
I do it as an attempt to prevent the very bad consequences of “carbon reduction schemes” that will be imposed on those least able to afford them, as well as poor people in poor contries who are going nowhere if carbon law becomes international.
I don’t make a penny from it – can a lot of global warmers make the same claim?
No.
00
Brian G Valentine, You have a lot of supporters watching the global warming tribe as they try to justify their continued bleeding of public cash in these trying times, most of which hark from the private sector who know what it takes to make progress at their own expense! Keep delivering the undesirable facts up to these recalcitrant seeds.
00
Brian et al,
What makes the whole “global warming” and “climate change” context lose credibility is the belligerent disregard for all non-human impacts. Meanwhile, the UN IPCC stance is skewed by tailored surveys and press releases, and the news media is conveniently asleep at the wheel — real journalism died a long time ago.
I am especially thankful for you scientists and others who have committed themselves to seeking the truth. And the truth is the only thing the “global warming” context will achieve is higher costs for us all, making the poor poorer and the already stupid-rich even richer.
It’s insane.
00
Thank you both very much.
I have copied both of your messages onto a sheet of paper and have pinned them to the post board next to my desk
00
Brian G Valentine wrote:
Certainly it doesn’t directly address the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in your posts here. (The ones that aren’t just juvenile).
If you think that, as someone with no published research, and as a petroleum technologies engineer, can suddenly publish a paper on atmospheric physics, that claims petroleum technologies are not harmful, despite all the work done on atmospheric physics over the past 100 years, good luck to you … have you sent off any drafts yet?
But with respect to what you’ve put on this thread, there are two salient points:
1) Your claims that the CO2 greenhouse effect doesn’t exist because of Wood’s work on whether glass stops IR are weak at best.
Your claims that this is not refuted by experiments so common that they do them in high schools around Europe, because the heat retention in the CO2 is due to it’s thermal conductance rather than it’s absorption spectrum does not hold up when we notice that non radiative heat transfer in air (or CO2) in the is dominated by convection.
So, you’re mistaken; CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and a classroom of school kids with a tank full of it can verify this.
2) As to your claims of what else is causing the warming, they are inconsistent. An inconsistent world view is not a scientist’s world view. It shows that you have beliefs that are based on dogma and not on analysis.
And that’s where we’re at. If you think that either of those are wrong, feel free to answer the questions that have been put to you. “I’m not consistent here, but, I’m going to publish a paper … later” is fine for its own sake, but it doesn’t make you any more compelling or credible here.
00
Dallas Beaufort wrote:
What “facts” are you talking about here? (I ask because I’m reading the same posts that you are, and don’t see any facts from Brian).
00
David Walker wrote:
What’s a non-human impact? Is that an impact on a non-human, such as a subantactic ocean community?
Ecologists are writing about this too. Australia has seen dramatic changes to rainfall patterns with climate change, and every ecologist you talk to is talking substantial or total annihilation of almost whatever community that they are studying.
Or is it an impact from a non-human?
Attribution of climate change has certainly not been ignored. The papers referenced in Chapter 9 of the IPCC report are a good starting point, but it is a much researched area.
I don’t understand this. Can you explain how this works to someone with no economics background? I don’t think that the “stupid rich” use less fossil fuels than the poor. Quite the opposite.
00
google – the calling by max igan
00
[yep. Deleted]
00
You sat there and told out-and-out lies on these blog pages, Robin, and anonymous or not – you’ve got all the credibility of dog crap on my shoes.
00
[deleted – comment in reply to deleted insult]
Brian G Valentine:
I think that you are mistaken about this point too, and would like the opportunity to counter this accusation.
What, specifically, have I said that are you claim are “out-and-out lies”?
(Still no response to date, btw, from Prof. Ohadi)
00
[…] Full Story […]
00
george from denver wrote:
The reason why I find conspiracy theories unscientific is because they are not falsifiable. Evidence against is part of the conspiracy, as so the conspiracy just needs to be bigger.
I stopped watching the calling when the voice-over was saying that people who worked out the conspiracy have been eliminated, and the pictures showed the Kennedy assassination.
So alas, I, couldn’t make it to the parts about climate change.
I thought “Foucault’s Pendulum” by Eco was a great novel though.
00
(Still no response to date, btw, from Prof. Ohadi)
Yeah. Dr Ohadi has all your “integrity”, and you can bank on that.
00
So, Robin, get ready – because here it comes – when Dr Ohadi emails any request you made to him – Dr Ohadi is emailing to me whatever he sends to you –
and I am posting that response in full, right on this same column! And whatever name you have chosen for yourself with Dr Ohadi, is the name that’s gonna get associated with you, right here!
00
Robin, you make a very poor Chess player.
You have played a “Queen’s Gambit” – using my queen
00
also known as an own goal
00
Brian Wrote:
Not exactly. A gambit is a sacrifice.
The main question was: What, specifically, have I said that are you claim are “out-and-out lies”?
00
Bye dear.
00
What, specifically, have I said that are you claim are “out-and-out lies”?
00
y’all said ya’s wrote to Dr Ohadi
y’all ‘d never done that honey
never done that honey, never once, an’ y’all knows it.
An’ any mor’ y’all got’ta claim about it […rephrased… ‘lies’.]
00
Emailed Prof. Ohadi, Isabelita S. Brown, Payroll/Personnel Coordinator Department of Engineering at Maryland University, and to the registrar’s office at RPI.
The email to Prof Ohadi has the subject “Dr. Brian G Valentine.”, and was sent Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:47 PM, AEST (UTC+10)
Is that all? When you claimed “out and out lies”, I assumed that you had more than one instance. What with “lies” being plural and all.
00
I should add that I didn’t email your boss, not because I lack the resources, but because I felt that going to someone’s employer is inappropriate.
By the same token, you are welcome to post my email to Prof. Ohadi, and his response if that is okay with him.
You do not have my permission to include in that post my email address.
00
Assuming that he takes the time to respond – and I don’t personally see why he should.
00
You write it to Doctor Ohadi kiddo and it’s MINE kiddo
and I’ll do whatever I damed please with it pal and [edited… essentially – Brian is not going to let you get away with libellous claims and I’m getting bored of it too. – JN]
00
Joanne I extended the olive branch to him/her four times.
Four is enough.
I could do it ten and ten wouldn’t be enough.
00
not because I lack the resources, but because I felt that going to someone’s employer is inappropriate.
I told you that you could enail whoever you wanted to.
If you emailed Mr Kaempf, all he would do is hand it to me.
At which point that email together with your email address would be posted on every single global warming site there is in an English speaking language.
Buddy, that’s what’s going to happen with Dr Ohadi’s letter to you.
00
I learned in elementary school that bullies can’t be “appeased”.
It just can’t be done!
00
Assuming that he takes the time to respond – and I don’t personally see why he should.
Translation: you lied about doing it in the first place.
If MMO saw my name in the subject he would respond at once.
Try it!
er- but now you can’t …
00
Very poor judgment on your part, Robin.
Very very poor.
00
Nearly 500 messages here to bring this thing to this conclusion.
Unbelievable.
Absolutely unbelievable.
00
Brian wrote:[ edited insult ]
I’m not sure to what you are referring, but it needs to be very clear that I have intended nothing to be a threat in any interpretation of the word.
[Robin, you-the-anonymous has accused Brian, with a real career, of lying about his career. That’s libellous, you have no proof except you claim to have emailled a referee who apparently has not recieved it. – You could have CC’d Brian or me in on that email to prove you sent it, but you didn’t do that, so who do we believe on this essentially irrelevant matter? The real name who appears to be doing all he can, or the anonymous poster who has already called him a liar?. – JN]
I don’t feel particularly defamed by your suggestion that I was lying about e-mailing prof Ohadi. I think it is pretty clear from your posts that you don’t actually think that that is a lie. After all you refer to his response as if you believe it will happen.
[Is it possible to defame an internet pseudonym?. – JN]
I am much more concerned about this accusation that I made threats. At no point was that my intention.
When I enter my email into this site, it is given that it will not be published. The reason for this is to cut down on the spam because there are spiders that harvest email addresses on web pages. It is not of particularly high concern, since I am well spam filtered. You still don’t have my okay to post it, but it is certainly not the end of the world if you do.
_____
I came to this thread wondering what the arguments were on the other side, and wondering how long the scientific view could be presented on a denialist site without censorship.
I have been surprised and impressed by what I have found with respect to the latter. Jo has genuinely and actively encouraged my input to the discussion, completely counter to my expectations.
With respect to the former, I am increasingly disappointed.
00
Brian G Valentine wrote:
Not at all. I just suspect that as President and Provost of the Petroleum Institute, Abu Dhabi he might get more emails than he can answer. Clearing up petty online squabbles for an alleged ex-colleague may be important to him. But it’s certainly not mission critical for the Institute.
00
Brian, my expression of support. I am astounded by the tenacity of Robin. I am beginning to wonder if he is one of those “hired hands” on DesmogBlog, getting paid for trying to discredit some of the more visible and better known skeptics. He certainly wouldn’t have much time left in 24 hours to hold down a job, unless the guy never sleeps.
Hell, I think he might me one of those Cyborgs who just keep comin’ at ya, no matter what you throw at them. “Must…find… Sarah … Connor!” “Must… bring …. down … Brian … Valentine”.
Tell us who you are, Robin, that would give YOU more credibility.
00
I posted an inline reply in #495.
Robin: we are not asking for your money. You and others who want ours, have provided no empirical evidence that carbon dioxide makes a significant difference. The ball is in your court. Provide the evidence, and convince us all… We don’t need to censor any scientific comment because we have nothing to hide.
We are the constant target of irrelevant ad hom attacks though, and I censor those (possibly not enough). This is a game of theatre for the weak minded. Those who can’t reason look to see who is winning by judging which side is more confident, which side yells the loudest about accusations of fraud or “Lies!”.
We sceptics don’t play for the audience as well as the DeSmoggy-paid-PR-team and cohort do. We are hampered by our need for evidence (obviously, there are exceptions). We need to improve without lowering ourselves to Team-AGW’s baseless standards.
That’s why more and more I am tempted to chop the baseless ambit claims, the libellous insults from cowards who won’t print their full name. Robin, it’s time you either retract your claim that Brian is not who he says he his, or at least provide your full name.
Brian, at any time, I will delete all the unfounded insults to your real name if you request, since they are libellous, and future employers may google your real name – I leave them up for the moment, so impartial observers can see how delusional the attack dogs of AGW are.
This is pathetic. Robin someonearother is trying to do real damage to a real career, and it serves no purpose for anyone’s understanding of the climate. As well as being irrelevant, do we know if Robin has something to gain? Does his career depend on AGW fraud, or is he just playing this for sport, a teenage sparring match to score ‘points’ in a game of cutting down opponents? He doesn’t have to post his email address, but some identifying information would make this appear honest. (And BTW, it’s easy to avoid spider spam just write “name AT ….com” Humans can read it.)
Robin someonearother is providing good proof that AGW is driven by religious belief in UN-science (pun intended) and illogic.
00
Mike Ohadi is a professor of engineering at University of Maryland.
In 2005 Mike went to UAE to set up the Petroleum Insitute. I went to Iraq.
Mike is still a professor of engineering at UM on leave.
Mike and I have been friends for years, there is no more chance that Mike would neglect or ignore a message about me than there is the sun not coming up tomorrow.
Robin never wrote to Mike in the first place.
It was want of courage.
I know Cathy at the RPI registrar’s office. So I will know more about Robin on Monday.
My life is an open book. Robin’s is not – and there is a reason.
What tha is, I don’t know right now.
00
This is a bully! Pure and simple!
Step 1 of dealing with a bully is to unmask them
00
Hello again everyone.
It seems that a couple of the people here including Jo would like me to do an introduction.
I am Robin Meikle Grant, Sydneysider and amateur skeptic.
If anyone on this thread has an interest in Science and Reason, and finds themselves in Sydney on the first Thursday of the month, come to Sydney sceptics in the pub, look for the guy who looks like the photo here (occasionally with a short beard), and we’ll have a drink and partake in some skeptical discussion. Email me beforehand at RobinMGrantATgmailDOTcom if you would like me to bring my passport.
This month the speaker was Dick Smith and he spoke, perhaps relevantly to this thread about irrational belief. He told about testing people who claimed that they could water divine. He reckons he said to James Randy that “we can’t do this to these people, we’ll destroy their belief in themselves on national television.” James Randy replied “Dick, we won’t change anyone’s beliefs one bit”. And James was right.
(Dick also mentioned that James had told him some time later that “Everyone has irrational beliefs except you and me. And I’m starting to have doubts about you.”)
So you can’t change people’s beliefs. But science advances, funeral by funeral.
I am not a pseudonym, and the reason I didn’t CC anyone on the email to Prof. Ohadi was that said Prof. Ohadi was Brain’s chosen referee, and I did not foresee a problem establishing that I sent the email. I have forwarded it from my sent items to Jo. It is quite honest (as have been all my posts), and includes the URL of this thread by way of explanation.
I did say that Brian lies, but my intent was to point out the circularity of the argument that he must be telling the truth because he uses his name. The argument is fallacious, but I was overreacting to what I interpret as his rudeness. I should have been much more analytical in my language.
I put his name as a search term into all the copies of METRICS I could download, and also into the Maryland University news archive, to no hits. I couldn’t download the 2002 METRICS. He may be mentioned in there.
Jo: I am not asking you or anyone else for any money. I am merely advocating science and reason.
Because it seems to me that I have presented empirical evidence of AGW (and certainly a couple or few papers that the authors consider observational evidence), I think that a good thing to know would be what you would consider sufficient (and sufficiently empirical) evidence of AGW. What experiment or measurement would convince you of AGW?
Anne-Kit Littler: Pleased to meet you. Who are you?
Brian: I didn’t lie, and I am loathe to resend the email again to prof. Ohadi, because I interpret his lack of reply to date that he is busy, but if it will put you at ease, and if you think it wouldn’t irritate him, I will forward another copy and include you as a recipient.
00
Good for you Robin for identifying yourself and your interests. You have a lot to be proud of.
You see – there was no reason to squabble with me in the first place!
All of this could have been avoided by just emailing me personally. Repetitive questioning me would cease because, you would ultimately receive an answer that you could agree or disagree about based on evidence.
When you drag Joanne in then you start setting me off because Joanne has nothing to do with it.
I am always open to discussion, but not in the open if it is going nowhere.
00
I can confirm that Robin has forwarded those emails to me.
Thank you for your honesty Robin.
Robin if you would vote for an ETS you are asking me to spend money (and every man women, child and homeless hobo). Therefore, all of those who wish to make forced carbon reduction a reality – written into law and enforced by armed police, ought to be able to say ‘why’. Why should we reduce carbon dioxide? Why are we so sure it changes our climate significantly.
There has never been a time in Earths history when temperatures are shown to have responded significantly to carbon.
I have not seen observable evidence on this thread or anywhere else that carbon is now or has ever caused global warming. Not in ice cores, formanifera, sediments, glacier movements, modern thermometers; not from the last 100, 1000, 1 million or 1 billion years. If you have posted something like that, I must have missed it. I have already written about ‘evidence’ http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/30/what-is-evidence/ and
also here in the comments 9 and 12 … http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/30/agw-is-a-religion/.
“if we had found the hot spot; if global temperatures were rising; if the ice cores showed carbon leads temperature… then I’d be a Pro AGW person again.
If rises and falls in CO2 matched turning points in global temperatures (not just a single rising slope) I’d find that convincing.
Robin, are you happy to trust argument by authority? Is that why you want to know if Brian’s credentials are legit?
00
There has become a mind set of AGW enthusiasts that sceptics are frauds, somehow, and all one needs to do to at least silence them is to dig deeply enough about them, find information they don’t want public, and make it public.
I have been through it before, and the technique doesn’t work.
Obviously I would not become a very very very public sceptical figure if there were things I didn’t want public, nor would I offer facts about myself that could easily be disproved.
No one would have heard any more from me long ago.
00
By way of introduction of Mrs Littler by herself, I might add that Mrs Littler is a consultant to the Government for international affairs, a writer, and an example of discourse and polemics I haven’t but should have followed.
00
Jo wrote: Robin if you would vote for an ETS you are asking me to spend money (and every man women, child and homeless hobo).
I’m not advocating an ETS, nor any particular action, because my economics is weak. I have taken an interest in the physical scientific basis of AGW, and I am advocating that.
Jo wrote: There has never been a time in Earths history when temperatures are shown to have responded significantly to carbon.
Okay. My position is that that’s not true. I know from a podcast that I can’t currently find that the earth’s past climate is understood almost exclusively in terms of CO2. The iceball earth is argued about almost solely in terms of CO2, ice ages (in the more formal meaning of the term, that there are ice caps at both poles) are considered to be caused by vast upthrusts of mountain ranges allowing CO2 to be depleted by weathering. The Andes ice age is on the geological record, and the current ice age is attributed to the Himalayas.
This really quite pervasive understanding of long term climate as deeply tied to CO2 is fundamental to the theoretical basis behind papers that I have linked to before on this thread, such as Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years.
Of what basis are we abandoning this scientific understanding?
Jo wrote: “if we had found the hot spot; if global temperatures were rising; if the ice cores showed carbon leads temperature… then I’d be a Pro AGW person again.”
Any of them or all of them?
1) if we had found the hot spot.
I’m curious that the hot spot is there. You are broadly against all forms of climate modelling as any evidence whatsoever. Yet the only reason we expect a hot spot (once the steady state is reached) is from models.
How would you answer an accusation that you are cherry-picking, in that you accept no evidence of global warming from models, but your first and foremost evidence against global warming is from models?
2) if global temperatures were rising.
Okay how much, and over what time period would be sufficient? We know from 1998 that a good El Nino will raise temperatures 0.2°C above the background trend, so we’d need a time period over which the warming dominates that. And we should take a whole number of sunspot cycles, for obvious reasons. Two sunspot cycles is only about 0.2°C at current warming rates.
Would a global warming over three sunspot cycles, significant to a 99% CI be sufficient to convince you of AGW?
3) If the ice cores showed carbon leads temperature.
It does in some cases, such as the end of the younger dryas. But the glacial/interglacial cycle is periodic, and set off by Milanković cycles, which are determined by the beat between periodic variations in the earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession.
I am not aware of any scientist suggesting that CO2 and not Milanković cycles cause the glaciation cycle, and Milanković cycles are certainly not incompatible with CO2 being a greenhouse gas with a climate sensitivity of about 3°C.
Jo wrote: “If rises and falls in CO2 matched turning points in global temperatures (not just a single rising slope) I’d find that convincing.”
On what time scale? Are we talking ice cores again here?
For some authorities. I don’t need to check for myself that Parity is not conserved in Beta decay, because I know that it was proposed to explain the various decays of strange mesons, that it was experimentally confirmed by Wu et al, and was confirmed immediately by Garwin et al, and has become part of our understanding of physics.
By the same token, most papers published in peer reviewed journals end up being refuted. So it is not sufficient to be an authority. It has to be reproduced and confirmed.
The flip side is the stronger discriminator. Some sources are just rubbish and not worth my time reading.
Brian used the unpolluted argument by authority in post 401: “The expected increase in temperature includes the feedbacks that one finds in the climate system.
The expected increase in temperature includes the feedbacks that Robin wants to find in the climate system.
The expected increase in temperature does not include the feedbacks that Brian Gregory Valentine PhD PE believes to be present in the climate system.”
It’s not that I think that a PhD is sufficient authority to accept (nor a single peer reviewed paper), but that no PhD is sufficient refutation of such an argument by authority. (And I did not expect to learn that he has one).
00
And vice-versa.
That’s not obvious.
00
For my part, the forum is much better if it involves the evidence base discussion. It seems the greater part of its value.
Perhaps you can understand why I’m probably not going to email you privately, except perhaps regarding UM and Prof. Ohadi.
I came here seeking a better idea of what climate-skeptics thought, (and their censorship policy … again kudos to Joanne). The view that there is no greenhouse effect whatsoever is not mainstream, even amongst climate-skeptics.
I want to read up about different kinds of Cosmic Rays, and I want to revisit the temperature profiles section of chapter 9 of the IPCC WG1 report (the hot spot argument) because these are commonly mentioned points.
Less mentioned points, such as there is no greenhouse effect, or that global warming is good for the world, (Or that biodiversity is not good for the world), are a lower priority.
00
I know from a podcast that I can’t currently find that the earth’s past climate is understood almost exclusively in terms of CO2.
Argument by the way of “podcast”. A new one.
Think about how silly that statement is, Robin.
Of COURSE you’re aware that the Earth’s orbit is an ellipse, for which there a number of factors influence the precession of the node and the obliquity of the apparent ecliptic.
The geological record IS the astronomical record, and many of the perturbations of the Earth’s orbit have been identified in the geological record, so as to identify the corresponding astronomical influence.
Geology has been a science since the 1860’s or so. Don’t you think that if CO2 was the influence of historical climate, then the formation of carbonate deposits &c would have identified such a thing long ago?
People, in their very brief spans of time on the Earth, tend to forget that a million years of geologic time is nothing, it is ten complete astronomical cycles, so as far as the Earth is concerned, that is like the passing of ten seasons.
00
Perhaps someone here nearer the field recalls the paper. The author was discussing her work in which particular ice ages were attributed to CO2 depletion due to weathering of mountain ranges being upthrust at the time.
Key with respect to the current discussion was not that the author was looking at why the CO2 was low, which was known because the temperature was low.
The paper might be up on google scholar by now. I’ll see if my google-fu is strong enough to locate it.
00
If CO2 is the cause of ice ages then – is there any present need for concern?
That is, if we cut back CO2 from fossil fuels, and the ocean resorbs CO2 of the air, and plant life flourishes – then do we doom ourselves to an ice age?
If so, then I’m all for using fossil fuel!
Burn, Baby, burn.
Have you ever read anything by Emmanuel Velikovsky?
I tried reading “Worlds in Collision” about forty years ago now.
I previously held that to be the standard of “preposterous” – and I now have a new one
00
[Right here, Brian added his own editorial comment and deleted it to save Joanne the effort]
00
In the past, I would be waiting (with baited breath) for the inevitable abuse and slander to appear following remarks I make.
Now we KNOW that the next reponses from Robin aren’t going to look like that any more; they will be clear, address the issue to hand and in a coherent manner, explain why Robin’s claims are not preposterous.
00
Thank you, Robin! Now that wasn’t so hard, was it? I swear your tone even lightened up after you threw off your mask and revealed your identity! I think a name is even a more personal thing than a photograph. We can now have a mental picture of you as a real person living and breathing in Sydney, going about your daily business and meeting with likeminded people as you describe. We still agree to disagree, of course!
I thank Brian for that marvellous description of my work; I am flattered, however I fear the truth is slightly more pedestrian. I am indeed working for the (State) Government in Western Australia, more specifically for one Member of Parliament, and I am his Researcher. I peruse the papers for items of interest, write speeches and press releases, backgrounders and briefs and do research on all and sundry topics, as required.
Had you visited any of the other threads on this blog you would have already been aware of this, but alas your focus has been rather one-eyed …
I am not a scientist, I have a degree in Languages (Spanish and English) from the Copenhagen Business School – where the notorious/famous (depending on where you’re sitting) Bjorn Lomborg teaches Economics and Statistics. I have to say I predate his tenure, though …
Even though I am not scientifically minded (my 15-year old son IS, he actually understands some of the equations etc. posted here and is – sometimes – able to explain them to his science-challenged mum) I consider myself of above average intelligence and can spot a scam when I find it. One of the things that strikes me as suspicious about the AGW camp is their apparent total agreement about every aspect of the science. That’s the sort of thing you see when witnesses lie in court: their stories match in every little detail, and even their wording is identical. I smell a rat!
The skeptical side has been cited as not being able to agree about anything, and that is supposed to prove the invalidity of their arguments. I beg to differ on that: As far as I understand, trying to get a room full scientists and boffins to agree on something is a bit like trying to herd cats … I would have thought this behaviour on the part of the skeptics actually lend them MORE credibility, not LESS!
00
BTW, CJ from West Wing is my hero! 🙂
00
I thought your husband was your hero, Mrs Littler.
: )
00
Well, he’s my real life hero! CJ’s my “wannabe” hero…
00
You mean, “fictional” hero, if you don’t mind if I correct you a little.
00
[…] postal rates fall now? Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges __________________ ~Paradox "In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary […]
00
[…] Posted by Paradox Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges __________________ Get active. Respond. […]
00
I actually meant that I “wannabe” like her … she’s so smart, knowledgeable and unflappable under pressure!
00
Robin wrote essentially [ lots of examples of where people think a major climactic event was due to carbon …] “Of what basis are we abandoning this scientific understanding?”
Look at a graph of the last 500 millions years. There is no correlation.
The first 20ppm of CO2 has most of the effect. After that, all the other theories about CO2 release haven’t stood up to closer scrutiny or they remain conjecture.
Robin ” I’m curious that the hot spot is there. “
I’m curious that you think these two graphs look the same?
http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/26/the-missing-hotspot/
Robin “You are broadly against all forms of climate modelling as any evidence whatsoever. Yet the only reason we expect a hot spot (once the steady state is reached) is from models. How would you answer an accusation that you are cherry-picking, ..”
Not even close. If there was empirical evidence, I’d look at that. Since there is none, the only thing anyone can offer is models. For all their flaws, if the important real world data match the critical parts of the models, I’d be concerned, even if the models still don’t count as empirical evidence, I would consider them to be pointers of a line of reasoning that could be true. Since the models rely on positive feedback from water vapor and there is no hint that that is happening. That rules out 2/3rds of the warming.
I’m not cherry picking, I’m giving the AGW theory an extra chance, beyond observable evidence, and it fails there too.
Robin “Would a global warming over three sunspot cycles, significant to a 99% CI be sufficient to convince you of AGW?”
Read Svensmarks book The Chilling Stars. It’s just a theory like AGW – but it describes a fit with earths history going back 2 billion years. It’s not proven. And if it is real it’s not the only factor driving the climate. ’30 years’ is neither here nor there. The sunspot data combined with PDO data much better explains turning points in temperatures over the last 150 years.
IF CO2 mattered we’d see correlations in lots of places over the last 500 million years.
3) If the ice cores showed carbon leads temperature.
Jo wrote: “If rises and falls in CO2 matched turning points in global temperatures (not just a single rising slope) I’d find that convincing.”
Robin: “On what time scale? Are we talking ice cores again here?”
For the last 50 years where Co2 rises monotonically, and temperature does all kinds of things. Down, up Down. Also for the part of the ice core graphs where its “not-the-upturn” and “not-the-downturn” but where the lines match for the middle straight bit!
00
Robin, Empirical observations recording solar activity and its effects on this planet produced by Australian long range weather forecasters would be a good starting point, if you can get past the politically correct gatekeepers holding the keys. Try the Bureau of Meteorology and Indigo Jones RIP…
00
Seems to me you already are, Mrs Littler!
00
Bye bye Hot Spot.
Bye bye CO2 in ice cores proves CO2 caused climate change, ever
Bye Bye AGW for good.
Won’t miss you one bit.
00
Brian G Valentine wrote:
Would you like to do an exercise?
I’ll count up all the posts in which you are abusive and libellous, and you count up mine, well discuss which ones aren’t libellous, because they’re factual, and see who ends up with the larger number.
Brian G Valentine wrote:
Would you like to do another exercise. I’ll count up your posts that make no mention of the issue at hand, you count up mine, and we’ll see who ends up with the larger number.
I am not a paleogeologist, but when I hear about paleogeology (such as the interview about the Uplift-Weathering Hypothesis that I listened to), they are talking about how CO2 changed to affect the climate not whether it affected the climate.
00
The interpretation from a Geologist in my family is that Velikovsky and von Däniken both suffered from not having known about plate tectonics.
But generally theory peddled straight to the media (or politicians) is not going to be that great.
If you have a paradigm shifting understanding, you need to take it to the scientific conferences and to the scientific journals first. Then, once you’ve convinced the scientists, you take it to the government for it’s policy implications.
The line that all the scientists are wrong (and colluding against an idea because of idealism or their employment prospects) is trying to do an end run around the scientific process. To my knowledge this is always associated with pseudoscience.
The creationist movement in America is trying to get ID into schools without going through the scientific community, and the global warming skepticism movement is trying to get their ideas into parliaments around the world without going through the scientific community.
As Velikovsky published to the public, rather than the scientific community, perhaps because his conclusions were so highly fanciful.
00
GOSH Robin you’re the greatest I couldn’t possibly approach you in any debate whatsoever you’re tops and you have impressed my greatly and no not all of what you said has benen factual in fact you have made a number of claims that bore no semblance to truth and don’t you find it odd that mountain ranges are associated with the thickest known crust of any regions of the Earth and do you think that is consistent with this weather uplift hypothesis and it is strange indeed that the authors suggest that the Earth would be frozen over if all the CO2 were taken out of the air but didn’t an oxidizing atmosphere appear after life began on Earth and how could that have happened if the Earth was frozen over and this is the last response from me that you will see because i am not going to open this particular column anymore and i rather suspect you won’t miss you dialogues with me one bit
00
Joanne Wrote:
Are we looking at the same graph?
The proxies for temperature match the CO2 concentration at a climate sensitivity of 2.8 pretty well, except for a patch of a few tens of millions of years about 200 million years ago. (When the climate sensitivity seems to be higher than that).
The authors “conclude that a climate sensitivity greater than 1.5°C has probably been a robust feature of the Earth’s climate system over the past 420 million years, regardless of temporal scaling.” based on a more sophisticated sensitivity analysis than looking at the graph. On what basis are we abandoning this scientific understanding, and that of all the other papers about climate sensitivity?
Joanne Wrote:
You misunderstand. I’m curious the hot spot is on your list of things that would find sufficient evidence.
I think that the interesting think about temperature profiles is the confirmed prediction of a cooling stratosphere under greenhouse warming.
My understanding is certainly limited, but I think that the hotspot is caused by condensation in a Hadley Cell, and the release of the latent heat of vaporisation. The reason that the spot doesn’t occur strongly in the other forcings than the greenhouse gas one, is that these graphs are of the 1890-1999 temperature differences. Greenhouse gas forcing is by far the strongest forcing.
If any of the others were of comparable strength, the increase in the Hadley cells would be as apparent on those too.
So the missing hot spot says nothing about greenhouse warming, it says about warming in general, and since we know from temperature records that the world has warmed since 1890, the incorrect modelling of the vertical temperature profile is interesting, but not more so than the incorrect size of the El-Nino or the windspeeds and rainfall in the tropics.
You seem very focussed on this shortcoming of current models that is esoteric, difficult to confirm by measurement and certainly not telling with respect to the attribution of warming to a particular cause. Plus a fairly deep consequence of modelling, which seems inconsistent with your position on climate modelling in areas in which they do produce clear and consistent information.
Joanne Wrote:
Models don’t rely on positive feedback from water-vapour, they show that it will happen, which is the opposite.
What do you mean there is no hint that that is happening? Are you claiming that increased temperature doesn’t increase the water vapour in the atmosphere. Certainly it increased the amount that can be held at 100% humidity, and the evaporation rate, so I had not heard that this doesn’t increase the water vapour in the atmosphere.
Can you point me to where this information comes from? It is genuinely new to me.
Joanne Wrote:
If you want to give AGW an extra chance from climate models, a better place to focus would be the attribution studies such as Meehl et al. (linked above a few times), that show that the current warming is from human activity, by looking at how the climate responds individually to greenhouse forcing, volcanic forcing, forcing for changes in solar irradiance, to sulphate forcing (which is negative), and to the other processes that it is possible to model to date.
Sure they get stuff wrong on a regional level, (including if those regions are vertical), but the global averages from models are a remarkably good fit to surface temperatures, so the overall energy balance and cloud cover and humidity and wind speed effects shouldn’t be discarded, even if the nature of a chaotic system means that zooming in on the tropopause or Yorke Peninsula produces less reliable results.
Joanne Wrote:
I’m probably not going to be able to fit that in Jo, but I’ll keep it in mind.
However you have said that if it were warming you would accept AGW. The 33 years since 1976 is a whole number of sunspot cycles, and is a reasonable amount of time in which a 0.1 to 0.2 °C per century would probably be visible over the random variations.
If it could be shown that there was warming over this time period, would you accept AGW?
To how high a confidence would the presence of that warming need to be shown? 95%? 99%? 99.999?
Joanne Wrote:
There are certainly effects other than CO2 that have caused rises and falls in global temperature over the past 50 years. Are you saying that for this piece of evidence to be convincing, you would need to be shown that over the last 50 years, not only has CO2 been contributing to the rise in temperature, but that other effects, such as sulphate forcing, and the El-Nino have no effect as well?
00
Brian wrote:
Thanks for that insightful and coherent response again Brain.
Again this is a long way from my field, but I can’t see any reason why a thick crust under mountain ranges would be inconsistent with the uplift-weathering hypothesis. Neither are arguments about a snowball earth 850 to 542 million years ago new to paleogeology. (Until CO2 released from volcanic activity accumulated enough to bush back the ice).
The last I heard, some guys at the University of Toronto thought that there were ice free seas in the tropics. (see: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/12/06/2111168.htm)
There was certainly a very intense glaciation, which, as you so succinctly point out, would be expected at that time.
00
“Models don’t rely on positive feedback from water-vapour, they show that it will happen, which is the opposite.”
Forgive me Robin. I can’t get past this sentence. Do you believe that the models ARE the planetary climate? Hate to break it to you, but the models are a mere guesswork approximation of what might happen.
The models SHOW that if you assume that humidity will rise and cloud cover will not increase in lower layers that co2 induced heating will cause more water vapor feedback.
They do not show that this happens.
Only measurements of real temperatures or real cloud cover can do that.
00
No, I don’t believe that models ARE the planetary climate.
But the fact that water vapour yields a positive feedback is an output, not an input into a climate model.
It is not relied upon, it is shown.
I think that modern models are much nearer the fundamentals than that. You don’t assume that humidity will rise and cloud cover will not increase … you assume that the evaporation rate from a ocean or soil with a certain water content will be a the function of wind speed, temperature and humidity that it is in the lab, and that convection and radiation behave as they behave, and the model shows you that the humidity will increase.
Measurements of temperature profiles and humidity profiles in conjunction with cloud cover profiles will eventually also give you information about how they interact. (Not a cheap dataset to accurately collect). But that won’t give you the attribution of the increase in humidity to temperature increase. You need the theory too.
Models help. For instance they show that greenhouse warming cools the stratosphere, whereas solar warming warms the stratosphere. So you go an measure the temperature of the stratosphere, and it has cooled.
And you can say, good. That’s what we thought. Not the Sun then.
00
And, you’re saying that water vapour content in air doesn’t increase with increasing temperature?
That still seems very counter-intuitive to me. Is there something I can read about that?
00
Robin, this topic is so important it’s worth a separate blog posting. I’ve done diagrams, and will do a posting to explain it all.
For now:
1. The models ASSUME positive feedback from clouds and water vapor. There is no evidence that suggests the models are right.
2. I didn’t say nuthin’ ’bout the Sun.
Don’t assume that solar irradiance is the only solar factor. Solar magnetic effects theoretically (and there is correlative evidence) would be in the trophosphere (through cloud cover changes).
Water vapor can increase and dang, confound everything by condensing into a low cloud (cooling us), a high cloud (warming) or a wet rainy day. They can do all three of the above, change their mind, drop out of the sky entirely, or hang around for days. Models don’t know, they just ‘reckon’.
00
Okay.
1. My position is that models do not ASSUME (nor even always find) positive feedback from clouds. I believe that some clouds have a negative feedback.
2. Models have hydrology from first principles. The FIND that (global mean) water vapour concentration increases with increasing temperature.
3. In the mean time, what of the evidence that you would accept for AGW, especially the temperature increase one, because I think I can provide that.
4. Plus why focus on the hot spot? It is esoteric, difficult to confirm or refute by measurement, only one of several aspects where climate models are out, and doesn’t have any relationship to greenhouse warming compared with any other warming.
5. Do you actually require that CO2 is the sole cause of temperature variation? Because the cooling in the 60s was largely due to sulphate forcing, and the solar cycle and ENSO has a visible influence too.
00
Thanks for the useful info. It’s so interesting
00
I added numbers Robin. It makes this faster.
1. “Your position” is nice, but not convincing. I want evidence.
2. ” . The models dont’ FIND anything. They ‘predict’ (and badly).
The difference between ‘finding’ and ‘predicting’ is like the difference between having $100, and having monopoly money. One is real, and one pretends.
3. Can you make this a whole sentence? Specify ‘the temperature increase’, please.
4. So you admit the models are not quite right on this?
Look at the graphs. Read the text. The models predict greenhouse warming will do something that thermometers don’t even come close to finding. The whole theory fails. This is not just an optional extra. There is no tweaking this one.
5. Do you feel the need to rehash my statements into lines that bear no resemblance of what I’ve said? Think about my use of the words ‘major’ and ‘minor’.
00
Joanne Nova wrote:
Well we were in the process of discussing this when you posted “Robin, this topic is so important it’s worth a separate blog posting. I’ve done diagrams, and will do a posting to explain it all.”
I am more than happy to continue to take it up here, if that’s what you now want.
My last point was: “But the fact that water vapour yields a positive feedback is an output, not an input into a climate model.
It is not relied upon, it is shown.”
And this is the point that I am trying to make, and perhaps in context you see what I am saying by the use of the word “shown”. Your claim was that “models rely on positive feedback from water vapor” (post 522).
The only thing that I am saying here is that this is wrong. Water vapour feedback is a output, not an input into a climate model. (Which is to say that it is not assumed).
So you’re losing track of the point in this semantical discussion about “finding” and “predicting” and monopoly money. It doesn’t matter which word you use, because they both correctly mean that the model’s outputs and not inputs are water vapour feedback.
Joanne Nova wrote:
Okay, you may recall the frame from which we stepped into discussing GCMs was I was trying to get you to specify what evidence you would find sufficient and sufficiently empirical to convince you of AGW.
You gave three answers. The middle one was if there was a temperature increase. This is interesting because I think that there has been a temperature increase. I’ve tried to specify over what time, and I think that three sunspot cycles is good. (Which takes us to 1976, the beginning of the sunspot cycle three cycles ago), because this is the shortest time over which events such as the El-Nino would not dominate, while still being a whole number of sunspot cycles.
As to “the temperature increase”, it needs to be you who specifies it, because it’s your standard of proof.
That’s what you took from that post?
Did you engage at all with the bit about there being other things that models don’t get correct spatially? That it is global climate that models do very well? That the hot spot is not a discriminator between greenhouse warming and any other warming that causes air to warm near the ground in the tropics? That this is a esoteric effect, and that the reason that it is missing could easily be due to difficulty measuring it? (Or that it is not yet in the steady state)
Or weather stations in the tropics (with respect to the Hadley Centre Model at least). You don’t claim that the whole theory doesn’t fail because of those. Why a temperature near the tropopause that it is difficult to get a radiosonde to, and whose height is changing due to global warming, so it’s difficult to tell if the radiosonde is in the right place.
And my understanding is that its not the whole truth to say “The models predict greenhouse warming will do something that thermometers don’t even come close to finding.” The hotspot is caused by warming. It you want to know if there’s been warming, there’s plenty of evidence from ground based thermometers.
But I digress; I was asking about what you would need to believe AGW, not trying to impose editorial comment on them. You need stronger evidence of the hotspot, or (one presumes) understanding reproducible in the models that it shouldn’t be there.
One of those will be forthcoming at some point.
I feel the need to wonder if your understanding of what you’ve said is the same as mine.
You’ve said: “If rises and falls in CO2 matched turning points in global temperatures (not just a single rising slope) I’d find that convincing.”
And by way of explanation you’ve said: “For the last 50 years where Co2 rises monotonically, and temperature does all kinds of things. Down, up Down. Also for the part of the ice core graphs where its “not-the-upturn” and “not-the-downturn” but where the lines match for the middle straight bit!”
Which means that you don’t believe that CO2 is causing a warming because of the rises and falls in temperature over the last 50 years.
So it does look like you’re saying that CO2 has to be the only cause of temperature variation. (Or at least all other causes are so minor so as not to disturb the monthly 0.001°C rise attributable to AGW).
What am I misunderstanding?
00
“The net scientific use of this article is nil. This is a straw-man argument at best, which does not refute the decades of scientific data, research and findings of this very real phenomenon.”
Really? A “real” phenomenon? While I’ll admit that there _may_ be global warming (although, where I live, it’s been quite a bit colder in recent years), the idea that it is man-made is absurd. Scientists are observing global warming on MARS. You really think it’s us causing it here? It couldn’t _possibly_ be that the sun (which is over 300,000 times the mass of earth) could have gotten a tiny bit hotter? Because, again, there’s global warming on Mars, and I’m PRETTY SURE there hasn’t been a whole lot of pollution going on there. Seriously, this whole liberal agenda is pissing me off. Go learn some facts, I’m sick of hearing the same BS from the same brainwashed Obama zombies.
00
I would be very interested in this theory, in particular I’d be interested in an explanation as to why the ice ages come at a mostly-regular cycle of 100k years, which is known to be present at least in the recent million years or so (but there is evidence that ice ages did not occur in the early history of earth, and people are still arguing about exactly how many ice ages there have been).
The Milankovitch Cycle of eccentricity in Earth’s orbit is something like 100k years, which does at least suggest a possible cause for that particular cyclic period. Is there anything inside the earth that exhibits a 100k period?
00
Dave wrote
Why is it absurd that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses might increase the greenhouse effect?
No. The cooling of the upper atmosphere is a clear sign that the warming on earth is caused by more heat being trapped in the troposphere, and not more heat coming in from above.
So is the fact that the temperatures have increased more at night and winter than day and summer. The sun warms things when it’s shining.
The increase in sublimation at Mar’s south pole is not clearly a global phenomenon. Those papers that did call it global have attributed it to dust-albedo feedback, not increase in solar irradiance.
Right back at you.
00
Tel wrote
The link in my post 526 is a good starting point to find out more about the uplift-weathering hypothesis. I can’t find the interview I was listening to.
We are talking on a much larger time scale than 100k year glaciations here, so I use “Ice age” in it’s more original (and, frankly, correct) meaning, those ages in which there are significant ice sheets in both hemispheres.
Since Antarctica and Greenland have ice sheets a few to several kilometres thick, we are in an ice age, and have been since about the time of the closing of the panama isthmus, and the formation of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere about 2.58 million years ago.
The often called (even in the scientific literature, although not generally by geologists) “ice ages” that are the 100k year glaciations caused by Milankovic cycles are a different animal.
00
My God, he was fast with a six-shooter
powpowpowpowpowonetwothreefourfivedeniersjustlikethat
00
I followed through some of that, it’s kind of piecemeal and difficult to get a picture of how it fits together. I’d like a timeline with major tectonic events against major CO2 and temperature events to see the correlation.
OK, sorry for the confusion.
I can well appreciate that adding a major mountain range would have far reaching results. However, there’s a large number of possible cause and effect linkages (e.g. rainfall, air currents, reflective effects of snow & ice, as well as CO2), furthermore the million-year timescale is also the one with the least available measured evidence (pretty much marine sediment and a bit of surface geological data) implying that the chance of reliably disentangling all those components of cause and effect is weak.
00
Tel wrote:
Yes. That would be interesting.
Again, I don’t know probably less than you about geology. It only caught my memory because the CO2 – Temperature link wasn’t questioned in this field either.
Tel wrote:
Not at all. The term “ice age” is used for glaciations in papers about ice cores, so it has taken that meaning too.
Sure.
00
Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges | JoNova…
Okazuje się, że temperatura globalna jest ściśle powiązana z cenami znaczków Poczty USA……
00
Robin, right on!
Nice to see a voice of reason and intellect. These morons would rather deny a very clear relationship, so they don’t have deal with it.
00
Jo, why don’t you go slam down a few tumblerfulls with Robin. He lives outside of Sydney.
Maybe if you get half wasted, then “sceptics” wouldn’t seem like such “morons”
00
Jo wrote:
Thanks Jo, I appreciate your support.
Sometimes it gets a bit lonely in here.
00
Well, if you don’t care for the presnt company here (in general), Robin, there are plenty of wonderful blogs just filled with people who share your views probably completely
– Think Progress
– DeSmog Blog
– Eli Rabett
– Climate Progress
You can chime in with the rest (and be ignored).
The nice thing for you, here, is that Joanne lets you post freely – but Joanne doesn’t promise you won’t be criticised.
On the other hand, I have never had a comment posted on Climate Progress unless Joe Romm had a reason to ridicule me. He usually has no reason.
00
Brian G Valentine wrote:
How are you going with that?
You’ve clearly got a lot of that trauma still to work through; but is it sensible to approach someone you’ve gone well out of your way to disingratiate yourself with to talk it through with?
00
Take the first up with God, take the second up with Joe Romm
00
Tel wrote:
Of course of those, only albedo and the greenhouse effect would have an influence on the global mean temperature.
00
Heat is contained in the Earth, atmosphere, and ocean. I doubt measuring the ocean surface temperature even accounts for .001% of the total oceanic heat content. Ocean current can be crazy and how much heat is stored down below (and was is “normal” in this respect??). What I’m saying is that it’s a complex system and a warming atmosphere may just be temporary (at least on scales that are significant, UNLIKE the few hundred years we are claiming to base data on). Nothing just keeps going in a linear fashion and soon the warming will tail off and eventually turn colder again. An awful lot of assumptions out there, so don’t get too cocky no matter who you are. Finally, what an idiotic move to push all this climate change BS through congress. Lets impose a climate tax on our economy as the entire world financial system is about to implode. Smart move idiots. This is not the time.
00
corepuncher wrote:
I would like to have your confidence, but there’s no proof of that. (Or even evidence).
00
The evidence is, the more greenhouse gasses you put in the atmosphere, the greater the greenhouse effect.
So there won’t be any turning colder again, until you reduce the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses. And CO2 is lasting for centuries at the moment. (And the ocean can resupply it if it does start to drop).
00
Whew, what a break…I’m relieved we can scrap plans for rationing exhalation….
00
A greenhouse gas more abundant than CO2 that has been largley overlooked in the climate change debate.
http://www.dhmo.org/
Cheers, Peggy.
00
Peggy Balfour wrote:
I don’t think that it has been overlooked, Peggy.
00
Peggy,
I don’t think they’ve been overlooked, either; just conveniently ignored.
00
They’re not ignored. Water vapour feedback is the dominant feedback.
00
[…] by mtgandp on July 17, 2009 Did you know that global temperatures are driven by postal stamp prices? Oh wait, they’re not, because JOANNE NOVA IS A MINDLESS BIGOT WITH A TWISTED VIEW OF SCIENCE […]
00
Clever site, Joanne.
Have you noticed the noticeable pomposity, humourlessness and inherent elitism of the AGW supporters?
I guess, basically, they are mostly lacking in general intelligence, and I am very sure Binet would back me up here.
Meanwhile, I am freezing over here in Oz. Please call off AGW. We don’t like it.
00
I’ve noticed a tendency to take things a little more seriously and sensibly. Is that what you mean?
Belief in science and critical thinking increases, I believe, with education beyond the first degree, but undergraduate degree holders are no better at it than uneducated people. So one would expect the AGW community to be better educated at the high end.
This is a common fallacy that one hears from the denialist movement. Global warming does not imply that a particular location will have warmed. And neither would the anthropogenic warming of 0.2°C since last decade be detectable to most people.
00
Tony: “Have you noticed the noticeable pomposity, humourlessness and inherent elitism of the AGW supporters?”
Oh my – did we just have all of those opinions confirmed in the above response (#564) (chuckle :-))
Robin M Grant: “So one would expect the AGW community to be better educated at the high end.”
I’m sure Plimer, Spencer, Goklany, Kinninmonth, Carter, Evans, Lindzen, Shaviv, Svensmark, de Freitas, Allegre, Giaever, inter alia – must collectively be a pain in the b___ to you as regards that argument.
00
Anne-Kit Littler wrote:
Google scholar reports about 182,000 papers since 1999 if you use the search term “climate”.
It amuses me that you think that a list of 12 people (from fields as diverse as policy analysis to geology) disproves that the AGW community would be better educated on average than the denialists.
00
Theres a better correlation between pirated movie downloads and global warming.
Whilst humorous, this type of article just further distracts from the real crisis.
Maybe the denialists here fail to see that Joanna Nova has ZERO peer reviewed articles on global warming and has ZERO formal education on climate or physics. Nor geology or just about any other related science. She’s just on te denialist gravy train.
Even the graph at the top of this page shows temperatures warming, despite many of the denialist movement claiming temperatures are dropping of late. 2010-2015 should be interesting for the denialists.
00
Simon – thanks for proving my point that alarmists rely on illogic, and bullying to suppress discussion. I’ll leave your comment up as a good example of that curiously deluded analysis where some people “think” that they can predict the climate by counting degrees or peer reviewed papers.
Shaw: “She’s just on the denialist gravy train.”
This though, is baseless slander. Back it up ( lol ) or apologize. No more posts from you until you do.
00
Simon,
It doesn’t take a scholar or a peer-reviewed scientist to know scams and suckers when they seem them.
Those of us with “street smarts” and little book knowledge know how politicians and the motivated work to skim money from the masses by way of crisis structures. There’s always a specific somebody or someone to blame which, if money and power are re-distributed by force of law, will be abated while the scammers get rich.
You and the rest of the global warming crowd need to study Al Gore to see how transparently fraudulent the whole global warming scam really is; watch as he enjoys that huge yacht on Clear Lake while telling the rest of us to make sacrifices in the name of Gaia; look at the carbon footprint he exacts on the earth as he literally jet-sets around the globe admonishing the innocent to line up with his agenda; take a peak at his home utility bill (still many many times greater than mine) for which he appears a huge hypocrite to the rest of the world.
All of you “believers” (for what it’s worth) would earn a lot more street cred if you would put up or shut up. It really is that simple. Otherwise, you have no clothes, no right to say what is right or wrong, truth or fiction. There are millions of millions of us who know what’s really going on — the jig is up 🙂
00
Peer review seems to be a form of censorship! Would I be stating the obvious in assuming that most papers that dispute said AGW theory, are reviewed by ‘experts’ who have published Peer reviewed papers supporting the theory and whose very income depends on same? Clearly a very flawed system.
00
But it does help. Reliance on unproven (or outright implausible) medical modalities does drop off with a more advanced education, for instance.
As does denial of evolution, and climate change denial.
This is fallacious thinking.
The size of Al Gore’s (or anyone else’s) carbon footprint or yacht has no bearing on the validity or invalidity of climate science.
The reason that I started attending this board was because the evidence for the AGW side has very much been put up. By thousands of scholarly papers, and as summarized by the IPCC.
And it’s not really that complicated.
If you increase the concentration of greenhouse gasses, you increase the greenhouse effect.
What’s your evidence that this is not the case? (Assuming you understand that your analysis of the size of Al Gore’s yacht isn’t actually relevant to this question).
00
Indeed. It censors the most appalling end of the rubbish, and leaves those papers that are at least plausible according to experts in the field.
00
Robin,
We’ve been over this many, many times Robin. We’re bored trying to help you understand that more carbon dioxide in the air does not necessarily mean higher temperatures. Many other factors are at work, and they have a far greater influence on ambient temperatures and carbon sinks than does carbon itself.
Carbon dioxide is merely a bit player in the world of greenhouse gases, as its concentrations are comparatively miniscule.
Meanwhile, Albert Gore’s behavior is central to the warmists’ cause. As the world learns how many “believers” actually live, their faith in Gore and his co-horts will diminish, and the general population will be ever more convinced the global warming context is a fraud, the greatest one in modern human history.
00
David wrote:
There are other factors at work.
Day and Night, Summer and Winter, the ENSO. The sunspot cycle is about the same order of magnitude. I think that we agree on this.
However, the overwhelming scientific evidence is that the current warming is mostly or entirely due to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, and the denial of scientific evidence is poor critical thinking.
Carbon dioxide is the cause of about an extra 1.7 W/m² of forcing over the planet, compared to at the start of the industrial revolution. This is not a bit player, but, in fact, the largest climate forcing due to the greenhouse effect, and comparable to the sum of the effects of all other long lived greenhouse gasses over that time.
It is a trace gas, up to 390 parts per million by volume from the natural 270 parts per million. However, those are the concentrations that have resulted in an extra 1.7 W/m² climate forcing.
The size of anyone’s boat or carbon footprint has no effect on this well understood truth. (The remaining argument is how much this 1.7W affects the temperature after climate feedbacks. The best estimate is about 1.5°C, but the relative error is still about 50%). Neither is AGW due to faith in Al Gore, but due to understanding of science.
(Although, I certainly agree with the Nobel Institute that Al Gore’s “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change” are commendable and globally valuable.)
So thank you for your thoughts David, but discussing boat size, or popularizers of the science is not material to the science itself.
If you have any peer reviewed science to back your claim that “Carbon dioxide is merely a bit player in the world of greenhouse gases” strong enough to counter the physics of optics developed over the past century, I would be very interested to read it. And this is the best path to helping me understand that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might not cause higher temperatures.
00
Robin, are you missing the point? The king has no clothes – and all the experts agree he is very finely dressed! I believe it was Albert Einstein who said it only takes one to dissprove a theory. He wasnt peer reviewed either.
00
I think my point is that since all the experts agree that he is finely dressed, and only non-experts think otherwise, then, in all likelihood, the king is, in fact, finely dressed.
One of the most notable aspects of experts is that they have expert opinions.
He said it only takes one experiment to disprove his theory. Which may well be forthcoming. However there are all different kinds of wrong, and in any case he was more right than Newton.
You’re claiming Einstein was not peer reviewed?
I find that difficult to believe, because he was published in peer reviewed journals.
Certainly his paper best known to me “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper”, was published in the very prestigious and strictly peer reviewed “Annalen der Physik”.
(Although “Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen” seems to have been more famous, but was published in the same publication. “Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt” probably should be the most famous, being the one that contained the work for which he received the Nobel Prize, and this too was also published in Annalen der Physik.)
So I am at a loss to understand what you mean by “He wasn’t peer reviewed either”. Could you elaborate at all on that?
00
Robin,
Where is it warmer?
I just returned from a long weekend at a resort in Indiana USA. My wife and I determined it would be a great vacation because there would be less crowd, less humidity and hot but with less heat than, say, Florida.
On the first night, my kids were freezing! The next day the high was 68 deg F, and the next 74 deg F. The locals were complaining that they hadn’t had a summer yet, that their gardens were failing or retarded by all the COLD weather. Who knew a 250-mile change in latitude would produce such disparity during the northern summer?
While Alabama has also been unusually cool, it’s considered a blessing because the summer heat and humidity is normally oppressive; as one of my Italian friends said when getting off a plan here, “I feel like someone has put a boiling hot pillow case over my head and is pummeling me with their fists!” Thank God we’re getting a break from the norm.
My point is the eastern half of the USA has been extremely cool on average; even that AGW bastion, The Weather Channel, is calling this “The Year without a Summer” for the Mid-West and Northeast; but still insists the year is hotter than average everywhere else — my experience says that’s BS.
The AGW context is not about the weather or climate; it’s about humans. So if Albert Gore & Co want to convince the world of their accuracy and perceived truth, they’re acting very very badly, and the weather in this half of the US is making them look like fools.
00
Robin,
I knew that that cerial packet was wrong!
try http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_9/43_1.shtml for starters.
Did I actually say he was NEVER peer reviewed?
Sorry! Maybe once or twice? you tell me (darn, you just did).
As I understand it
Albert Einstein’s paper on the special theory of relativity, issued by Annalen der Physik in 1905 – had no peer review at least BEFORE PUBLICATION?
Would I be right in understanding peer review is generally applied before publication these days?
Please dont try and baffle me with your knowlege of German, I can only speek Wessex dialect english LOL.
– I can google too! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_publications_of_Albert_Einstein#Journal_articles
or http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=531
I think we all know that B******t baffles brains and we know plenty going around on both sides of the debate.
No need to tell me I’m not the sharpest tool in the box, however I like to think I have a little common sense.
I can only judge the debate on that basis limited as I am.
I still think AGW is nonsense and I dont know what it would take to convince me now. I did beleive it for 20 years and changed my mind, after thinking long and hard too – watch this space could, be convinced otherwise aulthough I doubt it at the present level of understanding.
00
By the way Robin, did you mean that with the king obviously naked, the experts knowing this, still proclaim him to be dressed in the finest clothes despite what their own eyes are telling them. Proving beyond doubt that reality must be what the experts proclaim it to be because they are experts and know better than the common folk. Not what it actually is, despite the evidence to the contrary?
Wow
Hope that makes sense.
Regards, Pat
00
David Walker wrote:
At the surface, with more at the high latitudes. The land more than the sea to date.
Global warming is only about 0.02°C per year. You won’t notice it in a given year. Other causes of variation
Neither is the eastern half of the USA a significant part of the globe, by area, (about 1%, I think) and the USA (so presumably the eastern half too) it is warming slower than most places.
00
Pat:
You’re quite right, it seems that Annalen der Physik had a much less stringent peer review process in 1905, and Einstein’s papers were only read by the Editor and Assistant. (Both very renowned Physicists (Max Planck and Wilhelm Wien), and capable, but not independent like a modern peer review.)
I’m not trying to baffle anyone with German; those are what the papers were titled as.
00
Pat kenyon wrote:
No, of course not.
00
I find it interesting that the crazy ideas somtimes turn out to be correct and the established knowledge turned over. We live in interesting times don’t you think?
Whatever happens with the climate, I still think that the environment needs help.
Is it possible to be an environmentalist and a sceptic?
00
Paul Kenyon,
While I care deeply about the environment, I no longer desire to be tagged as an environmentalist. The extreme actions and views of many so-called environmentalists have tainted the term for me.
00
Pat,
Back in 1988-’89, I dismissed the global warming context because it resembled the Ice Age scare of my childhood — media hype and all. But in 1990, the US Congress and G.H.W. Bush crafted and signed laws giving bureaucrats the authority to make new environmental laws without consent, and the dismissal stopped. Since then, I became an environmentalist to help form pragmatic alternatives to the dogma and rackets pushed by people like Albert Gore and Maurice Strong.
Killing centralized auto emission testing in Alabama, and successful sole support for the Alabama Gasoline Program of 1998 are two of the feathers in my cap. These were accomplished because I stayed involved and informed, and made it clear that many environmentalists and members of the establishment are lackeys who cannot form original thoughts.
It’s sad but true. Take it to heart, contemporary environmentalism is not about the earth, it’s about people; about exploiting our laziness, or flaws and our faith (or lack thereof) in order to gain wealth and power by law; about ruling by authority rather than reason.
I’m an environmentalist, and I will always shout “the anthropogenic global warming context is the greatest fraud in modern human history!” because it is just that.
00
LOL! Too funny! But everyone knows it is stock prices that drive global warming.
00
I am very much both.
00
The big difference for me is that this has a scientific consensus, and the Ice Age scare had only a few scholarly papers, with by far the majority (7 to 1, for 1965-79) still predicting a warming.
You are quite correct to be skeptical of scares that occur in the popular press, especially if they are not backed by the scientific community.
Dogma leads to erroneous belief. If your position was ‘I will while I believe it to be true shout “the anthropogenic global warming context is the greatest fraud in modern human history!”’ it would be less trivial to dismiss as an entrenched position, immune to evidence.
00
David Walker – We’re bored trying to help you understand that more carbon dioxide in the air does not necessarily mean higher temperatures.
Sorry David, but Scientific consensus disagrees with you on that point as much as the claim that smoking doesn’t cause cancer.
You are the overwhelming minority view. Face it, live with it, accept it. Yes, your minority group keeps blathering on about how Science isn’t consensus. But in reality, to the lay person, who doesn’t know the difference between a measurement and a mean, it very much is. The average person (Joe Sixpack) is simply too ignorant to judge what is and isn’t valid science. They don’t have even the hint of a clue as to whether a paper on climatology is valid science, or crackpot nonsense written by some dishonest propaganda group.
Joe Sixpack either must consider science to be consensus, or he will end up in a Quack Dr.’s office being injected with extract of powdered Kangaroo vomit to cure his lung cancer. Now, to a scientist, science generally is also about consensus, but only as a first order and perhaps second order approximation. Scientists know that there are very rare occasions when heretical ideas do take over. They do occur but we know they are rare.
So what is the probability that some new science will magically find that CO2 does not cause the global temperatures to rise? Well, such a finding would require the invalidation of the entire field of radiative physics. About 200 years of science. And since radiative physics is intimately involved with virtually every other manner of science over the last 200 years, from spectroscopy, quantum physics, and thermodynamics, basically all science developed over the last 200 years would have to be invalidated.
Now given the thousands of scientists that have lived over this period, and all of the varied interconnections between the various fields of scientific endeavour, it to me is impossible for everyone to have missed some issue that invalidates everything that every scientist has done, and that it takes some blogger spots on the Internet to invalid 200 years of Science by proclaiming words like “It aint so.”
00
Here we have a good example of Damien (@ 589) demonstrating his intellectual mirror. He believes because there is a consensus. He is further bolstered in his belief because he believes that his belief is held by a majority of non-scientists. He believes the non-scientists cannot possibly know anything so even they must believe the scientific consensus.
He is certain that he is safe because he reflects what others are reflecting who are similarly reflecting what others reflect. For him, no one individual knows anything but the collective knows all. A process of rational analysis of all available data is not only not necessary for him, it is a total mystery to him why anyone would attempt it. Who is he or we to go against so many others who’s intellectual mirrors reflect what his reflects?
Apparently, he believes that if one were to sum enough zeros, eventually the sum would be greater than zero.
00
Damien,
Do you know at what ambient air temperature/pressure carbon dioxide descends into its sinks?
At what temperature do the sinks release carbon dioxide, and what percentage of the absorbed carbon dioxide re-ascends into the atmosphere?
How much revenue will be re-directed, out of the pockets of poor- and middle-income groups into the pockets of the rich and the establishment, by carbon credit trading/brokering?
Should authority grant carbon credits to the owners of water bodies absorbing carbon dioxide on cold days?
When scientists were persecuted for saying the earth was flat, did they have a profit motive?
Who persecuted the scientists, and what motives did they have to preserve the status quo?
The only thing truly consistent about our climate is that it’s constantly changing. The idea that an insignificant portion of a near-trace constituent can throw an entire climate system way out of kilter seems a great stretch to those of us who see the WHOLE picture, that includes the human nature element. If ever there was an inconvenient truth, its that those individuals who loudest portend disaster are the same ones who seek suppression of dissent and profit for the sake of that disaster.
This theme seems to repeat itself throughout human history, whereby the establishment hedges its bets by making rules for us all to live by. Damien, with great sincerity I pronounce you a sucker.
00
Here also we have an excellent example of the arrogance of the left. Ideologues of the socialist persuasion claim to have the best interest of the “common man” at heart, but in reality they harbour a deep contempt for the masses, who “are too ignorant …” and “ [don’t] know the difference ….” and “don’t even have a hint of a clue …”
Consensus science, for the greater good of the collective. To hell with the individual (and – by extension – individual thought). Welcome to the world of the Borg.
“Resistance is futile!”
00
Hey Daemon, so really it doesn’t matter what we say. Until we secure billions of dollars in funding and important sounding job credentials, with multiple stacked bureaucracies to back us (which isn’t hard with so much money to create them) there is no scientific argument we can make online that will sway you, right? (this could save us all a lot of time).
Basically, just to check that we’ve got this straight, even though Galileo and Aristotle pretty much said that “consensus proves nothing” you believe that in this modern era, things have now changed and that it is simply impossible for a government to misallocate funds and create a non-essential well-funded committee that would seek to continue it’s junket-existence ad infinitum regardless of the empirical evidence?
I do believe you deserve credit for coming up with a new version of argumentum ad verecundiam. Now “authority” is not only true for it’s own sake, but it’s inevitable that the average Joe-Sixpack must accept it. Hence in toto: argumentum ad verecundiam subnixus populus is overwhelming and “impossible” to argue with. Thus the populus’s ignorance becomes an authority in it’s own right.
Thanks Damien. Please, continue, and don’t take it the wrong way when I suggest it’s just what I’m looking for as a case study for my theory about forms of pathological logic. It’s fascinating. Evolution would not have selected against all the people who believe in authority and who herd-with-the-majority because it would often confer an evolutionary advantage. I mean sometimes when we are faced with danger, the best route is to go with the flock and run like hell. Those who make up their own mind every time would be eaten by lions more often than those who ran.
The need to render arguments into exaggerated generalizations is probably important too, like: “basically all science developed over the last 200 years would have to be invalidated.” And “it to me is impossible for everyone to have missed some issue that invalidates everything that every scientist has done” both of which are so obviously unprovable. I mean, no one can know what every scientist has done.
Does it also follow for you that once a government body had set up a large bureaucracy that it’s entirely believable that if more evidence came in that showed that the bureaucracy itself had no purpose or right to exist, that the members would assess the new evidence without bias and promptly issue press releases of their impending closure?
00
“You are quite correct to be skeptical of scares that occur in the popular press, especially if they are not backed by the scientific community.”–Robin Grant
How do we know that the scientific community really backs the global-warming scare? Could that claim be just more media hype? Al Gore claims “the debate is over,” the media gets on board, then suddenly there is a consensus? Then there is that pesky survey that claims that over 3000 scientists think the global-warming scare is a hoax. Hmmmmmmmm….
00
Joanne,
The other thing about “running with the herd” is that you don’t have to be fastest to survive a predatory attack. All you have to be is faster than the slowest. This works quite well for herbivores: zebras, wildebeests, and the like. The strongest of the herd survives and the weakest don’t.
Actually, its quite understandable that the Daemon types think of man that way. They view the productive humans as nothing but milch cows who’s product is to be taken and consumed by them and their favored oppressed group of the moment. We, the milch cows, are not to have any say in the matter because we are simply a mystical natural resource who will always produce – somehow.
It is interesting to note that Damien @ 589 did not exhibit the Kolker reset. He has not changed his position enough to require a reset. His is an example of intellectual stasis. He runs with the herd and hasn’t checked how far out in front of last place he is running. He thinks he is safe. With reality nipping at the heels of the consensus and the go along to get along, we shall see how safe he really is.
00
“Belief in science and critical thinking increases, I believe, with education beyond the first degree, but undergraduate degree holders are no better at it than uneducated people. So one would expect the AGW community to be better educated at the high end.”–Robin Grant
This is too funny to resist! When I knew hardly any science, I was an AGW believer. But any idiot can be right more often than the experts if the experts can’t make a successful prediction, and the idiot bets against them.
If idiots bet against AGW predictions and win, the theory is falsified.
00
“So what is the probability that some new science will magically find that CO2 does not cause the global temperatures to rise?”–Damien McCormick
I would give it a probability of .9999. The latest ice core studies have magically found that the rise in CO2 lags past global temperature increases. Then there is the missing hot spot, etc.
“Well, such a finding would require the invalidation of the entire field of radiative physics.”–Damien McCormick
LOL! Radiative physics will survive the discovery that CO2 has a low emmissivity coefficient.
“About 200 years of science. And since radiative physics is intimately involved with virtually every other manner of science over the last 200 years, from spectroscopy, quantum physics, and thermodynamics, basically all science developed over the last 200 years would have to be invalidated.”– Damien McCormick
Good grief! LOL! Basically what you are saying is any falsification of any theory will not cause science to advance but will destroy it. The probability of that happening is .00. However, institutions like the IPCC that depend on AGW will be out of business, just like the buggy-whip makers went out of business when the automobile was invented.
00
“Those who make up their own mind every time would be eaten by lions more often than those who ran.”–Joanne Nova
That’s assuming the lion is real and not imaginary. Those who run from imaginary lions, wear themselves out and are too exhausted to run from the real ones. Those who think and wait for real lions, have plenty of energy to get away.
The U.S. has trillions in debts and none of the real problems have been solved. So much is wasted on imaginary lions.
00
Jo – Are you aware though that of the 7 papers, 1 is a lab test, and 5 are from models – (which is just a fancy form of ‘opinion’).
A fancy form of ‘opinion’?
Hardly!
Are you aware that modeling is the bread and butter of modern science? The lay person seems to think that modern scientists sit in front of their chalk boards and reach a scientific conclusion based on a reduction of some set of equations to a single new equation that gives them a result.
One equation, one prediction.
Sorry children. Science hasn’t worked that way in several hundred years.
Real world systems – even the movement of planets around the sun, can not be solved by this means. There is no single equation in existance that tells astronomers – in detail – where the earth will be in it’s orbit 3 billion years from now. None!
In order to determine that, astronomers need to MODEL the solar system, computing in a series of steps the position of all of the planets and their respective perturbing influences iteratively, over and over and over again. Trillions of times in fact.
The same is true for virtually all modern problems in science.
Having a simple equation that provides a reasonable answer is a rare exception in science – outside of grade school and high school physics.
So all of the claptrap and whining heard coming from the Denialists is founded on nothing but a profound ignorance of how real – not cartoon – real – science works.
Meanwhile …
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm
Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change
ScienceDaily (Apr. 6, 2008) — The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the subject of debate among politicians, environmentalists and even scientists. A new study by meteorologists at the University of Utah shows that current climate models are quite accurate and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions on reversing global warming trends. Most of these models project a global warming trend that amounts to about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years.
00
Lionell – He believes the non-scientists cannot possibly know anything so even they must believe the scientific consensus.
Except Lionell. He is the modern day self-styled Free thinker!
So tell me Free thinker, what is the Adiabatic Lapse rate of the atmosphere?
Can’t answer?
Can you tell me the reason why satellites can’t measure global surface temperatures and why this explains why they don’t provide data for the atmosphere above the polar regions?
Can you provide references to three scientific papers in the reputable peer reviewed scientific press that deny the reality of the observed warming globe?
Can you explain from basic principles why the measured IR spectra of CO2 demonstrates without question that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must warm the surface of the earth?
If you can’t provide these answers then it would appear that as a Free Thinker, you have no facts to base your Free Thinking on, except your own fact free opinions of how the world must work. And that Lionell is why you have Free Thinkered your way into the Free Thinking Toilet, along with others Free Thinking evolution is a croc, smoking isn’t addictive, nor causes cancer, there’s no such thing as acid rain, CFC’s don’t cause ozone depletion, HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, etc.
Out of sheer ignorance, the ignorant always fail to consider their own ignorance. And that Lionell is why Free Thinkers are near universally wrong.
00
Damien @ 596: ….
QED
00
I would add: Nevertheless, increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses does increase the greenhouse effect.
At certain time scales this does necessarily mean higher temperatures. Something in the decades to millennia range does seem to be dominated by this.
Certainly on smaller time scales the warming signal is small compared to the noise, and on larger ones other effects compete such as the orbital parameters that cause Milankovitch cycles, and the increase in solar irradiance.
But in time scales of human lifetimes, more CO2 in the atmosphere (at least for the magnitude of changes that we are observing) does necessarily mean higher temperatures. There is some legitimate debate about how much higher.
00
So Damien,please excuse my ignorance but,in your own words if a computer models ‘in a series of steps – Trillions of times in fact’ how accurate can they be? given that ONE bad bit of data wrong assumption or guess early on could throw the result out by a factor of trillions. Rubish in = rubish out. To a layman (like me) that seems about as good as a wild guess – or worse! Is it me or you that’s being daft here? Must be me, cos I KNOW im daft. Sorry, away for a week now. I will leave it to Joanne for the sensible answer.
00
Daemien, Your set of “qualifying” questions is ludicrous. I have a Ph.D. in Materials Science from Stanford and I could not answer those questions off the top of my head; but could easily answer them with a little study. The point is that any of us humans with a little “smarts” are fully capable of doing the research and doing the WORK to analyze these questions and come up with proper answers. The Real question is whether the results pass the test of review by others, NOT who is giving the answers or what their background is. That is what the alarmists Never seem to acknowledge. There are plenty of examples of simple “individuals” with no particular training in a particular field coming up with major paradigm shifting concepts. It’s the ideas and concepts that we should be arguing about, Not the individual’s background. AlGore can talk all he wants and if his arguments and ideas make sense to me, I’ll back him 100 percent; but if they don’t, and they surely don’t, I’ll oppose him to the hilt!
00
Robin, Daemien,
Computer models:
Computer models simulate processes. They are weakest when the processes they model are not well understood. Climate science is an enormously complex process about which much is not well known or understood. Therefore, computer modelers are limited by the knowledge base (or lack thereof) and must resort to assumptions and conjecture to fill in the blanks. AGW theory of climate science is laced with assumption and conjecture. A major assumption is the positive feedback response of water vapor when atmospheric CO2 is raised. It should come as no surprise that, when a model is crafted to show a positive feedback from additional water vapor in the atmosphere because of a small amount of CO2 warming, a positive feedback result is obtained! As the old saying goes, garbage in, garbage out! The model is designed to produce a positive feedback, the only question it answers is, how much? But that isn’t science. It’s conjecture. (IF there is a positive feedback by such-and-such a mechanism, THEN how much additional warming will be observed?)
Even where processes are well understood, sufficient data may not be obtainable to produce valid model results.
The enormous shortcomings of models that result from these weaknesses renders them little more than tools to play “what if” games by parametrically simulating a host of different scenarios. This is a common use for models. Rarely is a process so well understood that a model can be used to predict with any degree of confidence the absolute result being modeled. Typically, models are used to guide researchers/developers to better understand facets of a research question or a developmental problem.
The abuse of model results is far too common. Output is too often treated as a forecast or a prediction, when in fact, it is meaningless when taken out of context of all the assumptions and weaknesses of the model upon which results are based.
A good example is the lack of adequate modeling of negative feedback (cooling) from additional cloud coverage (greater albedo, less incident radiation) and precipitation resulting from a slightly warmed atmosphere (from increased CO2). The problem is in the lack of knowledge to properly design the model, consequently assumptions are made that lead to results that have little meaning.
Thus, good scientific research must be performed in order to improve models so that they represent more than the assumptions and conjecture upon which they depend.
Models can never be a substitute for scientific knowlege.
AGW Theory
AGW requires polar regions to warm before lower latitudes. The evidence (the recent long history of Antarctic cooling, Arctic temperatures driven by ocean & atmospheric circulation patterns) is simply not seen that corroborates that requirement of AGW.
AGW requires a mid-troposphere (8km-12km) warming “fingerprint” – it isn’t there.
AGW theory is built upon an assumption that, if true, would suggest the climate system is basically unstable. Yet the long history of climate as measured by global temperature (in the geologic record) shows that climate is typically stable at much warmer temperatures (no polar ice, no permanent surface ice anywhere at sea level), about 10°-12°C warmer with consequent higher sea levels. Earth’s typically tepid climate is interrupted (so far only seven times since life forms have existed) only by ice eras which normally appear quickly (in geologic time) and end quickly. During ice eras (which last tens of millions of years), Earth experiences ice epochs (which can last several million years), colder periods of ice eras. Within ice epochs are ice age cycles ranging from roughly 40,000 to 100,000 years in length, including the dominant ice age and short-term interglacial. Ice eras have typically been ~ 20°C colder than the typical tepid climate (experienced during the age of dinosaurs (Triassic and most of the Jurassic). Interglacials raise temperatures about 8°C from the coldest ice era temperatures.
What does this all mean? It indicates the climate system, while variable, is fundamentally stable. Stable does not mean constant. Stability means that stimuli in one direction will produce an opposing stimulus of about the same magnitude. So where do the radical changes that cause ice ages, interglacials, ice epochs and ice eras to interrupt the tepid typical climate of Earth? There are many possibilities that are external to Earth’s atmosphere. Geologic upheavals, solar changes, cosmic impacts, etc., are some that we know have sharply altered climate in the past and can be expected to alter them again in the future. Then there are other factors that produce the more cyclic changes that are observed to produce ice age cycles. But even with these cycles, the climate stays within certain bounds, i.e., interglacials seem to reach about the same temperatures and ice ages experience the same extremes of cold.
Inconsistencies
Aside from the lack of AGW’s required responses noted above, there are other perplexing inconsistencies with the belief that a relatively small addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will produce catastrophic climate change. Foremost is that throughout Earth’s climate history, much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 are the norm. It is only recently (and during one previous ice era roughly 290 million years ago) that CO2 has been as low as 400 ppm in the atmosphere. Plant life appears to be optimized at 1000 ppm of CO2 (more representative of when plant life developed). Too low a level and plant life would be starved of its most precious requirement (hardly a “pollutant”).
If you believe in consensus, then you cannot believe the idea floated by some that CO2 persists in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years. The VAST consensus of scientists who’ve measured CO2’s persistence in the atmosphere come in at about 4-7 years. The inflated figure was cooked up to create alarmism and pressure for quick action.
Doubling CO2 to 760 ppm would add about 1°C of warming in the current interglacial if there were no other response to that warming. The IPCC opines that more than 3°C of additional warming will result from the greater water vapor in the atmosphere that the CO2 warming would allow. But this figure has been shown to ignore the negative feedback of greater cloud cover and greater precipitation.
Let’s suppose that a new ice age cycle were about to begin (we’re about due, based on historical precedence). Does anyone seriously believe a “solution” to the ice age threat would be to burn more fossil fuels?
The gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 predates the beginning of the industrial revolution. Any change in the rate of increase over the past 60 years (before which it is agreed that CO2 from humans was insignificant on any account) would represent the maximum additional CO2 that could possibly be attributed to human activity. Even that would be an assumption that no other natural factor could account for some of that rate of change.
It is within this context plus the failure of the AGW theory’s requirements from being fulfilled (and many, many more problems with AGW theory), that skepticism (or realism) emerges.
00
No…no…no! You simply don’t understand. Reality obeys Damien’s ideas BECAUSE Damien and his significant others believe in them. Reality wouldn’t dare go against such a powerful force. To make certain of that, Damien will close his eyes and cover his ears so no contrary idea can impact his beliefs.
00
Lionell,
Your note reminded me of the original post that spawned all these comments. A truly clever piece that pretty much sums up the kind of case working for the AGW believers, aka, climate alarmists.
You’d think people would embrace news that there is no climate crisis. But no, the wagons get circled and the holy grail of alarmists, the tattered AGW theory, is defended at all costs … including tossing out rational process, logic, and common sense.
Reality always has a way of winning out. It will warm again. It will cool again. Humans will have little to do with either. The bigger threat is from hubris … the notion that enormous sums should be spent that drive western civilization back into the dark ages in order to solve an imaginary problem!
00
Bob @ 603,
Thanks.
On a more serious note, the reason they have such an obsession that AGW is real in spite of a mountain range of evidence to the contrary, is they hate their own existence. Being unable to accept the fact that they have abandoned what it takes to be human, reason, they use AWG as an excuse to destroy any sign that it ever existed. Out of that hate, they work to destroy wealth, freedom, and individual rights, and ultimately modern technological civilization. That they pretend they are doing it to save the (current cause of the day) is only a smoke screen to hide this fact from themselves and others. They do this even at the cost of their own existence. They hate the good for being good.
They are not innocent in the matter. They do not mean well no matter what they say. Look at what they accomplish. THAT is their purpose.
00
Bob Webster wrote:
If you call the response of a physical system a “process”, I suppose. If you hit a gong with a hammer, is that a “process”?
What are a few aspects that are not well known or understood that result in the greatest uncertainties in Models?
If you’re trying to construct an argument, this conclusion is in the wrong place. You should establish it first, and then state it.
It’s a good place for a political speech though, as long as you’re preaching to the choir.
This is not an assumption. There are assumptions about cloud formation, and some minor ones around evaporation rates, but water vapour is a greenhouse gas. If you increase the atmospheric concentration of water vapour you increase the greenhouse effect.
Models calculate the movement of water vapour in the atmosphere, as well as evaporation and condensation, and it turns out that in a warmer climate you get more water vapour in the atmosphere. The feedback from water vapour is therefore calculated by the model, not assumed.
That’s a unique understanding of models. Where did you get this perception from?
That would be true if there were additional cloud cover. And while there is more water vapour in a warmer atmosphere, the atmosphere can also hold more water vapour without forming clouds. cloud feedback is a significant unknown, however, a recent paper shows that low cloud feedback is positive. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5939/460)
How does precipitation provide a negative feedback?
Okay, so you claim that models are poor. How poor? Are they greater than the margin of error that can be calculated by running the models with each extreme value for the unknown parameters?
That is, do you claim that papers based on modelling all mishandle their margin of error estimates, and all by understating them?
Well, models are tested by hindcasting, so we know that they’re pretty good.
You mention again that (general circulation) models “depend” on “assumptions and conjecture”. I think you are wrong about the water-vapour assumption that you mentioned. Do you have another example of an assumption that is made by a climate model.
And what do you mean by “conjecture”? What is an example of “conjecture” that a climate model depends upon?
This comment seems meaningless. They’re not the same thing. A model is a tool for investigation. Scientific knowledge is justified true belief held by a consensus of scientists.
Telescopes can never be a substitute for scientific knowledge either. But why say so, unless you have some personal abhorrence of telescopes that you are attempting to justify? Both telescopes and models can be used to explore and derive scientific knowledge.
00
It is true that because there is a lot of overlap between the CO2 and H2O absorbance spectra, increasing CO2 has a larger effect where atmospheric H2O concentrations are low.
And this is observed. The Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsular have warmed about 3°C over the last century … more than twice the average rate.
Mainland Antarctica has warmed, but more slowly, and this too was predicted by models. With its high albedo and thermal isolation from the rest of the planet by the circular winds and currents of the southern ocean, Antarctica is warming only slowly.
What “fingerprint” is this?
What assumption is this?
No one is saying that if you stop increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses, the warming won’t stop too. (Although the warming lags about 50 years).
So the climate isn’t unstable, it’s just that some things affect it.
Quite.
Uplifting mountain ranges do produce cold climates since weathering reduces atmospheric CO2. Extraterrestrial impacts and super volcanoes also have significant, (if geologically short term) effects because of aerosols. All these occur without this “opposing stimulus of about the same magnitude” appearing.
That’s not stability, that’s two regions of relative stability and a tipping point in between. A tipping point, moreover, that is regularly hit.
00
What is “catastrophic climate change”?
I don’t recall the IPCC using this term “catastrophic”. Do you mean climate change?
Atmospheric CO2 has increased 43%, and about 900 billion tonnes, since the industrial revolution … What do you mean by “relatively small”?
Can you walk me through the logic behind your claim that 900 billion tonnes of CO2 couldn’t produce climate change, because it is “relatively small”?
Okay, you call CO2 the “most precious requirement” of plant life.
Why do you rate it as more precious than sunlight or water or nitrates and other nutrients?
Water is important to plant life too. But flooding is still dangerous and expensive. Your argument that because CO2 is used by plants, therefore too much of it makes it “hardly a pollutant” is a non-sequitor. You have to show why the claims that it is a pollutant (ergo, it affects the climate both by increasing temperature and by reducing transpiration, and it acidifies the oceans, lakes and rivers) are wrong. It is perfectly logically possible for it to do these things, and to be used by plants.
Who floated that idea? I’ve heard hundreds of years.
But if a molecule of CO2 is dissolved into the oceans, and then is released 5 times in a given minute, then that information isn’t useful for predicting the long term CO2 concentration.
The 900 billion tonnes of CO2 that has been the increase since the industrial revolution has not all been produced in the last 7 years. Emissions from all anthropogenic sources (including land use change) over the 7 years to mid 2007 was only 230 billion tonnes. So there’s at least 570 billion tonnes that has persisted in the atmosphere (in net terms) for a lot longer than 7 years.
Was the measured atmospheric CO2 concentration cooked up by the same people?
How big is this conspiracy? The global monitoring division of the ESRL alone has CO2 measurement sites all over the world.
Was the Orbiting Carbon Observatory mis-launched in February was sabotaged by this same group?
1) Cloud cover feedback appears to be positive. (see: Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback, Amy C. Clement, Robert Burgman, Joel R. Norris; SCIENCE 24 JULY 2009).
2) How does greater precipitation get more energy into space?
Not only do scientists seriiously believe that, but they also seriously believe that we have already burned enough to skip the coming one, but also the next four.
It hit a local minimum in about 1700, and has only been increasing monotonically since after 1750. (see: graph.) But land use change from agriculture is probably detectable for thousands of years.
That’s not agreed. The anthopogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 is clear above the noise by 1800.
The science of carbon tracking is much better than that.
Natural factors are absorbing CO2, generally. The terrestrial biosphere was a source in 1998, when Indonesia burned like a torch. (And apparently 1987 and 1977, but I don’t recall what happened those years). But overall it’s a sink.
Also, apparently, from grand conspiracy theories and starkly misleading information.
00
I sure would … assuming it came from a reliable scientific source, and had been confirmed by the scientific community.
That’s not very likely at this late stage though, is it?
We’ve got a wide range of evidence that the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 is something in the range 1.5 to 4.5, (with the recent work on clouds supporting the high end of that), but even 1.5 would mean that we need to stabilise at about 900ppm, or wear the dangerous 2°C of warming.
And if it’s 4.5, then we should stabilise at 385ppm … which we passed a year ago next month.
Perhaps sooner than you’ve noticed.
00
Robin,
I will respond to both posts. However, today is particularly busy, so can’t do it now. Should have free time within 24 hours.
Later.
00
“I sure would … assuming it came from a reliable scientific source, and had been confirmed by the scientific community.”–Robin Grant
What makes a source reliable? Evidentiary support or the lack thereof? AGW alarmists can’t even agree on what the Earth’s mean temperature is and was, or how it should be calculated. There isn’t one climate model, there are several. There is no agreement or consensus as to how the climate, clouds, CO2 are supposed to work. Look at the IPCC charts closely. They never tell you the actual temperature, just temperature anomalies. What are they trying to hide? They are trying to hide the fact that the temperature anomalies would look far less dramatic if put into proper perspective. If they used the Kelvin scale, a .6 degree increase would not be noticed, and you would also see that natural causes are responsible for most of the climate change.
Maybe the best course is to assume that all sources are unreliable and start thinking for yourself.
00
There’s a third post somewhere in the ether responding to your first section on climate models.
The gist was I disagree with everything you say, and you don’t back any of your comments up except where you’re straight wrong.
Climate models do not assume that there is a positive feedback from water vapour. That is a result that is calculated by them.
You do not mention any other assumptions or conjecture you claim exists in the science.
Models are not designed to produce a positive feedback. They’re designed to imitate the evaporation, transpiration, condensation and optical properties of the water in the climate system. The fact that it provides a positive feedback is a calculated consequence of the process.
You claim negative feedback from clouds is not modelled. Clouds appear to have a positive feedback. And this is modelled. (Moreover, to date many models have incorrectly found this to be a negative feedback).
You claim negative feedback from rain is not modelled. I’m not sure what you think rain does that puts energy from the earth into space, but the transport of heat as far as the atmosphere by evaporation at the surface and condensation as clouds absolutely is included in models.
If, instead you claim that because you get cold in the rain, rain causes a cooling, you are wrong. The only reason you get cold is because the water is evaporating. That energy is not lost to space; it reappears where the water condenses.
00
Pat kenyon wrote:
Models are verified by hindcasting, which is they are run against past forcing, and if they produce past climate, they are not out by trillions of times.
They’re not, so the initial assumptions are good.
(For the best models out there. Some still require a factor to stop them running off with accumulated errors to a boiling water or solid CO2 state, but these are becoming less common).
But neither do the core findings of climate science depend on general circulation models. There are multiple lines of evidence by which the current warming can be attributed to human activity.
00
Robin writes at 608:
Robin, this is non-responsive to what I wrote. I cannot reply to “ether”. Allegations of “straight wrong” without any supportive references or even citing what one considers wrong are simply opinion not supported by any evidence.
You continued:
But these statements are not an accurate representation of climate models as used by the IPCC in support of its AGW theory. I haven’t claimed assumptions or conjecture in science, rather, I’ve used those terms to accurately characterize the basis for AGW theory.
The IPCC’s AGW models are designed and tweaked to reflect the AGW theory; then model predictions are offered as proof of the theory! That is the ultimate in circular reasoning. But that is essentially what the IPCC does. Models can never be used to prove a theory. Every theory must withstand the evidence of real world observations.
As Einstein once observed, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” With respect to AGW theory, it would be, “no amount of modeling can ever prove AGW right; a single observation can prove AGW wrong.”
Models cannot represent feedbacks unless they are (1) well-understood, and, (2) correctly and completely represented in the model. These processes are not well enough understood to model. Consequently, models cannot accurately model the effects of cloud formation (including extent and altitude) and cannot accurately model precipitation. Therefore, they cannot possibly represent these feedbacks with the accuracy required for the models to be valid.
If potentially negative feedbacks are ignored (or inadequately modeled because they are poorly understood), then it should come as no surprise that the models will be biased toward a prediction of warming.
Robin, please don’t suggest I wrote things that I haven’t written, as with:
I wrote nothing about “rain”, rather I did write:
It’s a long way from my statement of “the lack of knowledge to properly design the model” for cloud cover and precipitation to a claim that I believe models are wrong because I “get cold in the rain.”
I ask that if you have any question about the basis for or interpretation of something I write, please raise the questions you have without rewriting what I’ve actually written. Fair enough?
Consider that precipitation includes more than just rain. Snowfall, for example, has an obvious cooling effect from the greater surface albedo (lower surface warming) of snow-covered surfaces. In the 1970s scare about a coming ice age, a solution(!) was proposed that the poles be salted with coal dust to increase polar warming!
If you really want to understand the crux of the problem with cloud cover and precipitation within context of climate models’ shortcomings, I strongly recommend you read Dr. Roy Spencer’s recent (July 2009) article, How Do Climate Models Work at:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/how-do-climate-models-work/
A snippet from what Spencer writes:
[Note: my emphasis added above]
There is much more in Spencer’s paper you will find interesting if you read it.
A little about my own background: My interest in meteorology, climatology, geology, and astronomy date back more than 50 years. I’ve continued to closely follow major developments in these areas. I recall the “coming ice age” scare of the 1970s, quickly replaced with “global warming” of the 1980s and 90s. Much of my initial skepticism about human-caused global warming arose from material I had read about Earth’s climate history going back billions of years. There have been many climate swings that are both perfectly natural and at the same time far beyond anything the AGW theory predicts. I have always been concerned with the apparent lack of interest of the IPCC in explaining how it is possible to discern a human component to climate change without fully understanding the natural processes that have led to far more significant climate change in the Holocene alone, not to mention the rest of climate history!
I earned a mathematics degree and worked for more than 30 years in R&D as a mathematician, mathematician-statistician, physical scientist, operations research analyst, and systems analyst. During that time I’ve had experience in both using, designing, and developing computer simulation models. I am well aware of the abuse that model results are subjected to by those who wish to use them as predictive forecasts rather than for guidance of the research process.
Models are only as good as (1) the knowledge base behind them, (2) the accuracy of their design (independent of desired results) and, (3) availability and accuracy of adequate data to drive them. Lack of sufficient knowledge and/or good data is dealt with by parametric simulations of different scenarios. This further reduces the predictive validity of models and essentially makes them “what if so-and-so, then this” (WHAT IF-THEN THIS) constructions.
The climate system is probably as complex a system as can be imagined to try to model accurately. Because so much uncertainty exists in our knowledge of how the climate operates, it is literally impossible to put together a believable climate change model. Those who use model results to try to prove a theory that real world observations have repeatedly shown is deeply flawed, have either a financial or political motivation for pursuing such a course.
When reality in the form or real world observations exposes a theory as flawed, serious scientists without an agenda would “go back to the drawing board” and come up with a better theory consistent with real world observations. Instead, we see circling of the wagons by climate alarmists.
I wanted to deal with this message first before getting back to your previous comments at 605 to my post at 601.
00
Bob Webster wrote:
In what way?
I do realise that, which is why I put together the post to which you are replying.
I was merely explaining why the response to the first section came last, and why is it brief. (Even terse).
Which is why I explain what I mean below.
The IPCC doesn’t use models. They don’t do any research. They merely produce a literature review of research carried out by other people.
I believe that they are accurate descriptions of climate models. The whole idea is to start with physical processes like evaporation, and end up with macroscopic results, like positive feedback from water vapour.
If you have an example of a model which works by having the positive feedback entered, and then somehow does some further calculations, I am happy to read about it.
Do you?
00
At 611, Robin writes:
A distinction without a difference.
The IPCC uses working groups to review work performed in pursuit of the IPCC’s stated purpose to assess “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for understanding the risk of human-induced climate change”. The IPCC accepts as a “given” the AGW theory and sets out to find human-caused climate change (apparently, at all costs).
More evidence of the IPCC’s “given” concerning AGW theory, in the IPCC mandate to working groups:
And when scientific working group reports do not support the IPCC’s political objective, they are revised to conform to what summary writers have already decided the summary report will feature. As reported by Christopher Horner in Red Hot Lies:
Note: [my comment inserted within brackets]
So it seems that the IPCC is very selective in the “literature review of research carried out by other people” — if the literature supports AGW, it is reviewed; if it does not, it is ignored.
Robin continues:
Here, Robin is at odds with the IPCC, which, in it’s 2001 assessment acknowledged:
The simple fact that Robin ignores is that negative feedbacks have been either ignored or inadequately represented (possibly for legitimate reasons based on lack of knowledge) — a point I already made at 610 (If potentially negative feedbacks are ignored (or inadequately modeled because they are poorly understood), then it should come as no surprise that the models will be biased toward a prediction of warming.).
Which brings us back to the elementary conclusion that a flawed model will produce flawed results, no matter how accurately portions of the model may be developed. Without the entire process being accurately portrayed to the same level of scientific understanding, the entire model becomes worthless as a useful tool for any purpose.
Robin persists:
I don’t need to produce another model. All I need to do is cite weaknesses in the model being used. This is the same point made by Einstein, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Robin relies on models that are flawed. All anyone should need to do to help Robin is point out some of the flaws and ask him to consider the consequences. Instead, he asks for another model? But pointing out the flaws is offering an alternative model — simply fix the flaws and see what happens. The problem, of course, is that it isn’t so simple to fix things when key processes aren’t really understood very well.
If Robin relied on a formulation that turns out to be incorrect, it isn’t necessary to provide him with an alternate formulation, it is sufficient to point out any flaw in the formulation upon which he relies. Same thing with models.
I’ve previously suggested Robin (and others enthused with model-supported theory) read what Dr. Roy Spencer recently wrote about climate models relied upon by the IPCC working groups:
How Do Climate Models Work at:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/how-do-climate-models-work/
The advice seems even more appropriate at this point.
00
Note on the previous post:
When I wrote:
The point I intended to make (but, on reflection, didn’t do a good job of it) is that a model is only as good as its weakest portion.
If climate processes that may prove significant (e.g., negative feedback responses) are poorly understood (or possibly not understood to any degree), then any model that purports to simulate climate will fail, likely miserably, and there is really no basis upon which to have any confidence in such models.
00
[…] Global warming and stamp prices By Roger Cuddy, on May 3rd, 2009 Every one should check out Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges. […]
00
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
You mean that the Post Office may be as bad for the environment as Di-Hydrogen Oxide? Another disturbing trend is the relationship of CO2 emissions to the national debt. This needs to be looked into.
00
Robin,
I work, generally, with every highly educated individuals and groups in applied engineering, physics and aerospace research fields. None of my co-workers believe the global warming context that AGW believers promulgate. And, just as I am, they are angry to see Albert Gore’s crisis structure continually used as a baton on the heads of unwary Americans despite an unusually cool year here.
I do know some “educated” folks — MBAs and humanities doctorates — who believe man’s carbon dioxide emissions are pivotal drivers of climate change: One of them also believes the North American forest stretched completely across the continent until Europeans decimated the land — he completely disregards the Great American Desert, the Olympic Desert, The Rocky Mountains, the Mojave and Painted Deserts, etc.
Believe it; degrees are meal tickets, government certification that you may work for someone else. The degree does not make the person, but vice-versa.
00
Very witty, I can’t help but get grumpy about the poor use of data scaling on graphs to proove a point, daft really considering a graph alone would prove nothing anyway.
00
Bob Webster wrote:
Well you referred to the IPCC’s models. What models do you mean?
You’re in deep conspiracy theory here, mate.
Take a chill pill and wonder how thousands of contributors would be kept quiet about that.
Satellite data is notoriously difficult to interpret. Even today, different groups get a quite different warming trend for the lower troposphere temperature. It is perfectly scientific to discard a data set that is not accurate enough to make conclusions from.
Again, deep conspiracy theory. Application of Occam’s razor would lead to the conclusion that Christopher Horner has been a bit heavy on the cool aid before coming to these conclusions.
Not discredited. Affirmed and reproduced. (Unless you read the climate-audit blog instead of scientific sources).
Really?
How was that “minimized”, would you say?
It might seem that way to a paranoid delusional, but the reports are well referenced, and unlike most pending disasters, awareness of AGW is much greater in the scientific community, especially climate science, especially currently publishing climate scientists, than the general public.
There’s no real suggestion of that. The whole field is reviewed. The political review process creates the bias in the other direction, of course. So the published IPCC reports are conservative.
How is that at odds?
This is not the case. If negative feedbacks were present and being ignored that would show up in reconstructions of climate from ice cores, models would not be able to hindcast accurately, these negative feedbacks would be measurable after changes in forcing such as a large volcanic eruption, these negative feedbacks would be measurable in the earth’s energy balance, and these negative feedbacks would be visible in the ocean’s heat content.
None of these are the case. Analysis of any of them produces a climate sensitivity of around 1.5-4.5.
This is the line that one gets from denialists sometimes. Models are rubbish therefore all climate science is rubbish, therefore we don’t know that what the scientists are telling us is true. Since we don’t know it must be wrong, and therefore we are safe to keep emitting CO2.
The argument is flawed from beginning to end. Climate models as an investigative tool are very useful. Climate science does not depend on modelling. If something is unknown it might be true or false, and it is far cheaper to reduce emissions than adapt to climate change, so even if we weren’t 95% confident, reducing emission would still be the correct way forward.
1)You’re wrong about the weakness. Models do not have feedback entered. Such macroscopic effects are calculated.
2)Even if you weren’t, showing something to be questionable does not show it to be wrong.
3)Einstein made testable predictions about the physics of the universe. Climate sensitivity is not like that. It’s a value that can be measured to a certain accuracy.
No I don’t. The conclusions of climate science would still be known if it weren’t for models at all. So no one is relying on them. They merely add more evidence for what we already know.
Furthermore, your understanding of them as flawed involves not understanding how they work. The inputs are physical processes, not parameters such as climate sensitivity.
I don’t think that making up a flaw that is completely infeasible, is the same as pointing one out. And neither does a flaw in a climate model mean that the globe is not warming. It means that there’s a flaw in a climate model.
00
David Walker wrote:
How many of them did you ask and in what circumstances?
How did they express this anger?
How do you judge it to be as great as yours?
Right, but anecdotes about 100% of such a broad range of educated people are difficult to believe, and of not value if one does.
If one surveys opinion on climate change one finds that as one’s education and field approaches research climate scientist, belief in AGW increases, topping out at about 97% for actively publishing scientists whose recent papers have been predominantly on climate change.
If one looks at the statements of scientific organisations (of national or international standing), it seems that none reject the IPCC in their view that it is humans who are likely changing the current climate.
00
Robin: Some friendly advice. You really need to read something beyond the propaganda put out by the IPCC and realclimate. Several points you dismissed out of hand are clearly explained and cited in detail if you actually make the effort to read from among the many credible books addressing these issues.
Here’s a short list of excellent books that would help you if you have the courage to read them:
1. Red Hot Lies by Christopher Horner, 2008 (very well sourced, read it before criticizing things you really know nothing about)
2. Global Warming False Alarm by Ralph B. Alexander, 2009 (up to date and deals with key topics discussed).
3. The Deniers by Lawerence Solomon, 2008 (highly credible eminent skeptics, many with PhDs address weaknesses of the AGW theory).
4. Global Warming, Myth or Reality? by (the late) Marcel Leroux, 2005 (a comprehensive text by a PhD climatologist, addresses many of the key AGW issues).
And, please, take a little time to let Dr. Roy Spencer educate you about models and actually read the web material I’ve referred to several times before, How Do Climate Models Work at: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/how-do-climate-models-work/
And last, download and read Climate Change Reconsidered, a most comprehensive report of the NIPCC at: http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf
Then feel free to get back on this subject.
Until then, I will not waste time with someone who possesses the limited scope of knowledge about this subject your posts reveal.
00
Bob Webster wrote:
Thank you for your friendly advice, Mr Webster.
Yes, I am well aware that if someone peruses the popular press instead of the scientific literature, one does get a very different analysis on global warming, evolutions, vaccinations, a wide range of alternative medical modalities, the moon landings, and the physics of collapsing world trade centres.
If I have to explain why the peer reviewed scientific literature is superior, then your critical thinking skills are such that it’s not going to jell with you anyway.
But scientific scepticism is a rising movement. I would direct you to the guys at the The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe for a beginner’s guide to a saner (and better) window on the world.
00
Robin:
I have no doubt you are completely unfamiliar with what you mischaracterize as “the popular press”.
The books cited are either by peer-reviewed authors or cite peer-reviewed material. And, of course, one does not find “peer-reviewed” material that exposes fraudulent works (e.g., “Hockey Stick” analysis of Mann, et al), yet Mann’s elementary errors were found by qualified scientists doing due diligence, something by which you would benefit enormously.
If I have to explain to you why the peer reviewed scientific literature in support of AGW theory is suspect, you are clearly too naive to view the subject in the light of rational process.
The old saying is still true … garbage in, garbage out. That about sums up the peer review process of alarmists who have insinuated themselves into key posts to “manage” the “debate” (or, as they prefer, the non-debate) about AGW theory.
Until alarmists stop dogmatically defending a clearly fraudulent cause, they will forever be little more than prostitutes for purveyors of alternative energy schemes who must demonize low-cost carbon fuels in order to build their fortunes.
Apparently, you are either a willing charlatan, or a naive dupe. But the mere fact of your stubborn refusal to educate yourself about those things you dismiss out of hand (and in full ignorance of their content) suggests you are incapable of intelligent discussion on this topic – or possibly any other.
“scientific scepticism” is the very essence of scientific investigation. When a theory is posited, the reaction should always be to question the hypotheses through observation, testing and experimentation. When such questioning reveals flaws, the proper response is to revise the theory, not circle the wagons.
Alarmists are dizzy from circling the wagons.
00
Bob Webster wrote:
And yet a book does not have to go through peer review.
And one of the common signs of pseudoscience is the release to the public rather than the scientific community.
There is one likely reason for that. The Hockey Stick was not fraudulent.
The scientific community don’t pull punches when reviewing fraudulent papers.
Also no amount of explaining will have me buy into the grand conspiracy theory. Nor the suggestion that you have found an obvious flaw in climate science, that I should also find obvious, yet every scientist studying the field full time has missed.
But one hears the same claims from creation scientists, anti-vaccinationists, as well as climate science denialists, so I am familiar with the mantra.
That’s a rapid summary of over 2000 papers in the last couple of decades. Don’t you think it is strange and interesting that some people have noticed this fact that they’re all garbage in, garbage out without having read 1% of them, whilst the people that work in the field find them consistent?
Clearly fraudulent. I wonder why no one has overturned the science with a paper that points this out yet. I mean discoveries that cause a paradigm shift are strong contenders for a Nobel Prize. Given its so clear, that paper seems well overdue.
I wonder if there’s another explanation that doesn’t require every PhD student in the field to be turning down this glaring opportunity for fame and fortune?
My tendency to accept scientific findings when peer reviewed and reproduced would make me which? Willing charlatan or naive dupe?
Willing charlatan I guess … along with all those fraudulent scientists.
But scientific scepticism is also the movement for science and reason.
Which more often than you may think involves countering the argument that the scientists are all committing fraud. And that this is obvious.
00
Robin: Your fascination with “peer review” is misplaced when it comes to climate science. I suspect you know that, but it’s what you cling to anyway.
Of course a book isn’t “peer reviewed”. You’re being unrealistic and dodging. For books meant for general consumption about a highly technical subject, peer reviewed material is typically referenced throughout the text. That is the whole point of writing a book about the subject … so that the technical information that average non-scientists wouldn’t grasp can be explained in terms the reader can comprehend. That doesn’t mean the book isn’t just as valid as the information it references. You’re obviously grasping at straws.
Now, peer review doesn’t guarantee accuracy any more than a non-peer reviewed book does not.
From a recent post NOAA Blunder Explains Claims of Warming Oceans? at http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/08/noaa-blunder-explain-claims-of-warming-oceans/:
So you see, peer review isn’t the wonder test it is claimed to be.
Are you aware that Mann’s flawed “Hockey Stick” analysis was NOT peer reviewed prior to it’s adoption in the TAR?
Had Mann’s work been properly peer reviewed, it might not have seen the light of day (as it shouldn’t have). It was clearly designed from the start to (a) eliminate the real “medieval warm period” and “little ice age” and to support the false claim of “unprecedented” warming.
The fact that you labor under the delusion that the Hockey Stick “was not fraudulent” is further proof that you have no intellectual standing to be discussing this topic. Mann’s work was (in too kind terms) thoroughly chastised for the elementary statistical blunders that rendered it worthless in a report of a committee (including the world’s leading statistician) tasked by the US Congress to review the work for validity. Even the IPCC has backed away from the Hockey Stick, though the usual alarmists continue to try to drag it out at every opportunity on the theory that if you tell a lie enough times, you’ll convince many that it is the truth.
Give it up.
Unless I see some evidence that you are willing to read beyond the orthodoxy of climate alarmist doctrine, then further discussion with you is pointless.
You are reduced to making broad generalizations and absurd interpretations of what I’ve written in order to attempt to rebut, but it fails miserably.
You routinely seem to believe that one must produce a Nobel-worthy document to refute the flawed AGW theory. But that isn’t how real science works. A theory is only as good as it’s ability to withstand scrutiny. And the AGW theory has been shown repeatedly to fail miserably (just as you fail to convince that you are anything more than an alarmist unwilling to confront reality).
If you are so insecure in your beliefs that you will not subject yourself to any of the fine literature that documents IPCC fraud and the monumental failure of the climate alarmist AGW theory based on real world observation, then you are clearly incapable of maintaining an intelligent online conversation.
You make a mistake when you assume skeptics are not familiar with alarmist material. Indeed, it is that familiarity that drives scientists to be so highly skeptical of the alarmist theory in the first place!
Try broadening your scope of knowledge. I’ve provided you both online links and library material that would be ideal to help you broaden your perspective and understand the weakness of the alarmist position.
Why are you afraid to seriously consider any of it? Because it isn’t “peer reviewed”? I think not.
00
Bob Webster wrote:
You mistake my point. The peer reviewed literature overwhelmingly shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and so increasing its concentration will increase the greenhouse effect.
Books that are counter to that position are a poor argument against the science, because they, of themselves, are not reliable scientific publications.
It doesn’t guarantee accuracy, but assuming the publication is of some note, it guarantees its not obviously fraudulent or trivially wrong.
A book does not guarantee that, and when its editorial position is counter to the consensus of the peer reviewed literature … and the consensus is key, because certainly individual papers are often wrong is one way or another … then you have to ask yourself, why didn’t he publish this in the scientific literature, and rake in the fame and fortune?
Really?
No, I didn’t know that?
Nature are not known for waiving their peer review process. Why was that done? Are there any other papers published in Nature that weren’t peer reviewed?
The current warming is unprecedented according to over a dozen temperature reconstructions, Mann et al. being only one. The second assessment report had temperature reconstructions from only one site, which greatly exaggerated the LIA and WMP, because as the Mann paper showed, and as has been confirmed at least a dozen times since, these events did not occur at the same time throughout the northern hemisphere.
Your opinion does not align with that of the scientific community. If you can point to an errata or peer-reviewed refutation, I’d be interested to read it. As it stands it is the first of many temperature reconstructions, that show with increasing accuracy that the current warming is exceptional. But no-one of any standing has called it “fraudulent”, to my knowledge. The national academies report gave it a resounding vindication, and even the less transparent Wegmann report found that some of the errors were treated incorrectly, but not fraudulently.
And why does it matter now? There are temperature reconstructions today that have a much more diverse range of proxy data, with much greater geographical coverage. On some of them a MWP and LIA are visible, but they are small compared to the recent rise in temperature that is attributable to anthropogenic global warming.
The IPCC reports describe the advances in the science since the last report. They have not backed away from the Hockey Stick, it is merely that there are newer temperature reconstructions to discuss. (Mann et. al.’s 1999 update to the 1998 paper are included in (from memory) at least figures TS 20 and 6.10 – Which is quite a lot of recognition for a paper published prior to the previous assessment report.)
Oooh-kaaay.
What “fine literature” do you claim documents the IPCC “fraud”?
And even if such a insane-seeming claim could stand, surely the scientific research stands on it’s own?
Why do you think, given this “fine literature” that the AAAS supports the IPCC position on the anthropogenic cause of climate change.
And the NAS, the Royal Society, the CSIRO, the WMO, the European Science Foundation, the NRC, the AGU, the AMS, and almost every other national science academy or meteorological or geological scientific society in the world?
Really.
Considering your familiarity with the literature, what do you think a reasonable estimate of the climate sensitivity to CO2 is?
And while we’re here, what do you think is causing coral bleaching?
There is more material than one can read on the subject. Sticking to the peer reviewed literature cuts out some of the most appalling rubbish, so it does make a better starting point. But if you want me to wade through counter-scientific publications, what do you think is your one best piece of AGW denialism?
00
I don’t believe I ever said or implied that peer review ensures that papers are free of mistakes, accurate, reliable, repeatable or reproducible.
They are however, generally above fraud. (Those that aren’t generally out reasonably quickly), and not the the content in non controversial, but that it is at least sane to someone familiar with the field.
Publishing a book does not have that. And if a book disagrees with the consensus from the peer reviewed literature, it is valid to ask why did the author write a book instead of going first to the scientific community for confirmation or refutation.
00
Robin, don’t you get it? The inherent problem with your orthodox climate alarmist doctrine is that most of the scientific research is funded by Government, and since we all know that government is socialist and that AGW is a big socialist conspiracy and they are out to get us, it means that all government studies are a fraud. Wake up! You are being tricked by evil conspirators. You should only trust studies funded by the oil, coal or other industrial CO2 emitters because that’s capitalist Science and their conclusions always have our best interests in mind. Now excuse me, I need go an fuel up my V8 and throw some more coal on da fire. I mean Gawd Damn! No Gubernment is going to interfere with my consumptive behaviour! Dam them! Dam them all to hell! Ya hear?
00
Daemon,
Do you know how business is evolving in the United States of America? Where are all the manufacturing jobs going? What about human services jobs that don’t require a warm body to be present? One thing us pragmatists have learned, over the past several decades, is that “Gubernment” is sometimes a tool used by special interest to obtain wealth and power. And those green special interests are often “oil, coal and other industrial CO2 emitters”. After all they, demonstrably, emit more carbon emissions than all other industries and have the most to gain through generating offsets. In other words, the global warming contextual fraud can make them greater profits as they put people out of work, end productivity and align themselves with the whims of the Albert Gore, Maurice Strong, et al. (all of whom are conveniently, heavily vested in oil companies). All by writ of law.
Market price and effectiveness (convenience) are generally the reasons consumers favor one product over another. My cost analysis reveals the green agenda has done nothing to change costs tradeoffs. Compared to my current little gasoline roadster; owning, operating, and maintaining a competitive electric car still costs ten times the money I’ve spent. If so-called “greens” want us common folks to give up our V8s, then they’d better get to work providing effective alternatives that can compete in the marketplace, rather than using mandates to force market prices artificially through the roof. Otherwise, your “Gubernment” mandated efforts will result in lower oil prices (making carbon fuel even more competitive) but much higher living costs.
You should know the “Gubernment” is only effective toward temporarily emboldening what is unsustainable.
00
#632 – Yes Robin, Fraud is usually found out sort of quickly. But do tell, who is being paid to find the fraud? Who polices climate science papers? Retired hobby scientists?
00
Robin:
You have consistently cited peer review as though it were the only reliable source for good information. I have pointed you to information that would broaden your view and understanding of the problem such reliance can create for you. Yet, like a broken record, you refuse to budge from demanding any evidence contrary to AGW must come from a peer reviewed paper.
Not everything is suitable for peer review. When real-world data fly in the face of AGW theory, your response seems to be, “well, publish it in a peer reviewed journal, then I’ll consider it.” But that is foolish. It’s like not believing the reported daily temperatures in your town until you see them peer reviewed in some journal. Something so obvious as a missing signature (as predicted by AGW thoery and published by the IPCC) for greenhouse gas warming in the two best methods for observing the predicted signature (satellite and radiosonde) is not something that requires peer review.
While you’ve thus far shown zero interest in reading anything that challenges your orthodoxy, nevertheless I’m going to recommend something that should interest you:
“New paper from Lindzen demonstrates low climate sensitivity with observational data” – a summary at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/new-paper-from-lindzen/
… and the full paper at:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
Note that this was not produced by special interests as Damien’s silliness would suggest.
Whether or not this particular paper has been peer reviewed at this time does not render it beyond examination and its author is far better suited to write on this topic than the IPCC’s “chief scientist” or “chief climatologist”, who is neither a climatologist nor an atmospheric physicist … he is an economist.
For more about the IPCC’s “scientific” leader, see paragraph 15 of: http://www2.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/opinion/columnists/article/hysteria_the_newest_version_of_witch_trials/44011/
00
Damien McCormick (Daemon) wrote:
I started to respond to this at face value, and only got it when I read the third sentence.
It’s not easy to pick up on satire here. People make exactly that argument. I don’t know what they were reading when the Bush administration was censoring science from a range of fields, but including climate science. And I don’t know what democracy wants to pay for a policy change for which the benefits will fall outside the term for which they are elected.
00
David Walker wrote:
You want the DFH to release a car in competition with Toyota?
Taxing (or trading) carbon emissions encourages Toyota to make such a car, and they’re more experienced in designing a transmission that doesn’t fall out of the bottom of the car after 2000km.
The market is very good at finding the cheapest way to get the most marketable product to the shops. You don’t need to force it. (And you shouldn’t). If the carbon tax is high enough, BEVs will start appearing in shops, to meet the demand generated for cheaper-to-run vehicles.
00
Joanne Nova wrote:
As with every other field of science. There is little fraud because it destroys one’s career. It is usually found when results are found not to be reproducible. So you don’t need police, you just need scientists.
Climate science is subject to exactly the same publication biases, motivations and academic structures as every other science.
I am yet to see an even remotely plausible justification for the claim that it is affected by these differently. (Or do you claim that all science is fraudulent?)
00
Bob Webster wrote:
There is a lot of writings of a very low standard about climate change available.
Since there is sufficient peer reviewed literature on the subject that keeping up with it would be a full time occupation, I see no need to read information that might be simply false or trivially erroneous.
If there is evidence contrary to AGW, then the way to get it into the scientific understanding is to present it in a paper. Doing an end run around the scientific process and presenting it straight to the public in a book, website, or popular press is inferior for a number of reasons.
Firstly the authors are doing themselves out of the resource that is the knowledge and opinions of their peers. I for one will generally stop reading a dissertation when I come to the first error. Feedback from the scientific community is the best way to avoid this effect.
Secondly it shows that the motivations of the authors are not scientific. Because the goal is not the acceptance of the new idea by the scientific community, but by the public, this is the preferred approach of those who wish to push wrong science for a public relations objective. It is better not to be confused with such people.
Thirdly it raises the question of why was this idea not presented in a scholarly paper. Probably it is not up to standard.
If there were a serious argument that the current warming is not a greenhouse warming, it would certainly make it into the journals. This is because it would be a very significant finding.
The same could not be said for the local temperature here, so I think that your analogy is false. I have no reason to disbelieve the local temperature, because I don’t expect it to appear in a peer reviewed journal.
I disagree that a missing signature is obvious, and I certainly disagree that it does not require peer review.
The most signature aspect of greenhouse warming is the cooling of the stratosphere and the enhanced warming near the poles. These have both been observed. The tropical warm patch under the troposphere is, as far as my limited understanding goes, caused by condensation from Hadley Cells, and so would occur under any warming strong for this kind of convection to occur. That is, this is not a signature of greenhouse warming, but of any warming.
The scientific community have already expressed concerns about Linden’s choice of models and his choice of an ERBS data set that has been outdated since 2002.
Still, this is the correct way to get an idea into the scientific community. Lets see if there are any more papers that suggest that the climate sensitivity is much lower than that found in about 50 other papers in the peer reviewed literature.
That’s not a particularly common view of Dr. Lindzen. And neither is this his first attempt to find a reason why the current estimate of climate sensitivity is too high. For a while he was claiming that the reason was warming would decrease the water vapour content of the air by increasing rainfall. When this was shown not to be the opposite of the case, he didn’t change his view, just his reason for why the estimates of climate sensitivity are too high.
But let’s see if this paper attracts any verification or support from the scientific community.
00
ROBIN – If there were a serious argument that the current warming is not a greenhouse warming, it would certainly make it into the journals. This is because it would be a very significant finding.
Now there’s an understatement. It would not only make it into journals, it would make world headlines for weeks, if not months, since it would effectively disprove 200 years of basic physics.
We observe that gaseous CO2 backscatters Infrared light. We observe that the earth’s surface has a non-zero temperature. It logically follows then that covering the earth’s surface in gasious CO2 will backscatter the infrared radiation from the earth’s surface and hence keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be.
Yup. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases it’s infrared opacity and causes the surface of the earth to heat.
Seems pretty straight forward.
Even common country hicks should be able to put 1 and 1 together.
Right?
We have a method of causation, measurement of the increase in causitive factors, and the correlation between the rise in those factors and the result predicted by theory.
Motive, Cause, and Confession.
Verdict: Guilty
Case closed.
The contrarians are free to entertain us with whatever space alien counter speculation they care to. It will always give a good laugh. But at the end of the day, every aspect of modern science is dependent on the established laws of radiative physics. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere without causing warming necessarily requires a violation of basic statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and errors in the literally tens of millions of observations that rely upon, or are directly dependent upon the known spectra of CO2.
Denying that additional CO2 warms the atmosphere must necessarily be accompanied with a denial of the existence of CO2 lasers, a denial of every spectra recorded of CO2 by the worlds scientists, a denial of the operating principles of optical CO2 sensors, and the denial of the direct demonstration of the absorption of IR by CO2.
Denying the operating principles of optical CO2 sensors also requires a denial of the levels of CO2 emitted in the breath of athletes, which in turn would require a complete rewrite of the biochemical pathways for both human and plant respiration.
Denial of the mechanisms behind plant respiration would in turn require the invalidation of experiments that quantify the amount of carbon taken from the atmosphere, each year by tested plants, but this requires a violation of the experiments which show a 1 to 1 relationship between plant CO2 uptake and plant biomass increase.
And so on and so on all across the web of scientific research.
Also finding error in the spectra of CO2 would put the Infrared astronomers into a tizzy because they have had to painstakingly map the entire infrared spectra of the sky. You can’t do infrared astronomy if you can’t see what you wish to observe.
So yep, it would be a very significant finding.
00
ROBIN – It’s not easy to pick up on satire here.
Listen here Gawd Damn it! There must be some mistake in the data and the Science somewhere? The world can’t be warming because of CO2, by crikey! Because if it is, it means the solutions are all government intrusion into the free market, and I fear I will lose some autonomy through the regulation of my consumptive behaviour, and I heard my taxes might go up. My entire political iedeolgy would be threatened by such a reality. Oh well, in that case, the only thing I can do when threatened by the truth is to deny the truth. I’m gonna start me a Conservative Blog founded on Free Market principles and Capatilist Science. We’ll just argue its natural cycles, volcanoes or space aliens or something, I don’t care what, as long as it isn’t CO2. Hopefully that will confound and confuse the public and policy makers for a few more decades. At least long enough that my generation wont have to worry about evil government intrusion. Dam you to heck, I love my V8.
00
Satire, eh Damien?
Now listen here you capitalist, free-market, unsustainable, overconsuming pigs! The science is settled, and peer-reviewed Science (Peace Be Upon It) has spoken! The planet has a fever because of man’s unsustainable burning of fossil fuels, it CAN”T be anything else. Because if it is, it means we won’t have an excuse to control the markets, humans and everything they do, and I fear that the price of energy may go down which will encourage even more unsustainable living, and not enough 3rd world poor will die off, and the rich might get richer and the gap between rich and poor may increase (never mind that the poor are actually better off than before, it’s the GAP that matters, don’t you know comrade!!). My entire political ideology would be threatened by such a reality, I just can’t face it. We had the PERFECT culprit in CO2 and now it might get away, oh no!. Oh well, in that case the only thing I can do when threatened by the truth is to deny the truth. I’m gonna start me another Socialist Blog founded on sound Marxist sustainable economic principles and good Socialist Consensus Science (PBUI). We’ll just argue that the Science (PBUI) is settled, 99.999% of the world’s finest Scientists (Peace Be Upon Them) agree, it’s all too complicated for the plebs to understand, we’ll say ANYTHING to make them feel guilty and make them believe it’s CO2. Hopefully that will keep confounding and confusing the public and policy makers for a few more decades. At least long enough that we can establish government control over the unsustainable masses. Damn, I love eugenics!
(just wanted to see how many times I could fit “sustainable” into one post!)
00
I have had an epiphany. I have a better understanding of what drives people like Robin and Damien after reading a brilliant article, “Specialist Pleading” (Frank Furedi in The Australian Literary Review September 2). Interestingly, the article is flagged on the front page of the ALR as “The Tyranny of the Expert”.
But first I must own up to a very reluctant admiration for the persistence and stamina of Robin and Damien in the face of opposition. Next, I have at times been frustrated and often amused by their constant and total, dogged deference to the higher authority of peer-reviewed science at the expense of common sense and individual critical thinking. It strikes me at times as eerily akin to idolatry, and enhances the impression of this whole climate-change-consensus-science-has-spoken-circus as a distinctly religious phenomenon.
After reading the article, I think I understand. Furedi says: “Western culture assumes that a responsible individual will defer to the opinion of an expert. Politicians frequently remind us that their policies are “evidence based”, which usually means informed by expert advice. Experts have the last word on topics of public interest and increasingly on matters to do with people’s private affairs. We are advised to seek and heed to advice of a bewildering chorus of personal experts—parenting specialists, life coaches, relationship gurus, super-nannies and sex therapists, to name a few—who apparently possess the authority to tell us how to live our lives.
The exhortation to defer to experts is underpinned by the premise that their specialist knowledge entitles them to a higher moral status to the rest of us…”
Quite.
And further: “In previous times, pronouncement about who was evil or who had sinned was the prerogative of the priest. With the end of deference to the church such mystical powers have become associated with the authority of the professional expert witness…”
“The problem is not the status of the expert but its politicisation. All too often experts do not confine their involvement in public discussion to the provision of advice. Many insist that their expertise entitles them to have the last word on policy deliberation. Recent studies indicate that in public debates those whose views run counter to the sentiments of scientific experts find it difficult to voice their beliefs.”
No. Reeeally??
“From time to time experts also use their authority to silence opponents and close down discussion. For example, those who argue that the debate on climate change is finished claim the authority of scientific expertise. That was how former British environment minister David Miliband justified his 2007 statement that “that the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over”. The impulse to close down debate is also evident in the attacks on Australian geologist Ian Plimer for raising questions about the prevailing consensus on climate change in his book Heaven and Earth. Plimer, it was pointed out with some finality, was not a climate change expert.”
“The tendency to render reality complex is one of the distinct features of the politicisation of expertise. Critics of technocracy, particularly of its propensity for an elitist, anti-democratic orientation to public issues, are often dismissed as naive, simple-minded people who fail to comprehend the complexities of everyday life. Writing in this vein, sociologist Michael Schudson dismisses the naive romanticism of critics who fear that reliance on experts may be incompatible with democracy. Such a standpoint “fails to see not only the complexity of democracy but the democracy of complexity”. He adds that
in a world too complex for any one person or agency to comprehend, there is no governing without colleagues, consulting, committees and compromise. “
Full article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25979808-25132,00.html
Frank Furedi is Professor of Sociology at University of Kent, and author of Politics of Fear, Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone?, Therapy Culture, Paranoid Parenting and Culture of Fear.
00
Robin @641:
And many of them are designed to support AGW.
Then read “Peer Review, What Peer Review?” about the fallacy that IPCC work is adequately “peer reviewed”:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/peerreview.html
And read this “New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears” about peer-reviewed studies that refute AGW alarmist claims:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8
Note that these were both written since the last IPCC report (which makes them two years newer than the material supporting the last IPCC assessment) and that many additional peer reviewed studies have been performed since then that also demonstrate flaws in AGW theory. You seem to be a persistent individual, I’d think you could find them if you had any interest to do so.
Your rationale for not reading or taking seriously published works for the general public (which includes many scientists who are not active in climate change research) is very weak:
Frankly, this comment is not on point. It certainly doesn’t support a belief that books written by scientists or based on extracts from published papers and/or interviews with scientific subject-matter experts should not be taken seriously! You think authors of books do not get “feedback from the scientific community” if their book represents fiction? Check with Al Gore on that one.
It takes a great deal of hubris to assign motives to others. Evidently, you believe the public should be kept in ignorance or informed only by newspaper and/or radio/TV reports (which is the same thing as being ignorant)? I submit that newspaper, radio and TV do more to maintain public ignorance than promote public enlightenment because their objective is ongoing crisis and selling of advertising. The headline, “Global warming fears unjustified, humans not responsible for climate change” would simply not do.
So is it your position that the general public should try to read the peer-reviewed material? No? Do you see the fallacy of your rationale that a scientist should not try to enlighten the public with a book written to address a scientific issue about which the public is generally ignorant?
Nobody suggested that books about climate change written by scientists are designed to circumvent peer review or the scientific process. Such books are not about new revelations in the science. Instead, they are intended to inform the general public (including other scientists who may not be following climate science) about developments in climate change science. You have conveniently suggested a motivation and purpose that mischaracterizes reality so that you can posture an opposition to the effort!
Answered above. Such books were never intended to serve that purpose because they rely on referencing scientific research and making the subject understandable to the public. Which is why I recommended them to you.
Robin continues:
Obviously, you haven’t looked. Note article above that includes citations. Here is a more recent reference:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/04/1500-years-of-cooling-in-the-arctic/
And check out this report: “Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! ‘Nature not man responsible for recent global warming…little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans'” at
http://climatedepot.com/a/2117/PeerReviewed-Study-Rocks-Climate-Debate-Nature-not-man-responsible-for-recent-global-warminglittle-or-none-of-late-20th-century-warming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans
Not according to the IPCC. The IPCC produced a series of computer-generated temperature profiles (IPCC Assessment Report 4, AR4, 2007, Chapter 9. Figure 9.1, in Section 9.2.2.1, page 675) that predicted a very significant greenhouse warming signature in the tropical mid-troposphere. It is known as the “greenhouse warming signature” and is a cornerstone of AGW theory. The best measurements available (radiosonde and satellite) fail to detect any such warming whatsoever. It’s not like the warming is less than what the IPCC predicted, rather, it is entirely missing!
How do warmists respond? By claiming that radiosonde (a tried and true method for recording atmospheric temperature) and satellite (considered the best method for measuring a large area of the troposphere) are unreliable!
It is debatable that whatever has been observed is due to AGW. It cannot even be claimed that polar warming (to the extent it even exists) is due to greenhouse gases, and certainly not the miniscule impact of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2. And, in this context, note the latest peer-reviewed paper on CO2 residency time in the atmosphere at:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/correct_timing_is_everything_also_for_co2_in_the_air/
Note that the 5-year residency time is 1/10th to 1/40th the 50-200 years claimed by the IPCC. And the 5-year figure is consistent with the overwhelming body of scientific research of this question (see pp 82-83 of The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon for a list of the studies).
See, you can find useful information in books! But you have to be willing to look.
You’re mixing apples and oranges. The IPCC-predicted warming is in the mid-troposphere (8km-12km), not “under the troposphere” and, of course, it doesn’t exist (which is equivalent to saying it has simply not been observed).
Here is a simple explanation of the problem, including the charts the IPCC developed to predict the existence of the greenhouse signature (courtesy of Dr. David Evans): The Missing Greenhouse Signature by Dr. David Evans, proof that the IPCC AGW theory is catastrophically flawed at http://www.webcommentary.com/climate/missing-gh-sig.html
Finally,
Which “scientific community” would that be? The “warmist” community? I should think it would “concern” the folks at realclimate.
I prefer to allow Lindzen to speak for himself rather than rely upon characterizations by those who clearly see his work as a threat. Lindzen is no kook and he has no agenda other than getting at what is real through the fog of all this AGW rubbish that is constantly given the appearance of widespread acceptance in the scientific community that it simply doesn’t have.
00
I challenge one of you to show us all some peer reviewed scientific research that challenges AGW and the correlation between [CO2] and an increase in global temperature.
I will eat my own shoe if anyone can. And don’t cite that Heartland Institute paper, because that never came anywhere near peer reviewed.
email me: conservation.robot(at)gmail.com if you have anything.
Big oil is lying to you and you are loving it….
00
No, you have it back to front. We’re not asking the world for money, we don’t have to prove anything. The onus of proof is on you, the accuser of CO2.
On this blog we challenge YOU, Mr or Ms Pineapple, and others like you, to show US all the piece of scientific research that confirms [with observed measurements, not model projections] the AGW theory. One piece will do.
Good luck. No one has been able to do so yet.
In case you’ve missed it, that is what this whole blog is about, and if you haven’t read the Skeptics Handbook yet, you obviously need to!
PS: What kind of shoe did you have in mind?
00
I don’t even know what to say to that… In Yosemite the treeline has been creeping higher (response to higher average nighttime low temps), alpine lakes are warming, Chytrid Fungus, glacial retreat.. and that is only in the Sierra. Have you seen all the data from ice cores?
The evidence is not good enough for you because you refuse to engage in a serious scientific discussion. Peer review. You are choosing to not accept the correlation between co2 and temperature. Sounds like you haven’t even read let alone written many journal articles…
I will eat a 2 year old birkenstock.
00
HAHAhA
I just realized that you referred to a Heartland Institute publication. I read “Climate Change Reconsidered” and it was an 800 page exercise in how to argue science without using science. They claim to have peer reviewed research, which the whole book is based on…. they say up and down that it is peer reviewed and published… while it was published, it was done so in a publication of a known anti Semite who has no scientific credentials and their publication has never even been considered for peer review because it is trash.
They are lying to you, they always have been…
00
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/skeptics_handbook_not_novel_no.php
http://www.celsias.com/article/skeptics-handbook-get-out-shovel/
There is no sense in me even trying to talk to someone who thinks they have been educated by the Skeptics Handbook… those are only two of many bunkings of that Handbook.
More:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook
Do you homework.
00
Bob Webster wrote:
These are exactly the sort of articles that show that it is better to stick with the peer reviewed scientific literature.
The SPPI and Inhofe do put out a lot of opinion that isn’t supportable by an objective understanding of the science.
Then please cite them and not these political and public relations professional opinion pieces.
I think that you’re misunderstanding the origin of the warming in the tropical upper troposphere.
Greenhouse warming warms most at ground level. This is because CO2 only absorbs radiation in certain frequency bands. As you go up in the atmosphere there is less radiation in those bands to absorb, because it has already been absorbed by CO2 nearer to the ground.
A warm spot at the top of the troposphere is not a greenhouse “signature”. My understanding is that it is caused by convection and condensation, and any warming that is strong enough to cause Hadley cells will do it.
So the reason that it only appears on one of the graphs in chapter 9 is because only greenhouse warming is strong enough to cause this on it’s own. If the solar forcing had been increased the 10 or 15 fold necessary to get it to the same magnitude as greenhouse forcing, then the warm spot under the tropical tropopause would be just as strong. (And in fact it is visible in figure 9.1 (a), even at its actual strength).
It is not really debatable. It is well established. The impact of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 is about 1.7 W/m2 of radiative forcing, and will be around 1.5°C for current CO2 levels, once a steady state is reached. This is not actually “miniscule”.
But if you wish to argue that the impact is minuscule or that the warming largely due to some hitherto unknown force, you should back yourself with peer reviewed science, not these political and public relations sources.
00
“Then please cite them and not these political and public relations professional opinion pieces.”
Science or GTFO!
00
Hey Mr Pineapple – you do your own homework. I’ve already debunked those:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/03/desmog-accidentally-vindicates-the-skeptics-handbook/
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/emails-with-an-unskeptical-skeptic/
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/01/reply-to-deltoid/
Anyone who thinks skeptico counts as a scientist proves they don’t know what science is. Empirical evidence trumps every time, yet Skeptico “thinks” argument by authority trumps real world data. He thinks “Denier Tactics” is a reasonable form of analysis. DeSmog are paid bullies. They think they help the planet by looking up resumes, and slandering scientists. And Deltoid can’t make a logical argument. None of them will print the graphs I used in the Handbook because they can’t find real holes in them. All they can do is damage control: print their own graphs with skewed scales and cherry picked data, and hope no one notices.
Describe the “flaws” yourself and prove you can think. Or are you just mindlessly parroting the bullies, and paid hacks?
I cited papers in the Skeptics Handbook and all over my blog.
00
Mr/Mrs Pineapple @ #649 (paraphrased): “I don’t know how to answer that, so I’ll just spout the usual alarmist litany about glaciers retreating, treelines moving, lakes warming blablablablahhh, and hope they don’t notice me ignoring that evidence of warming isn’t the same as evidence that carbon did it…”
For the umpteenth time: Correlation does not equal causation.
@ # 650: Where did I refer to “Climate Change Reconsidered”? It’s a great work, but I didn’t quote it.
Hint: Don’t make stuff up, it makes you look desperate.
@ #651: It must have escaped your attention that Joanne has “debunked the debunkers” elsewhere on these pages.
Do your own homework, Mr/Mrs Frootloop!
Birkenstock … hmmm… doesn’t surprise me.
Reminds me of this great article, which you may not enjoy but others on this blog undoubtedly will: British food writer A A Gill was asked at a literary festival (presumably by someone not unlike you …) if his large carbon footprint didn’t bother him. This is his classic reply:
“ […] Let me tell you, you Peruvian-hatted puritan apostles of grassy nihilism, the single hottest problem facing the planet is not global warming, but the viciously smug fundamentalist prohibitionists of the green movement.
Those wholemealy-mouthed ecologists, who devoutly wish to reduce everyone else’s existence to a self-righteous nose-drip probity that never moves more than four miles from the communal yurt, never eats anything that hasn’t been grown in the communal dung and never thinks anything that isn’t collectively miserabilist, are going to destroy life as we know it faster than an equator of traffic jams, a continent of unlagged lofts and a squadron of circling jumbos.”
Full article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/eating_out/a_a_gill/article1878709.ece
Enjoy!
00
No offense, but the creator of this blog is not a climatologist and they do not have any peer reviewed science to even refer us to. She is hardly qualified to stand up to the work of PHD climatologists, as are the rest of us.
We insist on peer reviewed science because that is how it is done. Let the climatologists yell at other climatologists about methods, data, etc.
There is so much money sitting out there for any legit scientist who can come up with some great challenges to the current consensus on climate change. Exxon has been funding this type of work for decades, its not like the scientific community has a head start.
Challenges to analysis of preexisting data could be peer reviewed and publish. Where are they?
How about this… George Bush eventually conceded that the climate is changing and our consumption has something to do with it.
Its like we are playing poker, science is showing a high straight flush, and skeptics are showing one of their cards and saying they have us beat. SHOW US THE CARDS
PS thanks for the personal attack and name calling. Classy San Diego…
00
Also, the Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a graph that explains an increase in global temperature, and their R^2 is .999. They have us all beat.
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!
00
Jo Nova wrote:
I think that there’s lots of flaws. Your misinterpretation of the modelled warming at the top of the tropopause as a “greenhouse signature” is one. Greenhouse gasses have the strongest affect at ground level, and it decreases with increasing height.
Another is your claim that the 200 year lag between temperatures and CO2 rise at the end of a glaciation cycle overthrows that CO2 causes warming. Current understanding puts the climate sensitivity at about 3 or 4 K per doubling. The 10K difference in temperature between an ice age and an interglacial is not dominated by the contribution from CO2 directly.
A third is your claim that since 1998 was the warmest year on record (or 2005 from the NASA data), shows that there has been no warming since. The 0.016°C warming per year or so is only detectable over other influences (Particularly in this case the 98 El Nino), over longer time periods than that. (It is, however, blisteringly fast in geological terms, and ten times faster than the warming at the end of an interglacial.)
But these are covered I think by your central and basic error, which is discarding the opinion of the vast majority of the scientists in the field. You seem to be genuinely of the belief that the scientists are lying, and that this is good for their career. This should be causing you some cognitive dissonance. Poor research and results that are refuted are bad for a scientist’s career.
00
Anne-Kit Littler wrote:
It is your claim that you are not asking the world for money.
It is our best scientific and economic estimate that you are asking it for about 20% of world GDP.
Ergo, you need to come up with proof that global warming is not causing the damage that it so clearly is, or that line of argument is fallacious.
00
Hi Robin #658. Check it out yourself. The CCSP (Climate Change Science Program) uses the words “Greenhouse Gas” and the words fingerprint. That’s not me. How do you misinterpret the modelled warming of this graph? Is there not supposed to be a hot spot at 8-12km above the tropics due to “greenhouse gases”. Do your eyes lie?
Explanation and sources here http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-missing-hotspot/
Second. In ice cores you quote “climate sensitivities” as if they are real objects. They are not trees we can measure by the side of the road. They cannot be captured and bred. These are not “observations” of climate sensitivity, they are calculated opinions, and opinions vary widely. You simply happen to pick different opinions to me. But I can explain why I find some opinions more convincing – you merely say you trust the guys in the biggest herd. I prefer opinions from people who don’t break basic rules of logic and reason. BTW: 200 years is 800.
Third. I never mentioned 1998. Get over it.
Fourth (a) “Lying Scientists?” Quote me. Can’t? Try this: “The scientists funded by governments don’t need to be dishonest for science to become distorted. They just need to do their jobs. If we ask 100 people to look for lizards in the jungle, would anyone be surprised if no one sees the elephant on the plain?” Scientists paid to find a connection with carbon: $32 billion. Scientists paid to find holes in the theory: $23 million.
Fourth (b) You like pandering to packs, or bowing to authority. I don’t. So, who thinks for themselves and who follows the crowd? Discarding the herd opinion and looking at the evidence is what real scientists do.
So you still think appealling to the mythical “consensus” is supposed to convince anyone? Even if it were a real consensus it would still be a logical error.
Scientists don’t vote for natural laws.
00
“PS thanks for the personal attack and name calling. Classy San Diego…”
Apologies. I mocked an anonymous pseudonym. Where are my manners?
Earn my respect pineapple –
1. reveal your name.
2. Try to avoid internal contradictions, and appeals to authority.
“Only climate scientists can know” and “George Bush changed his mind”. So climate scientists are godlike, and G W Bush is now a climatologist?
Show us the cards? I did. Learn to read.
00
Awesome stuff Joanne, when is that being submitted for peer review and publication? I cant wait to read the critiques.
Also scientists funded by the government are less biased than scientist funded by energy companies.
Speaking of scientists, I am only listening to them from now one. As far as knowledge on the climate goes, Climatologists are about as close to God as you are going to get.
At least you give science a try, that puts you a notch or two above those pesky creationists.
00
Robin: “Ergo, you need to come up with proof that global warming is not causing the damage that it so clearly is, or that line of argument is fallacious.”
No, Robin, we most emphatically don’t.
1) The alarmist claim predates our scepticism, ergo the onus is on the alarmists to prove their claim.
2) Sceptics are asking for evidence of that claim, not making counterclaims, ergo nothing to “prove”.
It’s called logic.
00
Pineapple: “[…] scientists funded by the government are less biased than scientist funded by energy companies.”
Your naivete is almost touching. Let’s examine that: So in other words, those who receive LESS money for their research are MORE biased than those who receive MORE funding? Is that what you believe, Pineapple?
Government = Good, Business = Bad. Priceless.
00
Exactly.
Corporations don’t just give money to scientists without expecting favorable results. Exhibit !: Tobacco.
RE: Those graphs. That is you showing your cards, the whole proof lies in that information then right? So that is then the only scientifically accepted cause and effect relationship of CO2 and temperature? In other words, if CO2 can increase temperatures, that is the only way to see it.
00
Hi Jo,
Look more closely at the graph you have posted.
A C and E are the warming influences. B and D are the cooling.
Solar irradiance warms the stratosphere, so we know from the observed cooling of the stratosphere that it is not the sun that is doing it.
A and C both show the hotspot you talk about. It is stronger in A, because there is more warming from greenhouse gasses than Ozone, but this thing you call a “greenhouse fingerprint” is visibly not, because it doesn’t only occur in the greenhouse warming.
This is what I mean by you are misinterpreting the warming as a greenhouse fingerprint. It is nothing to do with greenhouse gasses, which warm most lowest in the atmosphere and everything to do with convection currents and condensation in the tropics which will occur under any warming.
Second, yes, climate sensitivities are calculated. Needless to say they are not less real because they cannot be captured or bred. I am not aware of any analysis of the ice core record in the peer reviewed literature that calculates a climate sensitivity significantly less than the accepted range of about 3°C per doubling of CO2. (Simplistically, your claim that the 0.8°C of temperature rise last century is not dominated by the 0.5 doublings of CO2 requires a climate sensitivity of less than 0.8°C per doubling.)
Can you point me to a few of these papers that you trust – the ones that don’t break logic and reason?
The scientists are not paid by governments to find greenhouse warming. Quite the opposite. The Bush administration was starkly hostile to the suggestion from its scientists that global warming is and issue that is most cost effectively responded to by immediate action to ameliorate greenhouse emissions. Neither are all scientists government scientists. There are many attached to academic and educational institutions, and some attached to private or charitable institutions.
The bias that you claim must exist for your views to be true is not credible. Of the 928 peer reviewed papers published in the decade 1992-2003 with the ISI keywords “global climate change” not one took the position that most of the warming since 1950 was likely to be natural. That’s not only government scientists, that’s everyone deeply involved in the field.
If good scientists look at the evidence, then you need to better explain your belief that they’re not.
00
Pineapple: “Corporations don’t just give money to scientists without expecting favorable results”
And you think governments do? Puhleeease! Their idea of “favourable results” is just different, that’s all.
OK, Pineapple, you want Authority? You want Climatologists? Well, here’s one of your “demi-gods”:
Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge is an atmospheric physicist and was a Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before becoming Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre. He is currently an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Tasmania and a Visiting Fellow of the Australian National University. He is best known internationally for his work on atmospheric radiation and the theoretical basis of climate. He is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science.
He has just published a slim tome called “The Climate Caper”. It’s very easy to read, even you should be able to get through it. Here are a couple of excerpts:
“It is generally assumed that climate scientists themselves are not pushing the global warming barrow simply because of their interest in some other agenda.
Well perhaps. They have been so successful with their message of greenhouse doom that, should one of them prove tomorrow that it is nonsense, the discovery would have to be suppressed for the sake of the overall reputation of science. In a way, the situation for them is very similar to that of the software engineers who sold the Y2K bug a decade ago. The “reputation stakes” have become so high that it is absolutely necessary for some form of international action (any action, whether sensible or not) to be forced upon mankind. Then, should disaster not in fact befall, the avoidance of doom can be attributed to that action rather than to the probability that the prospects for disaster were massively oversold.
It is more-or-less standard procedure to label as biased those scientists who are sceptical of the dangers of global warming because of their status as knowing stooges of the energy industry. This is at least an admission of the belief by global warming advocates that scientists as a class are in fact quite capable of having their judgement corrupted by political and monetary interests. That being so, the mistrust of sceptics is a peculiarly lopsided assessment. The potential for bias towards the politically correct, and massively government supported, side of the greenhouse debate is the greater by orders of magnitude.
Where in Australia for instance can be found the industry equivalent of the ten million dollars made available to the Climate Institute a few years ago specifically for spreading the word about global warming disaster? To say nothing of the nearly ninety million dollar annual cost of running the federal government’s Department of Climate Change?”
Mr/Ms Pineapple, here’s an example of biased government research: Are you seriously trying to convince us, Pineapple, that the current Australian Prime Minister (and his government), who during the election campaign in 2007 had been campaigning on essentially two platforms – Industrial Relations and Climate Change – did not come into office with a preconceived notion of EXACTLY what kind of “favourable results” he desired for the climate research he was prepared to pay for?
To paraphrase you: Wake up, they’ve been lying to you all along!
00
Anne-Kit Littler wrote:
Under Howard, the “favourable results” were just the same … climate science denial.
Labour is a bit more pro-science.
But overall, I find the response of a CSIRO scientist:”Oh what total drivel, Garth Paltridge. I’m in a slightly better position to know what scientists from the CSIRO feel they can and cannot say, and can assure the public that we have always sought to give frank and fearless advice on issues from climate change to GMO’s and everything in between. I find your assertions to the contrary to be highly insulting-and reeks of the worst kind of sour grapes.” credible. (,a href=”http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/advice_is_poisoned_by_fear”>source)
And I note that when he’s doing peer reviewed science Garth Paltridge finds that the climate sensitivity is of the order of 3K at the equator and 1K at the pole, but since this ignores ice-albedo feed back, is quite in line with other scientific estimates.
Maximum entropy production, cloud feedback, and climate change, Geophys. Res. Lett.M, 34, L14708, doi:10.1029/2007GL029925.
Once more showing the value of peer review over books publishes by ex-CSIRO scientists exhibiting evidence of sour grapes.
00
Have you considered paying attention to what the spaghetti is trying to teach?
Joanne is explaining one particular way in which the computer models deliver results that do not align with real world atmospheric measurements. This means that the models are flawed, they do not fully model our atmosphere nor do they correctly predict climate change. Perhaps next year’s model will do, but nothing published so far has done.
These models are interesting exercises in thought experiment, they are not the basis for any real world conclusions at this stage.
I will further add my own point which is that not one of these “peer reviewed” papers has correctly predicted the global temperature change over a 1 or 2 decade period (i.e. over the MINIMUM time that might be considered climate change) other than if you give then ridiculously wide margins of error. If you accept the wide error margins then the unavoidable conclusion is that we really don’t know what will happen next decade, if you don’t accept the wide error margins then the unavoidable conclusion is that the modelling is just plain wrong.
By the way, all the peer review in the world doesn’t help when the real measurements don’t match the modelled predictions. Wrong is wrong. Try harder next time.
00
Robin: “Under Howard, the “favourable results” were just the same … climate science denial.
Labour is a bit more pro-science.”
That’s a matter of opinion, but it’s beside the point. Pineapple claimed that government-funded science is somehow “pure” and free of ulterior motives. It clearly isn’t, which you’ve just admitted. On any side of the political spectrum.
Robin: “But overall, I find the response of a CSIRO scientist [who in a letter to the Australian claims that Garth Paltridge talks drivel and is full of “sour grapes”]credible.”
Well, you would, wouldn’t you? And what else do you expect him to say? He is obviously offended and feels that Garth Paltridge’s comments (see my post #667) are aimed at him and his organisation, so he’s hitting back. Doesn’t per se make him any more or less credible than Garth Paltridge.
So now you are saying that a published book is less credible than a letter to the editor in the Australian newspaper? That’s an interesting turnaround from you. Was his letter peer-reviewed before he sent it in?
I can’t keep track of your “pecking order” of the published word.
00
Tel wrote:
I don’t think that’s right, Tel.
Showing a correlation between postage price and global mean surface temperature (expected to be positive, because both increase with passing time), does not show that models do not align with real world atmospheric measurements. To do that you would have to look at atmospheric measurements and model predictions. You would also have to look at the estimated error in each in order to show that any difference is statistically significant.
And you will be aware from papers that I have posted links to from this forum that models are uncannily good at predicting mean global temperature change – which is the most important statistic for talking about global warming.
Well within the expected error.
So I don’t think that the rest of your argument genuinely follows.
Of course it also doesn’t matter since the increase in CO2 concentration has been precisely measured, and the climate sensitivity to that is known from many different lines of evidence. (Such as Garth Paltridge’s estimate above).
So climate modelling is an important tool for predicting regional climate change, but has not been necessary to establish global climate change for a couple of decades now.
00
Anne-Kit Littler:
The scientists are generally good. The Democratic Governments generally try to diminish their findings of risks due to climate change because it means acting to ameliorate damage that will fall outside their elected term. They’d rather not, because it does nothing for what they care about: re-election.
But neither are all the scientists Government. There are many attached to academic institutions and some attached to charitable research institutions. When they say “The earth goes around the sun”, that’s the way to bet.
As to hierarchy of evidence, peer reviewed science first, and scientific sources.
If someone makes claims counter to those sources they need especially exceptional evidence.
00
re:
Sorry, Anne-Kit Littler, I can’t find where I gave the idea that a counterscientific book was superior to a letter that was also not peer reviewed. Can you point out where I implied that?
00
I think I understand it now…it’s like a new religion…
instead of the Pastafarians, we now have the… Peeritarians!
Those people can be recognized by their preferred way to communicate with anybody they disagree with: “Have your thoughts/proposals/findings/obvious-observations-nobody-in-their-right-mind-could-deny been peer-reviewed?“.
Sadly, there is no way to convince them to ask or say anything else.
If anything has not been peer-reviewed, Peeritarians will deny its very possibility of existence. Worse, if anything has been peer-reviewed it is then taken as their new dogma…because Peeritarians are characterized by being impervious to critical thinking upon reading peer-reviewed material.
Only hope is, the peer-review system will eventually publish something completely contradictory, thereby convincing to good Peeritarian to change his/her mind.
In order to preserve their remaining sanity, everybody is strongly encouraged not to engage Peeritarians in discussions about hurricanes and global warming, or health and global warming, areas where there are peer-review articles demonstrating pretty much everything and its opposite.
00
While Joanne has dealt quite nicely with the “hot spot” issue, it is worth following the thought process of Robin that brought us to that point.
In a discussion of “peer review” at 637,
I wrote:
To which in 641
Robin replied:
and:
To these, in 646
I replied:
To which at 652,
Robin responded:
No, Robin. I’m not misunderstanding at all. But you are dodging by shifting to something completely off point and outside the realm of the issue of the missing tropical mid-troposphere greenhouse warming signature predicted by the IPCC!
Robin went on to talk about the tropical upper troposphere and temperatures at ground levels, further dodging the issue.
So here IS the point: When confronted with a clear prediction in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (Chapter 9, page 675), that models reflecting the AGW theory predict a strong greenhouse warming signature in the tropical (+/- 30° latitude) mid-troposphere (8-12 km), Robin dances all over the place to avoid addressing the fact that the IPCC/AGW theory predictions are refuted by lack of observation of the very thing predicted!
I have captured and reproduced the appropriate material from page 675 of Chapter 9 of the 4th AR:
http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/ipcc-4ar-c9-pg675.jpg
(These graphs are essentially the same as those produced by Joanne at 660 except the order is not the same and the images I’ve captured are taken directly from the most recent version of the Fourth AR)
There are no studies, peer-reviewed or otherwise, by any of the “warmist” AGW-theory supporters that analyze real direct observational data that confirm the required “greenhouse warming hot spot” predicted by the models used to justify IPCC alarmism.
Why do you suppose that is?
Isn’t it reasonable to expect those who profess a theory as massive as AGW to at least gather real world data in support of the key assumption of that theory (that greenhouse gases are significant contributors to climate change)?
Not only have AGW-believers failed to support the cornerstone of their theory, we do have strong real-world data (weather balloon/radiosonde and satellite observations) that clearly demonstrate no such warming signature exists!
From Dr. Evans’ paper (which I had linked to earlier and which Robin obviously didn’t bother to look at):
So the question remains, is it necessary to provide “peer-reviewed” material to point out something so obvious as noting the non-existence of a cornerstone of the AGW theory when the supporting evidence comes from both the IPCC and the CCSP (neither of which are friends of climate realists)?
And, a corallary: Is it possible for Robin to stay on point when his beloved theory is shown to be flawed?
Finally, if a cornerstone of the AGW theory is shown to be catastrophically flawed, doesn’t that suggest something about the validity of the theory itself?
00
Robin is being fully consistent with his position.
For him, the AGW theory is revealed *TRUTH*. The sacred simulations have spoken – “praises be to the holy equations”. As a consequence, if looking at reality comes up with different results, it is not necessary for him to take the new results into account nor even admit to their existence. It would be a sacrilege. He would be cast out into the wilderness and would lose his Really Good Green Person credentials.
00
Robin, when I mentioned computer models, I was making reference to the graphs showing distribution of warming and cooling (#660 above) and said distribution not matching against the radiosonde measurements.
The postage stamp data at the top, which is illustrative of a different logical fallacy, does happen to be the same logical fallacy that the Pastafarians enjoy a joke about. Different issue.
As for the “uncanny” predictions of global mean temp, we have been down that track and all of the predictions I checked were wrong. I’m not going to spell it all out for you again but thanks to new fangled computer technology a reference will suffice:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/#comment-9562
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/goldilocks-graphs-not-to-close-not-too-far/#comment-8534
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/goldilocks-graphs-not-to-close-not-too-far/#comment-9145
You only response at the time was to say that no “peer reviewed” paper has pointed out the failure of these predictions so therefore it isn’t science. My understanding of science is thus fundamentally different to yours, and this basic axiomatic separation cannot be resolved by cycling through the same points again and again.
00
Bob Webster wrote:
Yes, Bob, you are misunderstanding. The warm spot is not a “greenhouse warming signature”. Greenhouse warming affects ground level most.
A hot spot at the tropopause is nothing to do with greenhouse warming and everything to do with convection currents, and evaporation and condensation.
Note that any warming causes convection currents, and evaporation and condensation.
So it is not a greenhouse signature. A signature is something by which one person, or in this metaphor, cause of warming can be identified. This identifies any warming.
00
Lionell Griffith wrote:
Did you know that ad-hominem is a logical fallacy?
Also, I think that you are wrong. It is the denial of scientific process that is more like religion than the understanding of it.
It is science that is capable of changing its views to fit observations. Not the science denial.
00
Also Bob, the cornerstone of AGW would be the physics of optics by which we know (and have known for two centuries) that greenhouse gasses cause a greenhouse effect.
The absence or presence of a particular kind of condensation is not a cornerstone of AGW theory. Energy is conserved. If the heat of evaporation isn’t appearing in the upper troposphere, (and that’s not as clear as you seem to be claiming), it will appear somewhere else. It makes the model in question inaccurate regionally, not wrong globally.
Neither is modelling itself key to AGW, much less one minor aspect of it.
You are making the argument from ignorance. Because science can’t firmly establish a predicted warming, all of physics and optics must be wrong.
Then you make the jump that since it is wrong it must be much better than it is thought.
The cornerstone of AGW is the greenhouse effect. It is extremely well understood.
00
Tel wrote:
Not to depreciate Hansen’s 1988 predictions, because they were, for predictions at the time, disturbingly precognitive. In terms of predicting the ice sheet loss and sea level rise that we are seeing.
However, I certainly concede that modelling in the 80s was not as accurate as current modelling, and that the paper I referred you to that attempted to analyse the uncanny accuracy of models was looking at recent models.
00
Yo Robin, this Hotspot rubbish is actually based on a report from the silly Denialist camp that in a limited volume of atmosphere, constrained near the equator and centered at around 10,000 feet, the AVERAGE of about a dozen global climate models, gets the temperature wrong for that volume.
But averaging the results of a dozen different models used to compute different aspects of the atmosphere reveals more about the desparation of the denialists than it does about the computer models.
Each model is known to have its area of strength and weekness, and each model is used within those constraints.
One model may be very good at estimating ocean temperatures, while another optimized for computing land based temperatures, Another will be optimized for short term projections, others for speed. Each will include different feedbacks, depending on what questions are being asked.
Now to average them all together, as the denialists did, is simply incompetent. LOL.
BTW I am enjoying your intelligent lucid logical and informative posts, and have been sitting back reading them while eating popcorn and ice cream. Watching the Denialist argument fall flat is always a good flick.
00
Robin at 678:
Let’s analyze Robin’s latest attempt to dodge the point:
1. The warm spot is not a “greenhouse warming signature”.
This directly contradicts the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 9, which I’ve cited before and to which I’ve linked the appropriate captured images. In the exact words of the IPCC, graphic “c” on page 675 represents: “Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from … (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, …”
The issue is the predicted greenhouse atmospheric warming in the mid-troposphere that observations show has NOT occurred. It takes only two charts to understand this:
First, the IPCC chart cited above that reflects the model predictions based on AGW theory of a required greenhouse warming hot spot in the tropical mid-troposphere, and …
Second, the CCSP chart (captured to http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/radiosonde.jpg) that shows the complete lack of any observed warming where the “hot spot” is predicted by AGW theory.
This isn’t rocket science. But it does require the ability to confront reality and recognize a deep flaw in AGW theory.
2. Greenhouse warming affects ground level most.
Irrelevant. (Also, debatable, but that is, again, beside the point and the purpose of this analysis to keep Robin on point.)
3. A hot spot at the tropopause is nothing to do with greenhouse warming
Again, irrelevant. We are not talking about the “tropopause”, we (including the IPCC) are discussing the tropical (+/- 30° latitude) mid-troposphere (8-12km).
To summarize:
Robin’s reply amounts to a claim that the IPCC has it wrong plus several debatable side issues off point.
Why am I not surprised at this lack of focus or willingness to acknowledge the obvious?
00
Robin at 680:
No, it isn’t. It is a characteristic of atmospheric warming, just as it was billions of years before humans appeared on Earth. Once again, an irrelevant nugget that is also, in this case, inaccurate.
Robin appears to confuse greenhouse warming theory with anthropogenic greenhouse warming theory. They are not the same.
Without GCMs, there would be no case for AGW because there exists no observed scientific basis upon which to claim that warming trends over the past 50 years have anything to do with human emissions of greenhouse gases. It is the theorized large positive feedback of increased water vapor resulting from the very small theorized warming of additional CO2 that forms the basis for the AGW theory.
In the absence of any knowledge of greenhouse gases, observations of global temperature estimations over the past 300 years would lead reasonable people to conclude that:
1. There has been a fairly steady rise in temperature from the Little Ice Age.
2. A modern warm period may have been reached by now, but temperatures are still not as warm as they were during the Medieval Warm Period.
3. Multi-decade climate variations about the steady rise in temperature are due to natural forces, such as solar changes, ocean and atmospheric circulation pattern changes, and volcanic eruption frequency changes (both surface and undersea).
If these natural drivers of climate were better understood, they could be subtracted from the record of global climate change leaving us with an unexplained amount of change that could then be investigated for its source.
However, such is not possible for the simple reason that the state of climate and climate change science is not advanced sufficiently to perform that exercise.
Consequently, we have no idea to what extent the AGW theory has a record of temperature change to justify its existence! It is mere theory built on conjecture and assumption (about feedbacks and CO2 residency time in the atmosphere, both overstated by the IPCC).
When the chief proponent of AGW theory, the UN’s IPCC, flatly predicts a significant “hot spot” greenhouse warming in the tropical mid-troposphere, the failure to observe any warming in that region constitutes a significant blow to the validity of the AGW theory.
I cannot recall a theory that has had such dogged defense in the face of so much contrary evidence.
A truly scientific approach would have discarded AGW theory years ago as unsupported by real world observation.
00
Damien at 682:
So you consider the IPCC to be in “the silly Denialist camp”?
Fascinating.
Folks, I believe we’re witnessing the implosion of the warmists.
Enjoy your popcorn, Damien. Perhaps you might consider rounding out your diet with some Fruit Loops.
00
How many recent models predicted the last few years of cooling that we have seen?
00
So if the “hotspot” is a signature identifying any warming, and the “hotspot” cannot be found — the logical conclusion is that no warming has occurred.
00
It is known that the warming has occured from a wide range of primary measurements. For met stations, from buoys, from measurements by ships, from satellites, from radiosondes, from sea level rise measured by satellite and by tide gauges to name a few off the top of my head.
There are also well measured consequences of the warming that are measured in the biosphere. In the advancement of spring events, in the changes to migration timings and patterns, in the movement of the ranges of species, and in the extinction of not a few when those movements have produced no remaining range.
I think that probably there is another explanation.
00
They are remarkably good at predicting global mean temperature. Well within the margin of error. Would you like me to repost the paper?
00
Well, the basis of AGW theory is that the increase in greenhouse gasses that human activity has put in the atmosphere results in an increase in the greenhouse effect.
This is a consequence of greenhouse gasses causing a greenhouse effect.
It’s not very clear that they are not the same.
Is your claim that humans have not increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration, or that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
Well, the opposite is true.
There are a plethora of lines of evidence outside GCMs which show that most (or all) of the warming of the last 50 years is greenhouse warming. I have linked to many such papers on this board before. Would you like to go through some of them one by one?
Current temperature rise is about 0.16°C per decade. It is not true that that kind of warming has been going on since the LIA.
If you look at the 12 temperature reconstructions from the peer reviewed literature graphed here, you will notice that current temperatures are warmer than during the MWP. (Chart is from IPCC AR4 WG1, chapter 6, figure 6.10; the papers are cited there).
Given the plethora of temperature reconstructions that estimate current temperatures to be warming than the MWP, and the absence of temperature reconstructions that put current temperatures at cooler than the MWP, I wonder at your claim that “reasonable people [would be lead] to conclude” the opposite.
Can you explain that a little more clearly? I would say that a reasonable person would conclude that current temperatures are the warmest in the last 120,000 years.
It’s not due to solar changes because the stratosphere has cooled. (Also the diurnal temperature range has decreased and the annual temperature range has decreased).
It’s not due to ocean and atmosphere circulation patterns because the global mean surface temperature has risen. The oceans have not supplied the extra heat because sea levels have also risen.
Volcanic eruptions are many orders of magnitude too weak to change the temperature of the surface.
A reasonable person would conclude that the warming is due to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, which is probably more that 10 times as much forcing as changes in solar irradiance since the start of the industrial revolution. To suggest that a forcing of 0.1 W/m2 (solar forcing) is having a greater effect than a forcing of 1.6 W/m2 (anthropogenic greenhouse forcing) requires a wholly unique understanding of physics.
00
Re: 690
I see Robin has successfully dodged the issue again, skipping over a response to 683 concerning the non-existent greenhouse “hotspot” that is predicted by the IPCC.
Shifting gears, he launches into a response to 684 in which he offers (in his own words) “a plethora” of inaccurate statements attempting to rebut 684.
I will respond at a later time, but a busy schedule prohibits an appropriate response at this time.
00
Another explanation would be a broken equation buried deep within the computer model that calculated the “hotspot”. Merely another AGW prediction that has so-far failed to eventuate.
Does this scenario fit the available evidence?
00
Robin, commenting on 684, writes at 690:
Do greenhouse gases contribute to atmospheric warming? Yes. Of course. Nobody disputes that. One might reasonably call this “Greenhouse Warming” (although the process does not work as a greenhouse does, so it is an inappropriately named process). But this is an acceptable representation of what is commonly called Greenhouse Warming (GW).
AGW theory claims that the very small increment (about 5%[1]) in carbon dioxide (a minor contributor to GW when compared with water vapor) resulting from human activity (principally burning fossil fuels) is sufficient to drive climate out of stability into what is claimed to be catastrophic warming.
What do warmers rely upon to support their assumption-laden theory? Massive computer simulation models that are crude representations of the poorly understood process of climate change. But what should anyone expect from an organization (the IPCC) that is charged with finding a human cause for climate change?
And when those models predict a required greenhouse warming signature in the tropical mid-troposphere and it is not observed? Do warmers go back to the drawing board and try to figure out where their theory jumped the tracks? No. They circle the wagons and change the subject. Notice how Robin ran from the missing required greenhouse warming signature issue?
To prop up this implausible AGW with a crisis scenario, it is necessary for warmers to create the fiction that the atmospheric residency period for carbon dioxide is many decades, centuries, or even millennia! A figure once cited by the IPCC was 50 to 200 years, but other claims by warmers boast of thousands of years! But dozens of studies performed over the past 52 years put the atmospheric residency of the bulk of CO2 at about 5 years![2,3] Oops! There goes that convenient scary accumulation factor.
In short, yes, humans have added more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Is it significant in terms of climate impact? No. And Robin cannot cite a single scientific study that can decipher a significant human signature in climate change. All Robin can do is cite increases and claim that those increases must be due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. That isn’t science. It’s speculation.
Robin continues to cite circumstantial “evidence” as “proof” that “most (or all) of the warming of the last 50 years is greenhouse warming.” Robin’s claim ignores all the natural factors that have been warming the planet since the Little Ice Age ended. Robin also seems to believe that if he could “prove” that the past 50 years of warming was due to “greenhouse warming” that that would be sufficient to pin the blame on the relative handful of greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere by humans! It’s absurd on its face and requires a huge leap of faith.
I noted a “fairly steady” rise. Of course it isn’t steady. Everyone recognizes that there have been decades of cooling and warming throughout the time since the end of the LIA. The changes vary from decade to decade. There is a long term trend upward, but that is nothing unusual in the historic context of climate change during the Holocene.
Amazing. Robin actually cites the “Hockey Stick” charts as “proof” of anything. Is he really that naive? And this little demonstration of the veracity of “peer-reviewed” material should shake anyone’s reliance on that yardstick for credible data! Unless, of course, one is a “true believer.”
Here is some real data for 5000 years: http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/5000yrs.jpg
Note the many times in just the past 5000 years of the Holocene that temperatures have been warmer than today.
And Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s graph from his study Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change: http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/akasofu_graph_little_ice-age.gif (full study pdf: http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/2natural.pdf)
Or how about the longer view, the past 425,000 years?
http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/vostok-green.jpg
Note the warmer periods in the Holocene as well as each of the past four interglacials?
What even this chart doesn’t show is the context of the current ice era compared to Earth’s natural or typical climate that is far warmer than anything experienced during interglacials of an ice age cycle within an ice era! Look at just the past six million years: http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/6my.jpg
Note that this entire period is well within the current ice era that began about 60 million years ago:
http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg
It is absurd to go charging off trying to “prove” that relatively miniscule contributions of humans to Earth’s atmospheric greenhouse gases are going to dramatically change climate when the history of climate and carbon dioxide show no such cause-and effect relationship for even vastly larger doses of carbon dioxide!
This is evidence that the current warming, and, indeed, the Medieval Warm Period as well, are not particularly unusual as a consequence of perfectly natural climate change forces. It is certainly unreasonable to suggest that:
In trying to explain away natural climate change forces, Robin claims:
And just how do these, if true, “prove” that the miniscule human contribution to total greenhouse gases are going to cause significant climate change? Answer: They do not.
This is disconnected nonsense. It is unscientific gibberish. It is not cause-and-effect in any reasonable sense.
Volcanic eruptions definitely have a short term effect on climate. They are part of the picture, not the whole picture (and nobody suggested they were the whole picture).
Robin closes with:
Here is a classic transfer technique, similar to the dodge employed to escape the “hot spot” difficulty. When it is suggested that our nearest star (you know, that big bright object that warms the planet by day?) is not stable and goes through periodic changes that can cause significant climate change, Robin (and other warmers) immediately leap to their old saw that the only contribution of solar changes is a forcing of 0.1 W/m2. This ignores entirely the contributions to climate change of variable sunspot frequency and intensity, magnetic flux changes, frequency and strength of solar “wind” that has a distinct effect on incoming cosmic radiation.
I suggest it takes a huge leap of faith to support the AGW theory when it’s own requirement (the required “greenhouse hot spot” in the tropical mid-troposphere) is simply not observed!
One would think Robin would have sufficient curiosity to follow through with that unfortunate inconsistency. But then fanatical believers are seldom curious to learn that they are worshiping a false god.
[1] A Primer on CO2 and Climate, Second Edition, 2008, Dr. Howard C. Hayden, page 24.
[2] The Deniers, 2008, Lawrence Solomon, Chapter 6 “Looking for CO2”, pp 82-83, contributions by Tom Segalstad, Nir Shaviv, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Robert Carter, et al.
[3] Correct Timing is Everything — Also for CO2 in the Air (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php), guest editorial by Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway, 31 August 2009. From the introductory remarks:
00
Bob Webster wrote:
Bob, it is not a greenhouse hotspot. It is a condensation hotspot.
Greenhouse warming from well mixed greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide is strongest at the ground level and increasingly weaker with increasing height.
So a hotspot 10km up is not a fingerprint of greenhouse warming.
And Bob, the IPCC don’t do predictions. They merely report to the public those things that are understood by the scientific community. It is essentially a large and meticulous literature review.
00
It could be the model is getting something wrong. Maybe the convection is being misunderstood by this particular model, either in taking the moist air upward or in taking the warm air away. Maybe the difference is simply because the current climate is not at the steady state, and the hotspot will emerge. Maybe the condensation in the upper troposphere is being incorrectly modelled, due to some misunderstanding of the physics occurring in cloud formation up there. Maybe the hot spot is there, and it is a measurement problem (as seems to be suggested by measurements of wind speed).
None of these are a the death sentence for climate science as a whole that seems to be suggested by some people in here.
And certainly if this model is inaccurate, the conclusion that it is therefore strongly exaggerating the warming simply does not follow. That is no more likely than it is strongly understating the warming.
But given the uncanny ability of models to reproduce global mean surface temperature, the most likely scenario is that they are neither strongly underestimating nor strongly overestimating global warming, but are getting it close.
And the same results can be confirmed by analysis of the earth’s radiation budget, and by analysis of climate after volcanic eruptions, and by analysis of paleoclimatic reconstructions – so it’s not like the science of global warming hangs on models, much less on a particular models abilities to track temperature in a small part of the atmosphere, 10 km from the biosphere.
00
Robin @ 694:
Thanks to Robin for confirming he does not read particularly well, especially the IPCC document that clearly shows the “hot spot” profile. This helps explain his dogged attempts to defend failed AGW theory.
In response to my observation (@ 692) that Robin, “successfully dodged the issue again, skipping over a response to 683 concerning the non-existent greenhouse “hotspot” that is predicted by the IPCC”, Robin replies with this gem:
That flatly contradicts what the IPCC says, Robin.
If Robin had bothered to read Chapter 9 of the Fourth Assessment Report (2007) he’d have noticed that the “hot spot” is clearly labeled as the temperature profile for “well-mixed greenhouse gases”.
Is Robin now instructing the IPCC about it’s errors?
It appears Robin has clearly demonstrated he is a denialist. He is certainly in major denial of the IPCC view of the consequences of greenhouse gas warming (in particular, the required existence of a “hot spot” from “well-mixed greenhuse gases” in the tropical mid-troposphere).
This isn’t even a controversial position. It’s in the text of the IPCC documents!
It is remarkable how Robin can offer himself as an expert on IPCC views without actually reading the material. If he had read the “literature” he wouldn’t embarrass himself with his continued denials.
Robin concludes:
In further denial, Robin claims the IPCC doesn’t make predictions! No? Well, what does he think IPCC claims about global temperature profiles from now to 2100 represent? Observations? Is Robin in a time warp?
If the IPCC weren’t concluding from their “meticulous literature review” that future global average temperatures were going to rise more than 4°C over the next 90 years, there’d be little upon which to base warmist alarmism.
For Robin to claim the IPCC doesn’t do any research, and that IPCC merely assembles research of others and reproduces it, suggests the IPCC does little more than periodically author an updated book.
But previously Robin piously claimed that books, not being “peer-reviewed”, are unreliable sources for information (even if their material is based on well-referenced peer-reviewed research). Or is Robin’s concern limited to books written from a climate realist perspective? I think we all know the answer to that question.
For accuracy, I would suggest Robin’s closing comment should have read:
The IPCC merely reports to the public those things a small portion of scientists carefully select to support their mission to find a significant human-caused climate change force. It is essentially a large and pre-ordained selective literature review designed to support a failed theory and the IPCC’s continued existence.
To deny the failure of AGW theory in the face of clear evidence of such failure is to engage in self-delusion.
Robin’s dogged denial of the consequences of the IPCC’s AGW theory that requires the existence of the tropical mid-troposphere “well-mixed greenhouse gas” “hot spot” as detailed on page 675 of Chapter 9 of the Fourth Assessment Report, says much about his ability to contribute anything of value to this discussion.
00
Bob Webster wrote:
By the ‘hot spot’ being clearly labelled as the temperature profile for ‘well-mixed greenhouse gases’, I presume you mean that the figure 9.1 is labelled “Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from …” and (c) is labelled “well mixed greenhouse gases”.
Certainly 9.1(c) is the change in temperature profile from 1890 to 1999 under the PCM model, if only greenhouse forcing is applied. I certainly claim that this is the case.
You call 9.1(c) ‘the “hot spot”‘, in order to argue that it the hot spot is a consequence of greenhouse warming. And in doing this you make 2 fallacies.
Firstly 9.1(c) is a entire change in temperature profile from 1890 to 1999, not as you call it ‘the “hot spot”‘. The aspects discussed in the chapter are the cooling of the stratosphere and the warming of the polar regions, both of which have been observed. 9.1(c) is the (modelled by the 1998 version of PCM) change in temperature under greenhouse forcing alone. It is not only a hot spot, and not especially a hot spot, and the hot spot is not an important part of 9.1(c) in terms of differentiating between different causes of warming. This is why it is not discussed in the chapter.
Secondly you make the non-sequitor that because a ‘hot spot’ occurs in a graphic labelled “well mixed greenhouse gases”, then it must be a fingerprint of well mixed greenhouse warming. This doesn’t follow and it also isn’t true. That hotspot occurs under any warming.
This is clearer if you consider the mechanism for, which should be clear once you notice that the greenhouse effect warms most at ground level.
My understanding is low resolution compared to people who work with this stuff, but I think that the upper troposphere warms because in the tropics warming will increase evaporation and rising convection currents. Because the troposphere cools with increasing height, eventually this causes condensation and cloud formation, releasing the latent heat of vaporisation. So warming that causes convection and evaporation in the tropics will cause this hotspot. That is every kind of warming.
It is certainly not in the text of the IPCC documents that a warm spot in the mid and upper troposphere is a signature of greenhouse warming.
One reason for this is that it is not true.
Consider the difference between a doubling of CO2 and a 2% increase in solar forcing using the GISS model. (Source). In both the hot spot is equally pronounced.
The reason that in figure 9.1 the hot spot is most pronounced in 9.1(c) is because greenhouse warming is the one that has caused the most warming. But the magnification of the surface warming in the mid and upper troposphere is visible in 9.1(a) “solar forcing” and in 9.1(d)”tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes”.
____
But I’ve said all this in posts above.
00
They represent findings by the scientific community, reported to the public by the IPCC.
The don’t represent independent work by the IPCC, because the IPCC doesn’t do research. They do reporting to the public on what is understood by science.
00
Robin in 697:
It’s always nice when Robin provides the evidence that he hasn’t a clue what he is talking about.
The reality:
As I had described it previously, 9.1 (c) is “Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from … (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases …“.
9.1(a) is from solar forcing
9.1(b) is from volcanoes
9.1(d) is from tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes
9.1(e) is from direct sulphate aerosol forcing
and
9.1(f) is the sum of all forcings.
Robin seems to think 9.1(c) includes other forcings and is desperate to claim it does not depict what it depicts.
The figures clearly show (to anyone but Robin, apparently) that the AGW-based simulation model predicts the existence of a pronounced and significant greenhouse gas “hot spot” resulting from greenhouse gases. In fact, the warming is so strong that is shows up as an overwhelming forcing in figure 9.1(f) which is the sum of all forcings.
Robin tries desperately to dance around the obvious, claiming that the massive “hot spot” is an artifact of other forces. Yet, it doesn’t appear in any of the other similar figures for other forces. What is the difference in the simulations? The force being simulated. When “well-mixed greenhouse gases” are looked at, the “hot spot” appears. It doesn’t appear anywhere else. Yet, Robin concludes that it isn’t due to the very force being simulated! Remarkable display of illogic and twisted rationale.
Then, in the ultimate and most remarkable self-contradiction, Robin concludes:
So, according to Robin, greenhouse warming from “well-mixed greenhouse gases” is “most pronounced” because it produces the most warming! We call that “most pronounced” warming a “hot spot” in both figure 9.1(c) and 9.1(f). But this directly contradicts Robin’s earlier statement:
Well, which is it? A fallacy on two counts to claim “greenhouse warming is the one that has caused the most warming” or is it true that the models predict “greenhouse warming is the one that has caused the most warming”.
Looks like Robin needs to have it both ways to prove … exactly what? That he’s confused?
Robin forgets that these are model predictions, not reality.
The big PROBLEM with AGW theory and it’s modeling is that reality fails to observe what the models predict!
And the missing greenhouse gas “hot spot” predicted by AGW-theory models demonstrates that either the theory is nonsense, or the models are totally useless and do not represent reality … or both.
00
Robin at 698:
Earlier Robin claimed the IPCC doesn’t make predictions. So I asked, “what does [Robin] think IPCC claims about global temperature profiles from now to 2100 represent?”
To which Robin essentially claims the IPCC is just the messenger, that they are only reporting others’ findings.
When the IPCC periodically publishes an Assessment Report and presents predictions of what will happen between now and 2100, those predictions reflect the IPCC position, regardless of the manner in which the predictions were generated.
00
Bob,
Clearly you have it all wrong. Robin stands in a special place in the universe. It is a place where he can have it both ways. If that doesn’t work, he can call whatever “it” is by a different name and cause it to be different. Add to that, the ability to ignore and/or evade evidence to make it go away as if it never existed. Finally, if reality doesn’t do as Robin wishes, its reality that is wrong. But its not HIS wishes, its peer reviewed wishes published in mutually reflexive peer recognized “scientific” Journals. That way, Robin need not accept any responsibility for what he says. Someone told him to say it. I have no evidence for it but it would not surprise me that Robin hears voices that command him to do as he does.
00
Bob Webster Wrote:
No, Bob, that’s not what I said. I said that is shows other effects, and it is the other effects … the cooling of the stratosphere and the warming of the poles, that are the effects of interest. This is because any warming causes evaporation.
No, resulting from warming, including from greenhouse gases. But, as you can see from the other links that I have included it is just as strong from the same amount of solar warming.
Two contributors to this that you are trying to ignore are:
The hotspot occurs with any warming so occurs with all warmings.
Greenhouse warming is by far the most significant warming, so it dominates. (And the polar warming and stratospheric cooling are also visible on 9.1(f)
Yes it does. Solar forcing (a) and Ozone (d) both show more warming in the 8-12 km height range than at the surface.
If you increase solar forcing so that it causes as much warming as the greenhouse warming the hot spot is just as strong as for greenhouse warming. I have provided links to pictures from the GISS model that show this. Please follow them.
Nevertheless, even at real magnitudes, the greater warming at mid to upper troposphere is there in figure 9.1 for other causes of warming. The reason it is not as pronounced is because they are causing less warming, because they are providing much less radiative forcing.
Yes. Greenhouse forcing in over ten times solar forcing, so it causes more warming including more warming in the upper troposphere. Solar forcing, however, also causes more warming in the upper troposphere than it does at the surface.
It is a fallacy on two counts to say that the picture 9(c) is a hotspot. It is a temperature profile showing several effects, including the salient (and observed) cooling of the stratosphere and warming of the poles.
You don’t need models to predict that “greenhouse warming is the one that has caused the most warming”. You can tell from the strengths. Greenhouse warming is about 1.7 W/m² since industrialisation. Solar warming is about 0.1 W/m². Greenhouse warming is the bulk of the warming.
No I don’t. That the models are wrong is certainly one group of the explanations that I mentioned in 694.
That would be a problem if:
1) AGW theory was not supported by a wealth of observational evidence on top of what modelling has shown us about climate.
2) We were sure that the hot spot is not there, and not merely a measurement problem. (You will be aware of the convection evidence of the hot spot?)
and
3) We know that if the models are incorrect then reality must be a whole lot better, and not similar or a whole lot worse.
None of those three are the case.
It is not a greenhouse gas hot spot. It is a warming hot spot.
But if you are confident that the models are wrong, then you have no idea what the consequences or magnitude of global warming will be, and you should be advocating the precautionary principle until it is shown that the climate sensitivity is not 8°C per doubling.
00
addendum:
That would be a problem if:
1) AGW theory was not supported by a wealth of observational evidence on top of what modelling has shown us about climate.
2) We were sure that the hot spot is not there, and not merely a measurement problem. (You will be aware of the convection evidence of the hot spot?)
and
3) We know that if the models are incorrect then reality must be a whole lot better, and not similar or a whole lot worse.
…
4) It could be shown that inaccuracy in temperature 10km up in the tropics means that the global mean surface temperatures are also inaccurate.
None of these are the case.
00
Lionell Griffith wrote:
Not at all. The warming is mostly greenhouse. The hot spot occurs under any warming. It is not the “greenhouse fingerprint” that Bob’s world-view requires it to be.
I’m not sure what you are referring to here. Could you give an example?
I am strongly pro-scientific, which means I do not ignore or evade evidence.
And the evidence is that the climate sensitivity is probably around 3 or 4 degrees C per doubling of CO2.
Again, I am strongly pro-scientific. And the scientific journals is how science is disseminated and confirmed. By this iterative process of experiment, publishing and confirmation by other groups that reality is investigated. Reality is never wrong.
00
Lionel, at 701, defines the “Robin problem” quite well.
It is astounding how Robin at 702, 703, and 704 can continue to spout the same nonsense over and over, stubbornly refusing to admit the obvious, and contriving pure baloney to “defend” his indefensible position.
But what should one expect from a “true believer” of the Gospel according to AGW Theory.
Frankly, it is a waste of good time to try to sort out the spaghetti that passes for Robin’s arguments. The sad thing is that Robin probably actually believes his own fiction. Truly self-delusional. But then, self-delusion is a tenet of the Gospel of AGW Theory.
You can have the last word, Robin. I tire of wasting time trying to enlighten one who has his head buried so deeply in the sand. I have far more productive things to do than waste time sparring with one who is so obviously lacking a scientific education.
Keep in mind that your tactic of verbose repetition of erroneous nonsense is not going to convince anyone that you have a clue what you’re writing about.
Robin’s interpretation of the charts of 9.1 are nothing short of positively bizarre.
00
I have said that the hot spot is not a consequence of greenhouse warming, it is a consequence of warming.
I have linked to profiles using the GISS model that show the hot spot for solar warming compared to greenhouse warming. They are equally strong.
I have explained that the mechanism by which the hotspot arises is by condensation into clouds of water vapour, so that you can understand that it is warming and not the greenhouse effect that causes the hotspot.
I have discussed the text in the IPCC where 9.1 is discussed in terms of the cooling of the stratosphere and in terms of the faster warming of the poles, but not in terms of the “hot spot”.
And I have pointed out that there is a hot spot in 9.1 for solar and ozone forcing. I have explained that this looks less significant than the one for greenhouse warming, because there is more greenhouse warming. More than 10 times more.
I’m at a loss what else to do, but rest assured my head is not buried in the sand. If you have a peer reviewed scientific paper analysing the warming showing or assuming it to be greenhouse warming I will read it.
The paper cited in the IPCC report as the one figure 9.1 is based upon is here.
Notice when it talks about “fingerprint” it is talking about the rise in height of the tropopause.
Google scholar says that that paper is cited by these 101 papers, articles, publications and presentations. Perhaps these would be a good place to find some esoteric understanding of the hotspot as some sort of greenhouse signature, whose presence or absence spells not only the end of climate science, but a clear sign that the greenhouse effect is much less than predicted, measured, inferred from past climate, modelled and known from optics.
Best of luck with that.
-Robin
00
Yes, Bob, it’s all about confounding the masses with mystery: There’s only one absolutely certain thing about climatology, the origins of our atmosphere, and the true cause(s) of climate change; the more we know, the more we realize who little we know.
Pitifully, the AGW context believers’ rants are tacit refusal to acknowledge this fact. Throw in the ugly side of our common human nature, and it’s easy to understand what the whole hullabaloo is really all about, money and power — maybe not for Robin & Co — but for the general establishment.
The skeptic is not fooled.
00
Robin @ 703: Reality is never wrong.
What is reality and how do you know it? I mean specifically YOU – first person singular? Not the collective. Not the peer reviewed journals. Not a repetition of the accepted as sanctified AWG dogma. Just simply: what is reality and how do YOU know it? Any part of it?
Meanwhile, for your edification and entertainment, I offer the following:
JABBERWOCKY
Lewis Carroll
(from Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, 1872)
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought —
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
“And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!’
He chortled in his joy.
00
I’ve explained that the hotspot is not a signature of greenhouse warming.
I’ve described to my best understanding the mechanism by which this hot spot arises, and it is to do with warming, not greenhouse warming.
I have pointed out that the hotspot is there in 9.1 for solar warming and ozone warming too.
I have explained that the reason that the reason that these are less than the greenhouse hotspot is because the warming from the greenhouse effect has been ten times that due to solar or ozone warming.
I have discussed the text of chapter 9, and how it talks about stratospheric cooling and increased warming at the poles as identifiers of greenhouse warming (both of which have been observed), but not the hotspot.
I have linked to a temperature profile calculated by the NASA GISS model for a 2% increase in solar irradiance, and the hotspot is just as pronounced as for greenhouse warming.
I’m at a loss as to what else I can do.
The citation on figure 9.1 is from a paper discussing the rise in height of the tropopause as a signature of greenhouse warming. Do you think it would be helpful to look at this paper, or search the (about 100) papers, articles and presentations that cite it looking for this interpretation of yours that the hot spot is:
1) A greenhouse signature
2) A fundamental flaw in all of atmospheric physics and optics to date, overriding a vast array of observational and theoretical attribution studies that show the current warming to be greenhouse warming
3) A clear sign that science is not only wrong but also vastly overestimating the current and coming climate change.
?
00
Oh, the irony.
00
The hotspot did not arise. It exists only as an artefact of a calculation error inside a computer model. The only thing that requires understanding is which part of that computer modelling program is broken (and maybe have a go at fixing it).
It is a strange and fruitless exercise to discover the true cause of an event that never happened. The hotspot is merely evidence that the IPCC published a stated belief, which turned out to be incorrect. Why is this turning into such a tangled web?
The Snark was a Boojum!
00
This post is a follow-on to what I promised would be my last comment on anything Robin writes. Robin’s tactic of changing the substance of an issue he cannot refute by redefining the issue into a convenient fiction is a tactic not worthy of further responses.
However, as explained below, I felt my last message an unsatisfactory conclusion to efforts at unraveling the mental spaghetti that Robin cooks. So … the following.
My last post was to be my final effort at addressing comments by Robin and, in fact, I anticipated Robin would have the last word (as I’m sure he will manage in any event). However, I wrote in haste while packing for an extended weekend trip.
En route to our weekend in the North Carolina mountains, I’ve had time to reflect on Robin’s posts in terms of both style and content. What follows will be my final comments (promise!) with respect to Robin.
First, on the issue that derailed Robin and exposed his lack of scientific competence, the missing “hot spot” for greenhouse warming predicted by models used by the IPCC in the 2007 assessment report.
Robin claims figure 9.1(c) represents
Aside from the fact that Robin mischaracterizes the meaning of the “hot spot”, he clearly fails to understand Figure 9.1. The IPPC describes 9.1(c) as “Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from … (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases.”
Note, Robin, that the IPCC did not state “Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from … (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases and other stuff”. Unlike Robin, the IPPC is quite clear about what figure 9.1(c) represents, and that is the predicted temperature profile resulting from “well-mixed greenhouse gases” that includes a very profound and obvious “hot spot”.
Robin consistently and deliberately misinterprets the chart and what others have to say about it. This may come as a shock to Robin, but the “hot spot” is the very “hot” (in red) portion of 9.1(c) that shows strong warming the models predict should have been accumulating due to “well-mixd greenhouse gases”. And the other chart (which Robin ignores) is the view of the actual profile from radiosonde (and confirmed by satellite observations) that show there is no predicted well-mixed greenhouse gas “hot spot” as predicted by models!
In order to avoid these uncomfortable realities, Robin obfuscates, points in other directions, and disputes the clear meaning of Figure 9.1 charts with his bizarre interpretations.
But, of course, the fact that real world observations fail to detect this model-predicted greenhouse warming “hot spot” is a terrible inconvenience for Robin, so he simply denies both the reality of (a) what the IPCC states and, (b) the observed reality.
Robin’s odd behavior isn’t unique to this issue. Since, beyond his posts in this blog, I have no knowledge of Robin or his background, I can only make reasonable assumptions based on the evidence of his posts in terms of their content and style. A picture emerges that strongly suggests Robin is a zealous environmental advocate who possesses little or no formal scientific training or education. Robin’s bizarre interpretations of evidence, his devout reliance on cheery-picked peer-reviewed information (but only the “peer-reviewed” works performed by promoters of the failed AGW theory), and his evident inability to process information objectively, fully support this picture. In this light, his posts are what one should expect. It is also unreasonable to expect Robin to yield to evidence contrary to his view, no matter how compelling.
That said, I was reading a piece written by Richard S. Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T. and a world-renowned meteorologist and atmospheric physicist. Typical for Lindzen, the piece is brilliantly written for anyone with an objective mind and sufficient interest in the global warming topic. While this piece was written in 1995, little has changed since then in terms of the points Lindzen is making, except that there is now even greater evidence that carbon dioxide is an insignificant contributor to global climate change. In these passages, Lindzen addresses the weakness of arguments by advocates like Robin with respect to carbon dioxide and climate change. I would urge Robin to read this material carefully, particularly the last several lines which I’ve emphasized in bold.
Lindzen on Temperature change v. warming:
No doubt Robin will find some peer-reviewed material that he will claim refutes these views of perhaps the world’s most renowned meteorologist/atmospheric physicist.
00
It arose in the model, and that was my meaning. (And I think that someone reading with a view to understanding what I wrote would have been able to gather that, Tel.)
It is a matter for further investigation as to whether is exists in the troposphere, or whether it is something that will yet emerge, or whether there is some physical process that is not yet correctly modelled by at least some climate models.
It is not fruitless to better understand the mechanisms and processes of the climate system, Tel. (And you are probably premature in claiming that it never happened – I presume you are aware of the evidence from wind speed measurements of the existence of the hot spot, and of the paucity of temperature measurements 10km up?)
There is a claim that the hot spot is a consequence (even a signature) of greenhouse warming. This is not the case.
There is a further claim that it is fundamental to (even a keystone of) modern climate theory. This is also not the case.
It may or may not be true that some climate models are inaccurately estimating the temperature 10 km above the tropics. Certainly investigation as to whether this is the case is needed. And if it is, it would be good to correct it.
But the Hadley Centre model is also poor at estimating wind speeds in the tropics and this is known, because measurements of wind speed at ground level are not scarce.
That is not the end of climate science, and neither is a hotspot, even if it does turn out to be absent.
00
That’s right. 9.1(c) shows the response to greenhouse forcing alone.
What I said was that it doesn’t just show a hotspot. It shows the important (in terms of differentiating warming “signatures” from different sources) cooling of the stratosphere and stronger warming at the poles than mid latitudes.
I think that must be what you are confusing.
I think that we’re talking about the same hotspot. The increased warming aloft than at ground level due in the tropics due to condensation of evaporated water into clouds that is modelled to occur under any warming.
Two minor corrections: You say that the hot spot should have been accumulating due to “well-mixed greenhouse gases”. This is not strictly the case. The hot spot should have accumulated due to any warming. And the increased warming aloft is also visible in 9.1(a) – Solar and 9.1(d) – Ozone. It is the cooling of the stratosphere and the increased warming of the poles that does not occur under other kinds of warming.
And one other point of accuracy; you call this the result of models. 9.1 is the average of four runs of one model: PCM.
Lindzen is a generally respected scientist with a prestigious chair, and while non-mainstream views are good for the scientific process, and therefore good for science, the objective mind should be aware that his stance on climate change is very marginal indeed, and counter to the understanding of climate science in general.
As a scientist with such a prestigious position taken to the irresponsible M.O. of taking very marginal speculations on climate to the public rather than the scientific community, responses from the scientific community to his fanciful notions on climate can be readily googled a few days after their release.
But “Here there is widespread agreement that the globally averaged temperature of the earth has increased somewhere between 0.3 and 0.6°C over the past century, with a small but significant chance that the actual record might be outside this range.” makes me wonder when this was written. 0.8°C is the current most quoted number now. Do you know when this piece was written?
00
“The change is also widely agreed to be within the range of natural variability.”
This is certainly not the case for current understanding.
The current warming has been shown to be mostly due to the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses for such a wide range of evidence, that is accepted by most scientific societies the world over, and not rejected by every scientific organisation of international standing. (see: Scientific Opinion on Climate Change.)
And in the scientific literature it is nearly undisputed. (See: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change).
00
Robin – Do you know when this piece was written?
Going by the figures my guess is that’s it’s well over a decade old.
Lindzen – SQ – Here there is widespread agreement that the globally averaged temperature of the earth has increased somewhere between 0.3 and 0.6°C over the past century, with a small but significant chance that the actual record might be outside this range. The change is also widely agreed to be within the range of natural variability. – EQ
Lindzen probably had a point at the time, but the change of .74’C is no longer within the range of natural variability. Attribution studies have shown that a 0.5’C rise that is not sustained is within the statistical noise of the climate. (Hence Lindzens comment above.) However the 0.74’C rise has been sustained for decades, illustrating that the change is not a statistical fluke.
Lindzen – SQ – It should be added that there is a substantial body of both theoretical and observational analysis that strongly suggests that the models have substantially exaggerated the impact of increasing CO2. – EQ
Ironically the exact opposit is true. The talk in the Scientific community at the moment is that the IPCC has UNDERESTIMATED its forward projections. Yes ironic. Ironic indeed!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33011378/
The last big report from the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change came out more than two years ago and is based on science that is at least three to four years old, Steiner said. Global warming is speeding up, especially in the Arctic, and that means that some top-level science projections from 2007 are already out of date
and overly optimistic. Corell, who headed an assessment of warming in the Arctic, said global warming “is accelerating in ways that we are not anticipating.”
00
Yo Robin, re hot spot – for a bunch of laughs read this.
Hilarious is the word.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/david_evans_doesnt_know_what_t.php
00
True, but utterly unrelated to what I said… a typical miss the point time waster. It is fruitless to speculate about the cause of an event that never happened. What part of “never happened” is difficult to understand? By all means study real events, and real climate. Take measurements.
No, there is a claim that the IPCC reported the hotspot as a signature of global warming, and as an output of their models. That is the claim. Keep knocking the strawman, you fool only yourself.
Yeah I know, just about to happen next year, like all the other predictions. How about finding any model that predicted the current spate of cooling from five years ago?
I very much suspect that CO2 is going to keep going up, and temperature is going to keep going down and the predictions are going to get even more outrageous… probably for the next decade.
Another irrelevant strawman. Of course the science will not end, it will simply get more accurate, when someone comes up with a computer model that is driven by observation and measurement rather than political objectives.
00
Has Arctic ice increased or decreased from 2007 to 2009 ?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Hmmm, look at that, seems to be more ice now than two years ago. So the meaning of “is accelerating in ways that we are not anticipating,” is something like, “going completely the other way to what we anticipated.”
Another failed prediction, along with the opening of the Northwest passage for commercial traffic (predicted in 2007 by many many AGW supporters). Didn’t happen, ain’t about to happen.
When these guys get something right, I’ll be interested in their opinions of what we should be doing with our industries.
00
Robin: “As a scientist with such a prestigious position taken to the irresponsible M.O. of taking very marginal speculations on climate to the public rather than the scientific community, responses from the scientific community to his fanciful notions on climate can be readily googled a few days after their release.”
Ah, but are their responses peer-reviewed?
00
I don’t quite understand your use of the term “paucity,” especially since I can’t quite put a some limit on it, but I think you might find a few more daily temperature observations are available above 10km than you think.
First of all, there are more than a 1000 upper air stations reporting multiple temperatures twice daily (the number depends on what year you are interested in) at a number of levels above 10 km. These reports are distributed world wide. In my view, 2000 reports daily, each reporting maybe 10 (or more – the number depends on significant levels found) temperatures above 10km is possibly 20,000 air temperature measurements. Even half of that is hard to hang the “paucity’ label on.
Then we have temperature measurements by satellites for levels above 10km. Several decades ago, when I wrote decoders for DMSP satellites, these reports were about 40 km apart and each satellite reported (as I remember) on each of 13 polar orbits/per day, which I believe at that time applied to 12-13 DMSP satellites.
I don’t remember all the levels reported, but some were above 10km. I won’t bother to put any bounds on a number, but I think we could both agree that, whatever the final numbers are, “a paucity” is a misleading description.
I won’t comment on using winds to calculate temperatures, but those who believe that a radiosonde instrument, from most any era, is unable to detect a change of temperature of only a few tenths of degrees C is just not really very familiar with sounding equipment or procedures.
00
Tel It Wrong – Hmmm, look at that, seems to be more ice now than two years ago. So the meaning of “is accelerating in ways that we are not anticipating,” is something like, “going completely the other way to what we anticipated.”. Another failed prediction …
You’re a funny man Tel.
Firstly ice extent fluctuates year to year but the overall trend is well and truly down.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
Secondly, and more importantly, ice “volume” is trending down as well.
Here Tel, educate yourself. -> Climate Denial Crock of the Week – Ice Area vs Volume
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nruCRcbnY0
00
Damien McCormick (Daemon) wrote:
Thanks Damien!
Reading this: “The increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist-adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft). This is something seen in many observations and over many timescales, and is not something unique to climate models.” I wonder if I have the wrong idea about the hot spot being caused by condensation. The idea that the specific heat of the atmosphere increases with increased water content, and therefore there is a slower cooling with height seems more consistent with this explanation.
Perhaps I need to post a question on a scientific board rather than try to talk about science with people who are trying to use it as the proverbial drunk man uses a lamp post; for support rather than for illumination.
00
Well, I think that modelling does provide illumination as to the mechanisms of climate.
So if it is modelled and if it is observed in other circumstances, it is worthwhile investigating if the hot spot is there, and also understanding why not if it is not.
I think I understand all of “never happened”, but the hot spot does happen, and neither is all the evidence that it is weaker than modelled.
If you like. This is also not the case.
The Hadley Decadal Prediction System predicted that the last few years would not break records. And it was the first model that I am aware of that did prediction, so the approximate answer is “all of them”.
You are exaggerating to claim that there has been cooling from 5 years ago. You must know that there is no statistical evidence for a cooling trend.
My point is that climate science includes optics and the greenhouse effect. Claiming that a model is inaccurate at 10km up does not overthrow the greenhouse effect, and so neither does it show that the established results of climate science, such as that the current warming is anthropogenic, are wrong.
00
Has it increased or decreased from 2006 to 2009?
Choosing an interval for analysis that is counter to the overall trend is called “cherry picking”.
00
Anne-Kit Littler:
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens
I think that Hitchen’s comment is valid if it is generalised to consider ‘evidence’ as a continuum.
00
Orders of magnitude less than what exists for near ground level. (And some people in here would question the validity of those).
If you look at figure 4 of this recent paper Atmospheric temperature change detection with GPS radio occultation 1995 to 2008 GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L18702, doi:10.1029/2009GL039777, 2009, the temperature in the centre of the hot spot; (about 200-300 HPa) is consistent between models and observations.
This illustrates what I meant by paucity. The conclusion that observations are inconsistent with models is equivocal.
00
I comprehend “orders of magnitude,” but I don’t quite understand the term “near ground level.” Perhaps you could explain this for me. Unless something has recently changed, the standard terminology is “surface temperature.” As far as I know, every WMO, ICAO, and official weather manuals/documents from all the various sources I’ve ever read use that term. (I don’t even remember it in satellite documentation.) Some synoptic observations measure soil temperature but I never met a weatherman, or anyone else that confused surface and soil temperature.
If you are referring to the “paucity” of upper air reports available in the tropics, then you are absolutely correct, but that was not specified in the post I quoted.
Sounding instruments “measure” air temperature every few seconds. I’ve never calculated the number of temperature measurements in the average sounding, but perhaps you could enlighten us. And these instruments supply reference signals for drift correction and more accurate measurements, but then you knew that.
Regardless, the questioning of the accuracy of these upper air observations is another matter. If you assume that not finding a ‘hot spot’ is due to low numbers of observations, and then correct the existing (suddenly inaccurate??) observations, it is absolutely an astounding leap of logic. Were hotspots not found because of the “paucity” of observations, or because of inaccurate observations? Pick one.
One would think that the scientific method would dictate changing the model to match the data, not the other way around, but perhaps I’m just confused. If you folks can divine what the soundings should show, then why are we wasting money, time and effort taking soundings?
I looked at your link, but I don’t think I will cough-up $9.00 to read it. Since “hotspots” haven’t been seen in the tropical soundings, the article’s contention that the temperature in the center of the hotspot “is consistent between models and observations” seems a bit illogical. Thanks anyway.
00
Rod Smith wrote:
Within a few metres of the ground.
Yeah, sorry, I could have been more specific. I was talking about the detection of the “hot spot”.
Sounding instruments “measure” air temperature every few seconds. I’ve never calculated the number of temperature measurements in the average sounding, but perhaps you could enlighten us. And these instruments supply reference signals for drift correction and more accurate measurements, but then you knew that.
No, I don’t know anything about that. Do sounding instruments use sound? Like SONAR gone thermometer?
I don’t know which is the case yet. But when discussing the absence of the Hot Spot, the two possibilities are that it is there, and that its not.
And both a kind of interesting, but neither would cause the paradigm shift eliminating our understanding of the current warming that is claimed by the denialist community.
That would be fair once you’re sure of your data. But a model only has a few degrees of freedom. The physical reason for the model being inaccurate needs to be identified before it can be corrected.
Climate modelling is still per cell, is still a couple of hundred kilometres square by a kilometre or so tall, by half an hour or so.
So even when they’re perfect measurements will still provide some finer information.
And they’re a long way from perfect.
00
Funny, the link goes straight to the paper for me. I haven’t paid for a subscription.
00
[…] Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges « JoNova. […]
00
“The current warming has been shown to be mostly due to the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses for such a wide range of evidence, that is accepted by most scientific societies the world over, and not rejected by every scientific organisation of international standing. (see: Scientific Opinion on Climate Change.)”
Scientific organizations funded by government.
And besides this, there is much want in the scientific community to keep one’s job.
It used to be believed in most scientific societies the world over that the world was flat.
So I rightfully accuse you of the Ipse Dixit fallacy.
“And in the scientific literature it is nearly undisputed. (See: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change). ”
I accuse you of superstition. Prophecy does not make fact.
And no, science is not a democracy. Just because, and lets just pretend you are correct, and the scientific consensus DOES hold the global warming end day prophecy to be of divine nature, than does that mean that automatically it is true? This isn’t a race to get votes. Ultimately, it shall be evidence that gives out the almighty decrees, and neither you nor your silly aristocratic, government funded, fat-bellied “scientific” peers will be able to sway its decision. The bigger they get, the harder they fall.
Truth is not decided by some agenda, or by some fear, or by a bunch of people in lab coats. It is decided by ITSELF. All of nature and mankind sway in accordance to its will. That is the fall of the Byronic and satanic hero. I challenge your assumption that any man is the expert on this topic, much less a mob of them. (One of us is not as stupid as all of us. A group of us is more steadfast, that is to say, stubborn, than one of us.
And if we are all going to go around committing fallacies, than I would like to fallaciously point out that not even a tenth of those scientists are climatologists.
“Choosing an interval for analysis that is counter to the overall trend is called “cherry picking”. ”
And? Did not AGW alarmists cherry pick the previous 200 years to show that we have unnaturally high temperatures, when higher temperatures have been achieved in this past era, known as the Holocene? In fact, current global temperature is exactly where it should be, and has been constant within this era.
“the denialist community.”
Nice rhetoric there. But as atheists have always been telling me: THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE SHOULDERS OF THOSE WHO MAKE A STATEMENT OF “TRUTH.”
“That would be fair once you’re sure of your data. But a model only has a few degrees of freedom. The physical reason for the model being inaccurate needs to be identified before it can be corrected.”
All we have to do to show is that there is no connection where the model claims there is a connection, and the whole model is invalidated. A model should not even be formed in the FIRST place until you have accurate information, which (surprise) you don’t have, as we have proven, what with the whole 7000 ppm concentration of CO2 in the Cambrian and the 200 to 800 year lag and such (which is not explained AT ALL by claiming positive feedback, since positive feedback systems show much different behavior.)
Seriously. Models are models. They are flawed human constructions. Which are you going to choose between, an outdated model, or reality?
“And they’re a long way from perfect. ”
And your model IS perfect?
LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.
00
For those that are interested, the “paucity” of Rawinsonde data in the tropics – 20N to 20S is not nearly as bad as it is made out to be. I’m not sure all these sites are still active, but they all have been sometime in the past and the reports I’m sure are available.
For the record, here is a list of US Rawinsonde sites in the Tropics with the responsible authority and rough locations (degrees only):
U.S. Navy Diego Garcia Island (FJDJ) — 7N 72E
USAF Wide Awake Field (FHAW) — 8S 14W
U.S Navy Guantanamo Cuba (MUGM) — 19N 75W
USAF Howard AFB, Canal Zone (MPHO) — 19N 80W
NWS San Juan, Puerto Rico (KSJU) — 18N 66W
TRUST Chuuk, ECI (PTKK) — 7N 152E
NWS Guam (PGUM) — 13°N 145°$
NWS Hilo, HI (PHTO) — 20N 155W
TRUST Koror, Palau WCI (PTRO) — 7N 134E
US ARMY Kwajalein Atoll (PKWA) — 09N 168E
TRUST Majuro, Marshall Is. (PKMJ) — 07N 171E
NWS Pago Pago, American Samoa (NSTU) — 14S 170W
TRUST Ponape, ECI (PTPN) — 07N 158E
NWS Wake Island (PWAK) — 19N 167E
TRUST Yap, WCI (PTYA) — 9N 138E
Here are some non U.S. Upper Air sites
Philippines Davao Aprt (RPMD) — 7N 126E
Philippines Mactan (RPMT) — 10.3N 124E
Philippines Puerto Princesa RPVP) — 10N 119E
Philippines Legaspi (RPMP) — 13N 124E
Philippines Tanay (RP??) 15N 121E
Philippines Ambulong (RP??) — 15N 121E
Philippines Baler Radar (RP??) 16N 122E
Philippines Baguio (RPUB) 16N 121E
Philippines Laoag (RPLI) — 18N 121E
Philippines Sinait (RPUQ) — 18N 120E
SE Pacific Marauke/Mopah (WAKK) — 9S 140W
SE Pacific Saumlaki (WAPI) — 8S 131E
SE Pacific Taul (????) — 6S 133E
SE Pacific Kaimana (WASK) — 4S 134W
SE Pacific Geser (????) — 4S 131E
SE Pacific Ambon/Pattimuri (WAPP) — 4S 128E
SE Pacific Jayapura/Sentani (WAJJ) — 3S 141E
SE Pacific Wamena (WAJW) — 4S 139E
SE Pacific Sanana (WAPN) — 2S 126E
SE Pacific Sarmi/Mararena (WAJI) — 2S 139E
SE Pacific Biak/Frans Kaisepo (WABB) — 138
SE Pacific Manokwari/Rendani (WASR) — 1S 134E
SE Pacific Sarong/Jefman (WASS) — 9S 131E
SE Pacific Labuha/Oesman Sadik (WAPH) — 2S 125E
SE Pacific Ternate/Babullah (WAMT) — 1S 127E
SE Pacific Dilli Aprt (WPDL) — 9S 126E
SE Pacific De-Cusse (WPOC) — 9S 124E
Indonesia Kupang/Eltari (WRKK) — 10S 124E
Indonesia Waingapu/Mau Hau (WRRW) 10S 120E
Indonesia Larantuka/Gewayanta (WRKL) 8S 122E
— there are about as many more non-US upper air sights left as I’ve noted, but I am busy and have other things to do.
The point is that there are surely enough reports to have found the tropical “hot spots” if they really exist.
It would be interesting to know just how many reports were researched for this data.
10
Let me see. If only the 15 US upper air stations are considered, and each takes two runs a day (a few may take 4), then 30 runs a day from these stations amount to 365 * 30 or 10,950 observations per non-leap year.
I find it very hard to believe that if hot spots actually exist, they can’t be found with such a large number of professional (not amateur) weather observations over the years, let alone the reports from the ROW. Where can the hot spots be hiding?
Surely both peer reviewed theory and climate models can’t be that inaccurate, or can they?
10
Rod,
so there are 10,000 sets of measurements from radiosondes each year over the US? How many measurements would each balloon send back in as it rises?
PS: Whats a rawinsonde?
00
Joanne:
There should be 10,000 upper-air observations made by US or US supported sites located in the tropics, 20N to 20S, where as you are aware, the “hot spots” are supposed to be.
The total number of all listed US upper-air stations is 113, if I counted properly, and I suppose a few of them are no longer active. I would expect at least 100 and maybe more are still active. The would make the total number of US soundings per year likely over 300,000.
These observation are called Rawinsondes, which I think is an old contraction of radio-wind-soundings. Instruments are lofted on balloons to (essentially) measure pressure, temperature, humidity, and wind from the surface to well over 100,000 feet. (Sonde is a French word and refers to an instrumented probe.) In addition other values are computed to help define just what the atmosphere looks like from the standpoint of weather.
Unless things have changed and signals are now multiplexed, the measurement of pressure, temperature, and humidity is sequenced every few (3-4) seconds. After a series of a few sequences, a reference signal is sent to allow correction for instrument signal drift. The balloon is tracked by GPS, or sometime other devices, so that winds can be computed at all levels. Sensors are calibrated just prior to launch
These measurements continue until the balloon bursts at high altitude, which is generally well over an hour. The number of measurements by then is enormous, but dependent on the height reached before balloon burst. Some runs occasionally reach 10 hPa.
Normally, runs are made synoptically at 12 hour intervals, 0000Z and 1200Z, but some stations may make four rather than two runs per day.
In my day, the USAF required 3 men to make such a run. Constant cross checking by each team member on all computations made errors very rare. Even so, every run was still put through QC after the fact. Nowadays computer programs do most of the work so the error rate should be quite low.
I hope that gives you an idea of what I was talking about. If not, a pdf of the (US) Federal Meteorological Handbook No. 3 can be found with a Google search and will explain everything in extreme detail.
An excerpt: “8.2.1 Operational Quality Control. OQC is the term used to describe monitoring which is carried out in real-time to near-real-time (0 to 12 hours after observation). It is defined as the quality control performed in time to salvage missing, incomplete, or erroneous data for immediate use or to allow remedial actions to be taken in time to be of value before the next scheduled observation takes place. The following entities are involved: the observing station (OQC described in Chapter 4); the communication hubs (OQC described in this Chapter); and the national analysis centers (OQC covered in this Chapter).”
As I indicated, these are high quality observations taken by professionals with specialized equipment, with strict QC, and not slipshod catch-as-catch-can measurements.
10
Rod,
Great post (736) … hadn’t seen “Rawinsonde” for many, many years!
Such clarity makes it hard for “the usual suspects” to justify their use of the term “paucity” to describe the availability of good temperature data for the tropical mid-troposphere.
But fans of the term “paucity” shouldn’t be dismayed. We still have the paucity of observations confirming the existence of the theorized tropical mid-troposphere greenhouse warming signal.
Which, of course, would lead rational minds to conclude something unfavorable about the AGW theory, wouldn’t it?
00
Bob: #737
Thank you for your kind comments, but I hope I didn’t leave the impression that upper-air coverage in the tropics is anything but sparse. The 40 degree wide belt around the world classified as tropical is a vast area. Still, I think that looking at so much data over time — say a decade’s worth — would inevitably lead one to conclude that ‘hot spots’ just don’t exist.
Also, I was not trying to say that all this data is absolutely, spot-on perfect. The instruments are not of laboratory quality to begin with and are subject to large and sometimes rapid changes in their environment during the run, plus hazards like icing along the way. Still, I think the data is quite good, and not something to equate to the poor quality represented by much of the surface temperatures from the climate history networks.
Now, if I could just convince everyone that temperature is only one small facet of “climate.” I would be satisfied.
00
Rod (737),
You’ve performed an admirable service in addition to the information you’ve provided that clarifies the observational record failing to support the existence of the postulated hot spot.
Robin has been silent for more than a month! 😮
Well done!
00
If you wanted to show that global warming isn’t linked to human activity, you used the wrong statistic.
We’d be more impressed if you could find a natural phenomenon that correlates better.
00
Dear Rocketeers,
It all depends on what you believe the meaning of the word “is” is, eh? That said, the burden of proof lies with those who insist that man has a significant enough impact to warrant action. At least that’s my take on the scientific method, which is almost the antithesis of how the global warming context has been pursued at the UN, the World Bank, the energy companies, and within political circles. It’s been an absolute circus since Maurice Strong’s takeover in 1987, if not earlier.
All things considered, the climate change/global warming believers have failed miserably. Otherwise, those so-called scientists at the CRU would have happily opened all their books/information to inquiring minds, and the release of their email correspondene would have been met with little more than a yawn from the scientific and lay communities.
00
Rocketeers:
We’re still waiting for the scientific study that discerns the human impact (not assumes it). It’s been several decades since James Hansen, et al, proclaimed humans responsible for “climate change” yet we have absolutely no scientific evidence nor any plausible theory to either explain how or discern the human component using established scientific procedures.
Greenhouse gases and their impact on climate change are poorly understood and their impact is generally blown way out of proportion to what both historical evidence and basic science tell us.
Warmists rely on ignorance and deceit to “convince” people to be afraid of “catastrophic” global warming.
The Associated Press just printed yet another propaganda piece in the form of a “story” of the decade’s climate change issue. They blatantly claim that polar ice over the past three years is dramatically being lost … when, in fact, the minimum Arctic summer ice extent has grown substantially for the past two years and is thicker than originally thought and the vast bulk of the Antarctic continues to cool.
As long as “news” media continue to propagandize, there will be people who buy the lies. But, in the end, Truth will win out.
Bob
00
Bob… I tell my children that “even though I believe what I teach them (and they can me research daily), they may, in the future find other evidence that either proves me wrong, or is just an alternate theory…” etc.
I do not claim to know everything since many, many facts/truths remain locked behind closed doors, whether it is history, or science, I know, we are NOT given all the information out there. That is just basic Dictatorship 101: “Do NOT help the enemy” and the enemy is the raising of intellect via education; we have today, ‘edu’indoctrination and it is sick.
Even the ‘wonderful’ Henry Ford recognized that piecemeal serves profits best. Wouldn’t want a united workforce (as in unions–well, unions are corrupt today as well), or a workforce that may create competition if they ever left YOUR company. Manipulation occurs DAILY upon the masses and MSM is the destroyer of life… along with Public Ownership of companies
00
KDK: Your children are fortunate to have your guidance. Those who do claim to know everything … or even a large portion of everything … about climate science are simply trying to deceive (or they have successfully deceived themselves).
Your understanding of modern “education” (read: “indoctrination”) is, unfortunately, appropriate. While the problem is not universal, it is pervasive enough to present a grave danger unless parents (or the students themselves) take on the responsibility to self-educate. Thankfully, today’s internet provides an opportunity for balance, though wading through the nonsense (even knowing enough to discern nonsense from sense) can be daunting.
Best,
Bob
00
Well, reading this blog ate up half of my day. I’d say Robin put up a good fight, but he was hopelessly outnumbered.
I’m not a climatologist, but I have written simulations, and have studied physics and complexity theory fairly intensely. And after my experience writing simulations of complex systems, I don’t even want to hear what anybodys climate model has to say, or how much peer review there has been. I don’t care about a missing hot spot or any such. I already know that models can go wrong in ways that we least suspect. And the earth is just too damn big and complicated to promise any decent climate simulation, let alone value asessment… especially on a long term basis.
How is plant, ocean and algea life going to respond and evolve in response to extra carbon as air-carbon concentration is obviously important in that arena? A hard one to guess, but for certain, plants will be looking for ways to make good use of that extra carbon available. What is mankinds future set of energy options? No one knows. http://www.nanosolar.com/ if that web site is not a fraud, then coal may already be on its way towards obsoletion. And I’m surprised I didn’t see this next link while scanning along. http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-trends/a-sick-graph-iraq-war-spending-vs-spending-on-renewable-energy/
I.e. for the expense of the iraq war, we could have likely solved our reliance on foreign oil problem.
Human nature is not a constant, the nature of plants is not a constant. The nature of bacteria and algea is not a constant. Measurement instruments are not as reliable as we would like them to be and neither are physics models. The entire system is chaotic, meaning that its unpredictable, and that the smallest event could have a most incredible impact in the future.
The ecology is damn f-ing intelligent, and it will respond to that carbon in ways none of us ever dreamt of. Trying to predict this whole system with a computer is like trying to dig up mount everest with a spoon. Furthermore, value systems are a problem in and of themselves. Who can prove that a warmer earth is worse than a cooler earth? Can’t be done, especially since we don’t know just how much warmer we’re talking about, or how much time would be involved, and especially since value systems are inherently centric and subjective in nature. More heat might suck for New York when the water rises, but it might really kick ass for Russia and Canada when their frozen wasteland suddenly boils over with life and vibrance.
People will find ways to cool themselves. They will go to cooler climates. They will move to higher ground. Trying to act now in extremely expensive ways in order to stop an unpredictable problem that may not be a real threat, or might actually end up being a solution to some other problem is just wrong.
Everything that happens in this whole system impacts everything else in unforseen ways, for good and for bad. For locally valued good and somewhere else valued bad. If the U.S. can be liable for others damaged by global warming, I say it can demand money from those favored by it… If it can ever be proven as fact to begin with, which I highly doubt could happen any time soon. Maybe we should be taxing everyone elses use of technology coming from here since it benefits them. .. Its not really realistic to create a cash flow avenue to compensate for every mutual benefit or damage happening in society is it? And then whatever happened to survival of the fittest? Taking from the strong and giving to the weak might be an act of fairness…. or it might be a serious detriment to the gene pool.
The system is just too damned complex. These little climate models…. if I don’t laugh.. they are just a tiny spec of the whole picture, and even if internally accurate, subject to external variables that are unpredictable, most of which we seem to be ignoring in public. In fact, the whole picture is so big and detailed, that neither the public nor our political leaders even has enough time to even read a realistic asessment of every significant issue…
Look, if you wanna save the world, help alternative energy technology reach fruition or promote advances in the human culture systematic or some such effort that we can be more certain will be a benefit. Things like cap and trade are just bullshit. Stop wallowing around in an endless ocean of complexity we will never ever get on top of, I don’t care how many scientists we throw at it. This kind of decision simply can not be made with reliable positive benefits without a lot more hard data. We are going to have to wait for the climate to show us what its going to do.
Thank God for whatever he/she is/isn’t and accept that our lives can end as abruptly as they began with nearly as little personal power over the one as the other. (believe me.. this is something I know very personally.. suddenly lost my wife to cancer, and a few years later, nearly died of digestion/nerve malfunction out of the blue myself. No one had a clue or even suspected where they should be researching… it just happened.) We could spend trillions of dollars on global warming only to be struck by a meteor, a disease, or thermonuclear war. I’d say disease is a far larger threat than global warming. Dump your time and money there instead…
And if you are for depopulation like so many leftists, what the hell do you care about any of these potential major threats? They all promote your agenda anyways. Leftists who want to depopulate the planet should be ushering in global warming and the ocean overshooting its bounds… except for one thing… Damnit, they can’t make money and grow government by telling people not to worry.
Worry worry worry, act now, there is a demon beyond the horizon and only I can save you from it if you give me your money. You can’t see it, but I can. Its the devil, its his demons, its the wrath of God, its global warming, its sure economic destruction happening next month, no, its the y2k bug. The president can save you. No, its the pope, .. no, its all social pyramids.. social pyramids save people and people are helpless on their own. They are stupid. They would do everything wrong without experts and without taxes. New yorkers won’t build buildings somewhere else because the water level is going up. They won’t even see see that water. They’ll try to build skyscrapers in 5o feet of ocean water.
Berievement counsellors know just how damaging fear can be. When your brain starts to fear and worry, your body goes into an excited state. It stops solving the problems it needs to solve and waits in readiness for the brain to say jump. The blood leaves the digestive tract and goes to the muscles. Your food sits there and rots and damages the digestive tract. Day after day, month after month, year after year the damage etches away at your healthy system. It has been said that grieving for a lost loved one can cause as much damage to your body as 20 years of smoking cigarettes. And I testify to you of my own experience, it is the truth. Fear is a fine thing for short periods, but at length, it will drain us of the strength we need to deal with the things we know are real.
Lets not waste huge quantities of strength before we know that it has to be done. If some scientists want to do research, I am all for that, but making large scale economic shifts could very easily cause more harm than good.
Yes, I am a skeptic. I have written simulations. I have learned that logic systems don’t hold a candle to the bad-ass complexity of the real reality. Just a tiny spec of reality can calculate a complex fractal lichtenberg figure as an optimazation to the value system of thermodynamic statistics in far less than the wink of an eye. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtenberg_figure
Our computers will never follow the whole big beastie. Just be patient… wait for the data to come in. Don’t jump all over hell like chicken little. The data will get here. Just wait. Most likely, climate changes will be slow, and people will have time to respond to them in a billion different ways with billions of adjustments that hit the nail right on the head instead of one or a few big knee-jerk wastes.
The only real threat to be concerned with for now is large, sudden, unexpected climate changes. I believe that this possibility should be the real direction for public discussion. The theory about the ocean currents dying of fresh water infusion. Stuff like that.. Does anyone have good things to say about this kind of issue, because I’m a little clueless here, and its my only concern in this direction.
Matt
00
KDK,
“‘wonderful’ Henry Ford”
I congratulate you on putting “wonderful” in quotes. Henry Ford was a creep.
Matt,
You rock. Though I personally am pretty sure that even sudden climate changes won’t have a profound impact on much. “Consider the lilies of the field. God clothes them and takes care of them,…” explains why it takes so much work to garden and keep the li’l buggers alive (I myself am not a gardener, but I live with them), yet they do fine out in the wild, “… and yet not even Solomon in all his glory was dressed as richly as these.” (Yes, I know, I just quoted the Bible on a science forum. And to those who disagree with such practices, maybe its YOUR turn not to have such a narrow mind.) And I’ve always been a little skeptical on “alternate energy sources” of any kind. Especially since we’ve discovered we can find oil just about anywhere. (Not only do we have bacteria that can manufacture it, we have plenty of proof (look it up on ScienceDaily) that rocks make it ABIOTICALLY. :D)
Sadly, I think much more than just money-grabbing socialism (ironic, ain’t it, that socialists seek more money than capitalists?) is going on. Its idolatry. Bow down to money. Bow down to politicians. Bow down to Al Gore. Bow down to your saviors. Bow down to the ecosystem. Bow down to mother nature. These people who say these things say they are “progressive,” that they bring “progress,” but could it merely be that they are progressing backwards? Can’t it be that we, having come out of the wilderness and seeing the bright light of truth have gone running back into the forest of bewilderment, greediness, pervertedness, deceitfulness, and hostility? (Note that “Babylon,” whose name was given to that nation by the Hebrew, sounds a lot like the Hebrew word for “confusion.”)
We’ve built our towers to the stars, and found a God who we have found will not give us godhood, will not give us power, but has instead set forth a destroyer to smash our idols, smash our towers, smash our dreams and ambitions, and we have become so frightened of him, that we fall screaming from our loftiness into the black cold despair of our tribal ancestors, and into the clutches of monsters like Obama, FDR, Mao (admittedly, the former two are better than the latter), the usual (Hitler, Stalin, etc.) found on your list of dictators, the Caesars (ALL of them), etc..
And He has decreed that “those who fall from Me shall lie down in Sheol and shall never rise again.” People will rather die than give up their idols.
00
What we respond today to the reality, forms the basis of ‘Truth’ tomorrow.
00
Has anyone considered dimensionality of human observations?? For example if we had sixth sense, say that of sensing ‘Magnetic field’ whole world would have been a different scene…I pity the people ruining their present times by trying to prepare for the ‘future’ which they CAN know only so ‘LITTLE’….God bless mankind…
00
Well, I think its fairly clear in certain ancient religious documents that the future is not something one can prepare for. “God destroys the plans of man.”
00
“*(As a curious aside, the Forever stamps may have been the US Government’s most successful investment tool in recent times, gaining 14% in value since 2007, while the Dow and everything else, lost over 40%. Thus proving that the US Federal Reserve could better maintain US purchasing power parity if they switched the world’s Reserve Currency from US Dollars to “Forever Stamps”. )”
Damn! And here I was sitting on a bunch of cheap stocks! I should have moved my money!
00
Joanne,
I love the illustration. I’m in financial services. The story we always told was how the price of butter in Bangladesh predicted the future return of the S&P 500.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/09/20/butter-in-bangladesh-predicts-the-stock-market.aspx
You’re right it’s easy to build an in sample model that accurately describes the sample. The real test is how it does out of sample. Can it make a prediction and have that prediction hold up to the scrutiny of observation? It doesn’t happen in the complex multi-factor world of securities markets. Is climate so much simpler that the models can work there? I haven’t seen any evidence yet that suggests it’s so.
10
Correlation does not imply causation!
00
Solar power is now publicly available at $1/watt http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/module-folder/kaneka/kaneka60.html
This panel can pay itself back in 2 to 3 years, and you can buy it right now. I have been telling people, carbon dioxide induced climate change is not a threat because the natural best choice for power is solar. This $1/watt panel is just the beginning. Panels will become cheaper and more efficient still. Stop believing that global warming is a threat. Thats Bowsheet. Don’t let the government pass stupid emissions bills. They are just trying to steal money by digging themselves into the power business.
global warming is so damned dead!!
01
Those panels seem to have an (effective) efficiency of just 6.5% (60W from.95m^2 @ 1000W/m^2 and 25 °C).
In my neighbourhood, I get about 6700MJ/m^2 of sunlight onto a horizontal surface every year, measured at a nearby agricultural research station. The panel efficiency would then result in about 400MJ produced by each panel over the whole year; or about 112 kWh; which at current prices is worth about AUD$20 domestically. Which doesn’t quite pay back the USD$59 (say AUD$75) in 3 years.
Sounds good so far.
But the hidden costs are in MPPT (maximum power point tracker – that presents an optimum load to the panel so that maximum electrical power can be extracted), AC conversion and synchronisation as well as installation and certification costs. The minimum-buy of 10 panels requires a similar number of MPPTs in order to provide a nominal peak of just 600W. (The real peak could be 30% higher under a clear sky with optimum orientation on a cold day.) End-user costs for MPPT’s vary from about $200 up; but in this case, one needs a high-voltage version (60+V) so you’re looking at about double that, per panel. You can run them in parallel but you will get very much less than optimum power when any panel of an array is even partially shaded/dirty.
10 such panels require between 1 and 10 MPPTs. The greater the number, the higher the harvested energy and the lower the suceptability to shade and faults. The lowest-cost option would be to run 5 parallel strings of 2 in series. One MPPT. Electrical authorities and installers may object though, as more than 120V is potentially exposed on the roof. So 2 MPPTs is much more attractive.
What is then also needed is a grid-connection module (to convert the output from the MPPT’s into synchronised grid AC) that’s approved by your power supply utility. It’ll be about $1000 in cost.
Other installation costs include suitable roof mounting brackets, building authority approval and inspection; and electrical installation.I’d estimate that at $2000 if you’re really lucky to have a roof with optimum orientation and suitable supporting structure.
Installed cost minimum becomes $750 (panels) + $1000 (MPPTs) + $1000 (grid connect) + $2000 (physical installation and electrical connect) … say AUD$4750. for a 600W system.
The installed cost is $80/W or in terms of electricity payback of $200/year; almost 24 years. Which of course will never happen because panels will wear out (drop markedly in efficiency) in 10 years.
There are also operational costs which include regular cleaning and electrical inspections; as well as an increase in insurance as fire brigades will let the house burn down in daylight instead of trying to get into the electrified roof space.
00
I should have noted that the installed cost per watt is lower for a larger system. But it is unlikely to be less than $40/W for even a very large domestic system.
Costs are dominated by labour and electrical safety when matching PV to internal use and the grid.
00
Good comments… however, just for now, lets make a few adjustments.
First of all, many grid tie inverters come with mppt algorithms, so you can junk you mppt cost even though it would be a small advantage to have lots of them. The advantage would not merit the cost. Second of all, you didn’t do your own math right. 4750/600 is approximately 8, not 80. Next item is that many of these panels are going to public scaled installations. As solar power becomes more popular, grid tie inverters will cheapen. 3 phase motor drives do essentially the same thing, and can be purchased for around $200 per kilowatt. Next item is that regarding global warming, the united states cost of installation etc. is not the primary factor. World wide, the installation cost will be much lower, and even more attractive because in many places, grid power is way over priced. Next item to think about is that many power consumptions could get by primarily on day-time power without grid connection… like charging electric automobiles. So yeah, you have some points here, no, they don’t seem to carry enough weight to reverse the inevitable solar power takeover.
Matt
00
One thing I should point out, Matt, is that you shouldn’t get so caught up in prophesying. People following such promises of money and power are the cause of stock market crashes (as well as the people who are luring them.)
Outside of the developed world, their will be much demand, and little supply, so don’t even kid yourself that it will be cheaper outside of the Western World. (I say the Western World because a majority of people here seem to be from elsewhere than the US.) In the Eurasian sector of the developed world and other developed lands, it is difficult to say. Governments in Europe and other shadows of Babylon will do there best to support the technology, and this will undoubtedly add some sort of cost to solar panels. (Like when a government in a third world country raises the price of corn, only to find that no one will buy it, and the store owners are selling it for its normal price to the black market, or when they try to lower it, and find almost all of it bought up, then sold by interlopers for its normal, higher price because they want to make some extra money.)
And no, it won’t cheapen. It is not popularity that makes a product cheap, particularly when it comes to power. (The increase in oil prices should tell you so.) It is innovation that makes a product cheap. The computer became cheaper DESPITE popularity, because ways to produce computers became more cheap and efficient to run, thus driving the supply up and the cost down. Solar panels will ONLY fall in price if solar panels are easy to produce. You fail to take into account the most basic economic principle that even a 9th grader (I’m in highschool still, and let me tell you, freshmen aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed) could recite to you. Remember the point of this article, that their are hidden processes at work, and correlation is not causation.
00
great site and great discussion.
my simple little engineering-trained brain took this approach several years ago…
look at the Vostok core data. every hundred or so thousand years, there’s an Ice Age.
if you look at “where we are on that curve now,” as someone pointed out here long ago… we’re coming up to the time when we should be expecting and planning for the Next Ice Age. MMGW may be forestalling its onset!
so, if the MMGW folks can’t give us a REALLY good explanation of what caused ALL of the prior Ice Ages, the Vostok graph should be much scarier than GW. (global warming, not Buah… 🙂 )
oh, simple me…
00
[…] (this in response to yet another tired thread full of “but the findings of so-and-so have not been peer-reviewed!“) […]
00
I think people should think deeply the main renson of global temperatures rise.
00