…
In most ways, David Evans’ alternative model is exactly the same as the conventional model. But a reconnection of one forcing, and an additional factor, can make all the difference. Finally, climate model architecture is getting analyzed and discussed — the conventional structure has been in place for over 40 years.
In the conventional basic model the radiation imbalance caused by CO2 is treated like extra sunlight, amplified by the same feedback processes that amplify warming caused by the sun. But as we explained, the effects of CO2 are not just confined to the surface of Earth, but spread through the atmosphere. In the alternative model the warming caused by CO2 is allowed to have its own unique response. Only after the separate “warmings” of the Sun and CO2 are calculated can they be added together. The conventional model adds them too soon, while they are still radiation imbalances, and assumes the Earth’s climate responds to both in the same way — it’s too simplistic.
David’s model also allows for other factors to change cloud cover, with the addition of an input for externally driven albedo (EDA). In conventional models, clouds are just a feedback to surface warming, but we already know that anything that affects the particles that “seed” clouds can dramatically change the amount of sunlight arriving on Earth’s surface. These factors include cosmic rays and aerosols, and although we don’t know exactly what these are, we have data on how much energy arrives on Earth’s surface so we can still allow for the effects of whatever it is that changes the Earth’s albedo (reflectiveness). — Jo
—————————————-
13. The Sum-of-Warmings Model
Dr David Evans, 18 October 2015, David Evans’ Basic Climate Models Home, Intro, Previous, Next, Nomenclature.
The sum-of-warmings model is the expression of the organizing theme of the alternative model, namely that each climate driver has its own specific sensitivity and feedbacks (“response”), and that the small surface warmings due to the various drivers are independently calculated then added.
The assumed linearity of the climate system for small perturbations means that small temperature perturbations due to the various climate drivers do not significantly affect one another — so the effects of the various climate drivers superpose.
Solar Response
The solar response describes how the surface temperature responds to changes in absorbed solar radiation (ASR).
From the previous post, for moves between steady states the relationship between the ASR A and the radiating temperature TR is just
How do we then get from ΔTR to “the surface warming due to an increase in ASR”, ΔTS,A? The dependence of TS,A on TR is complicated because TR depends on the temperatures of the various layers that emit OLR, one of which is the surface, and the rest of which are somewhere in the atmosphere. The relationship between TR and TS,A is thus mainly mediated by the atmosphere. The atmosphere is complicated and has many feedbacks. However it acts and reacts quickly — usually within days, always within weeks — which allows a great simplification: on timescales of a year or more (such as moves between steady states, as the CO2 concentration rises) and for small perturbations, ΔTS,A is (presumably) proportional to ΔTR. Accordingly we model ΔTS,A as
where M is the ARTS (Amplification of Radiating Temperature to Surface) multiplier. M therefore describes the effects of all the feedbacks in response to surface warming except those influencing albedo, and is thus the open-loop form of the non-albedo feedbacks in response to surface warming (see the feedbacks diagram in Fig. 1 of post 3).
Combining Eq.s (1) and (2), the solar response is
This is the same form as the solar response in the conventional model, so by comparison with Fig. 2 of post 9 when all inputs are zeroed except ΔANF,
Although M reflects all the complexity of the atmosphere and its feedbacks, it has effectively already been estimated for us in AR5. The climate establishment has researched the solar response pretty thoroughly. All we’ve done here is some minor repackaging — putting the non-albedo feedbacks in line, and replacing the Planck sensitivity (with its problematic reliance on holding all else constant) with the Stefan Boltzmann sensitivity (which always applies).
CO2 Response
The CO2 response describes how the surface temperature responds to changes in CO2 forcing — which in turn responds logarithmically to changes in the CO2 concentration, as per the conventional model (no change in that aspect).
The conventional model applies the solar response to the CO2 forcing (Fig. 2 of post 3 and Fig. 2 of post 9), which leads to various unrealistic physical features. So, as noted in the remarks in post 9, the CO2 forcing should not be added to the input of the Planck or Stefan-Boltzmann sensitivities. Also, the CO2 forcing should not affect ΔTR (and thus OLR, because TR is a proxy for OLR) except via surface warming and albedo feedbacks — because by linearity the various climate drivers do not significantly interfere with each other and ΔTR is part of the solar response, and because increasing CO2 merely redistributes OLR between the various pipes without changing to the total amount of OLR or TR (ignoring albedo feedbacks).
There being no existing appropriate modeling structure, we create one. The surface warming due to increased CO2 is presumably proportional to the resulting radiation imbalance DR,2XΔL, where L is the base-2 logarithm of the CO2 concentration (see post 2). So for small temperature perturbations let us define the CO2 sensitivity λC by
where ΔTS,C is the surface warming due to the increase in CO2. λC includes the effect of the rerouting feedback and any other CO2-specific feedbacks. λC is positive (we estimate its value later in this series, and find it is likely less than 0.15 °C per W/m2).
Diagram
The complete sum-of-warmings model is shown in Fig. 1. Its essence is the adder (or summation node) shown as a big red circle, which sums the temperature perturbations caused by the various climate drivers. It also shows EDA as a separate input, along with TSI, contributing to the no-feedbacks ASR ΔANF.
This is not an energy balance model, except that it is parenthetically noted in the diagram that the increase in ASR is equal to the increase in OLR (this is where we will later bolt on the OLR model, to form the alternative model).
Figure 1: The sum-of-warmings model of the climate system, for changes from one steady state to another. It adds the surface warmings due to each climate driver, calculated independently of each other.
Two-Driver Comparison
Consider the situation where there are only solar and CO2 inputs (n=2).
The sum-of-warmings model in Fig. 1 is the same as the conventional model in Fig. 2 of post 9, except that the CO2 forcing is applied to its own specific CO2 response instead of added to the input of the solar response. That is, in the sum-of-warmings model, if the output of the “CO2 Influence” box (namely the forcing DR,2XΔL) were added to the summation node where the increase in no-feedbacks ASR ΔANF is added to the albedo feedbacks fαΔTS to form the increase in ASR ΔA, instead of going to the “CO2 Response” box, then the sum-of-warmings model would be identical to the conventional basic climate model. This conventionally-architected counterpart of Fig. 1 is shown in Fig. 2, below.
Hence the sum-of-warmings model is just one reconnection away from the conventional model, and it is not obvious that they are different architectures rather than just differing by a mistaken connection!
The essential difference is that in the sum-of-warmings model the solar and CO2 influences are separate all the way to the surface warming, rather than entangled at the radiative stage as in the conventional model.
One can regard the conventional model as the alternative model but with the CO2 sensitivity λC set equal to the solar sensitivity λSBM (which is equal to about 0.54 °C per W/m2).
Figure 2: The conventionally-architected version of Figure 2, illustrating that the essential difference between the alternative architecture and the conventional architecture is just one connection — what to do with the radiation imbalance due to increasing CO2.
This seems a step in the right direction to modelling the complexity of the climate, including the role of varying CO2s role, and hopefully getting better skilled at prediction.
However, this is likely to mean a significant reduction in the climate system’s sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2 in terms of resulting temperature. Indeed, the benefits of increased CO2 on carbohydrate production, the stuff of life, via the photosynthesis equation may, within limits, now be seen to exceed any negative effects on rising of the Earth’s temperature—which, again within limits, is probably one of the aforementioned benefits of increased atmospheric CO2.
413
Exactly Chris, on all parts of your comment.
We shall show ahead that, as it happens, the solar response is considerably stronger than the CO2 response.
Bottom line: AGW is false because it applied the strong solar response to the CO2 forcing, instead of applying the relatively feeble CO2 response.
327
*CO2’s role
20
Two figures side by side and a single page of “easy?” math has for me demystified the conventionally-architected module. Thanks.
Now I suppose you will hit them with the before and after of a NOTCH.
Heh.. blood sport.
db..
121
Dr Evans little pussy cat has just gotten tossed in among the alarmist pigeons.
91
The two figures, along with Jo’s explanation for Dummies, certainly make the difference between the conventional models and the Evans model a lot easier to understand. But will the maths is still too hard for me. Will it be in the test?
30
Hi David.
It would seem that the model is only set up to work between the boundary conditions specified in the top right hand box of each of figures 1 and 2.
ie the decrease in OLR per doubling is given as 3.7 w per m squared.
Am I assuming correctly that the area/range of coverage of the model is from 280 to 560 ppm CO2 or is that the figure of L calculated for the first doubling?
The figure of 3.7 w/m2 would be significantly less in the working of the model from 560 ppm to 1120 ppm?
Or
Am I missing something in the maths, namely that the calculation of delta L gives the correct log effect to the 3.7?
KK
30
KK, the model in the diagrams works for any change in CO2 level. The change in CO2 concentration ΔC in ppm can be anything, though it is suggested that one might start from 280 ppm (which gives you an idea of what sort of initial-state quantity to use). Then a logarithm is applied, giving ΔL, the base-2 log of ΔC, as per the formula in the diagram. That is then multiplied by D_R,2X, the 3.7 w/m2, to give the CO2 forcing.
For example, if the initial CO2 concentration was C_0 = 350 ppm and it climbed to 400 ppm then ΔC = 50 ppm and ΔL = log_2(400 / 350) = 0.193. [Check: 350 * 2^0.193 = 400] The CO2 forcing is thus about 3.7 * 0.193 = 0.71 W/m2.
The forcing of a CO2 rise from 560 ppm to 1120 ppm is 3.7 W/m2, just as it is from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
80
Thanks for that David but I’m still uncertain as to what the maths is doing.
In the Logarithmic effect wrt the absorptive capacity of CO2 for outgoing IR, the continued increase in CO2
will eventually lead to a point where even a doubling of CO2 will have no further effect and the “forcing” for that new increase will be zero?
At this point the CO2 effect will have reached its’ peak and will have maxed out.
Further increases of CO2 have no effect.
This contrasts with your last line that says the doubling effect is always 3.7 regardless of starting point.
Am I missing something?
regards
KK
21
KK, as I understand it, CO2 won’t max out anytime soon. For several doublings from where we are, each doubling will decrease the OLR emitted by CO2 molecules by about 3.7 W/m2. So, effectively for the AGW debate, the doubling effect is always roughly 3.7 regardless of starting point, AFAIK.
10
OK Thanks David.
01
This is the conventional thinking – but that can’t continue unless the CO2 spectral lines broaden infinitely and linearly (keeping the same frequency somain shape) as CO2 increases – physically that can’t happen and violates the theory on how emission spectra is broadened (ie that the range of frequencies seen in CO2 is related to the doppler effect).
Once all the energy in the stopband is converted to heat, CO2 can do no more, the shape of the spectrum will change and the log law will no longer apply. Like clipping in an amplifier, once all the energy is used up, the amplifier clips. Since 85% of the energy is used up, we are probably already clipping and the log law is already failing
As I pointed out in an earlier part, CO2 emission bandwidth is related to the temperature of the CO2 ( range of velocity ) not the concentration – that’s why, in spite having a partial pressure of CO2 ten times earth’s mars CO2 spectrum is narrow.
The log law is an approximation, it will break down and saturate at some point. At the origin log (c/c0) where c->0 approaches -infinity, which has no physical meaning thus the log relation must at some point linearise near the origin.
Finally, as I understand it the CO2 formula is deltaT=K ln(C/C0) where K is supposed to represent/include feedback effects. But the main feedback (water vapour) also has a log relationship with energy and has non linear modes (makes clouds). Eventually the water vapour bands become energy saturated too, so at best you have.
DeltaT= f(C,T,H) ln(C/C0), that is K is a function of CO2, Humidity and Temperature and almost certainly an inverse function because as temperature and humidity rises (approaching 33 degrees over water) the atmosphere becomes unstable and non linear feedbacks create thunderstorms cooling the atmosphere below the temperature that drove the instability in the first place, this is oscillatory ( ringing) behaviour. As average temperature rises the geographic area over which these storm effects matter must increase, decreasing K. On WUWT Willis has shown that K varies by latitude, how naive do you think is the assumption that the feedback constant won’t vary with temperature?
Climate science is foolish to assume K is a simple constant. In a test tube with no lapse rate, yes it works, in a real atmosphere in a gravitational well, no way.
Again you’ll refuse to adapt, but again from first principles you are wrong, the log relationship does not come from spectral broadening.
32
CO2 has about a half million absorption lines in the infrared…with lots of room in the upper atmosphere for more absorption.
CO2 isn’t even saturated on Venus.
95
I know.
Terrible isn’t it that CO2 cant get at the bandwidth because it is all taken Up by WATER —
HHHHAAA
KK
37
Rubbish, CO2 warming IS saturated on Venus, its very probably saturated on earth. It’s just that the CO2 near space still gets to radiate whatever happens. That radiation is very likely not sourced from surface emission. Things aren’t wrapped up in a nice radiative bow tied ribbon. There will always be a minimum emission.
Venus is hot because it has a dense reflective atmosphere of almost 100 earth atmospheres in density, possibly heated from below, not because it has a CO2 one.
Why do stars ignite David? CO2 WARMING ? Lol
43
Thanks for your input bobl.
Try as I might I was unable to find the original data and diagrams about band width saturation I had seen a couple of years ago.
00
Keith,
I almost always do my thinking for myself from first principles. The warmies like David almost always seem to assume that the outgoing 15 micron emission can be converted to heat by CO2 but that CO2 can’t gain vibrational energy from atmospheric heat that can be emitted as IR. Goodness, if you spray atoms at a target fast enough you can even shatter nuclei, stripping electrons (ionisation) is simple stuff, just bumping an electron into a different energy shell should be even easier!
31
The possibility that CO2 does cause global warming, but mainly from the first 100 ppmv, would help explain why geologists estimate Co2 levels were up to 20x higher than today without runaway warming.
That possibility would be one explanation why the rise of CO2 from 1940 to 1976 was accompanied by global cooling, and the rise of CO2 from the early 2000s to 2015 was accompanied by a flat trend.
There is no evidence from climate history that a CO2 rise leads or is simultaneous with an average temperature rise, and there’s evidence an average temperature rise causes a CO2 rise.
Anyone who declares a doubling of CO2 from 100 to 200 ppmv will have the same effect as a doubling from 200 to 400 ppmv, or from 400 to 800 ppmv, is saying that geologists are fools, and their estimates of historical CO2 levels and temperature are wrong.
It appears Mr. Evans is making that claim.
If so, I have to add another item to the list of claims that must be correct,
for Mr. Evans to be RIGHT:
(1) Geologists / other scientists doing climate proxy studies are wrong about the lack of a CO2-average temperature correlation, and the claim of a temperature rise BEFORE the CO2 rise, per ice core studies
(2) The current climate physics model is wrong,
(3) The current GCM projections are wrong, and
(4) A new global cooling trend will start in 2017.
The list above is too long.
Just (2) and (3) were enough to focus on — there’s enough evidence to be right about them
03
Richard, that is too many straw men in a list of four. I agree with the climate physics, part of which says that the effect of each doubling of CO2 in the current neighborhood is about the same. The third item pretty much follows from the second, so it isn’t independent. The fourth item is disconnected from the others — I could be correct about the conventional basic model having the wrong architecture while wrong about the imminent cooling.
00
David,
It seems that forever the models use temperature as the key parameter around which much is modelled (and observed).
Is there a complication arising because temperature, especially when in daily readings, is a poor proxy for energy flux? Would it be much nicer if we had the ability to integrate temperatures over a period instead of taking Tmax and Tmin in the daily case?
Geoff.
50
You would still have to deal with the latent heat of vaporization of water.
Because water vapor varies all over the place across the surface of the earth and across time, surface temperatures are a rotten measure of energy flux.
Satellites are probably a much better measure of energy flux.
20
A short comment with the only link, a link to NOAA gets tossed into moderation?
22
It’s probably an automated behavior, not a plot. Chances are when a moderator sees it, it will be approved. It may have nothing to do with the link itself. It may have to do with a particular word used or something like that.
20
Thanks Christoph,
I realize that. I just thought it was amusing that three sentences with a NOAA link got tossed into moderation by Word Press. — So now Word Press is censoring NOAA??? or was it the word rotten?
30
Geoff, we want both temperature and fluxes. The more data the better :). Because it’s surface temperature that we are ultimately most interested in, we have to measure it.
If we could ever measure the OLR so well that we knew how much was coming from each source (in each pipe, i.e emitted by CO2, water vapor, surface, cloud tops, ozone, methane, etc.), and we could detect the small changes that occur over the days and years, the main issues surrounding global warming and GHGs would be solved very quickly.
150
This I agree with, if all the upwelling surface IR in the CO2 stop band is somehow shunted into the other pipes and emitted then there is NO CO2 warming effect at all. The same is true, even as there is some emission at 15 micron, if we could discriminate the sources of emission then we might find that the CO2 emission came from another pipe (ie is not surface or even radiatively derived) CO2 emission is then a soley cooling flow.
What I need to examine this is an image of the earth at the peak CO2 wavelength.
00
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/stratospheric_cooling.jpg
Try Dr Happer’s lecture and slides. This is what he has been working on with a paper coming out soon.
Audio, video and slides of the 2014 physics lecture
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/
00
“This I agree with, if all the upwelling surface IR in the CO2 stop band is somehow shunted into the other”
There is no “upwelling surface IR in the CO2 stop band”
All is prevented by the opposing radiance of atmospheric CO2 within 2 meters of the surface. This has not changed whatsoever since the atmospheric CO2 went above 200 ppmv, easily measured. If you wish to remain 2 steam CCC ok, how much NET flux upward from 13-18 micron band is measured in the first 2 meters AGL?
Likewise all 15 micron CO2 exitance to space is generated in the tropopause at less than 210 Kelvin. This also has not changed since atmospheric CO2 went above 100 ppmv. This very thing is measured every day and night. Make your own image, from those measurements. Get mommy to help!
13
2 steam CCC should be 2 stream CCC sorry!
But I like ©2 steam Clueless Climate Clowns (CCC)© 😉
13
That might be a bit difficult Will, Mommy has been dead for 40 years!
00
“If we could ever measure the OLR so well that we knew how much was coming from each source (in each pipe, i.e emitted by CO2, water vapor, surface, cloud tops, ozone, methane, etc.), and we could detect the small changes that occur over the days and years, the main issues surrounding global warming and GHGs would be solved very quickly.”
We can do precisely the measurement you require with no more invention. This however would destroy all of the CO2 scam.
To work in what is needed David, consider:
Two high frequency resolution spectrometers with sufficient field of view to encompass the whole Earth at the distance of the moon. Place these on the Moon side facing Earth to continuously monitor and record the Earth’s spectral intensity.
This is the total actual Earth exitance including albedo in the direction of the moon. If spectral resolution is sufficient, what molecule at what temperature is contained in the data stream 24/7!!
After such is working fine with much detail of Earth’s happenings, other polar probes looking for the yet unknown details can be put in place. What political impediments were and still are in place to prevent such measurement? Why do they still block knowledge?
34
Jo, David,
This is great work and precisely the sort of challenge that needs to be made to the main stream science.
Exemplary of what has been missing for the last 40 years.
Kind regards.
ExWarmist
152
Agree ExWarmista. It is one thing to point out that the warmistas’ temperature predictions are wrong, but it is quite another to dig into the models and show why and how they are wrong.
Jo, David, thank you and please keep the good work coming.
10
17 Oct: UK Express: Marco Giannangeli: EXCLUSIVE: Senior MP ‘ridiculed’ by BBC for questioning climate change
THE BBC was yesterday accused of bias in its coverage of climate change after a senior MP was “ridiculed” for attempting to question the extent of global warming.
Peter Lilley, a long standing member of the energy and climate select committee, has made a formal complaint to director general Lord Hall after discovering that mandarins had issued an apology following claims he made that the effects of climate change were being exaggerated…
Mr Lilley, who graduated with a degree in natural sciences at Cambridge University, said: “I’m a ‘lukewarmist’, one who thinks that there won’t be much warming as a result of it, and that’s the scientifically proven bit of the theory. Anything going on the alarmist scale is pure speculation.”
Referring to the Met Office, he added: “The sad thing is that they’ve become committed to a particular pseudo-scientific doctrine and are now unwilling to change that doctrine when the facts refute it.”…
Mr Lilley was horrified to discover that the BBC later placed “health warnings” on the programme’s website, and issued an apology for “giving voice to climate sceptics” and failing to “make clear that they are a minority, out of step with the scientific consensus.”…
Speaking to the Sunday Express today, he said: “A colleague of mine alerted me to the fact that they’d slapped disclaimers essentially branding my views invalid.
“My biggest concern is that the BBC breached the impartiality clause of its charter.
“I was asked my views on climate change and I expressed them. My opinion should not be banned from the airwaves. And they should not accompany my remarks with a health warning, saying that I’m outside the scientific consensus, which is untrue…
He added: “This was the first time I had ever been asked to discuss climate change. I strongly suspect it will also be the last time.”
Last night the BBC insisted it remained “committed to impartial and balanced coverage of climate change which gives due weight to all sides of the debate.”
However a spokesman added: ‘We accept that in this episode about The Met Office, the comments made about science and climate change would have benefitted from broader representation from the mainstream scientific community, although we did hear from a range of contributors as well as from The Met Office.”
The revelation comes after a punishing week for the BBC…
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/612788/Exclusive-BBC-accused-bias-snubbing-senior-MP-climate-change
142
[…] By David Evans […]
10
Apologies if this has been mentioned before or I have missed it.
Jo, David’s New Science series of posts is important stuff so is it possible for you to put all of the urls in a single, prominent, position at the top of the page?
This would be a useful aid to access as opposed to having to scroll down. A bit selfish maybe – I’m only on the 6th one so far due to other duties! – but I’m sure others would find it helpful.
20
If you click on the ‘Project Home’ link at the start of David’s post it will take you to an index of links to each post in the series.
41
Jo, David, great, repeat great effort from you to put this all together.
Your new modelling of the feedback effects of CO2 on climate has to be taken seriously.
It offers a logical and working solution to the observed data.
Geoff W Sydney
61
I know you believe the mode of exposition you’ve chosen is best suited to the majority of the audience, and you may be right; I confess to having too frequently overestimated my own audiences’ abilities to comprehend technical subject matter. Still, it wouldn’t hurt for you to hear the following reaction from what you may have correctly judged to be a small minority:
You would have imposed upon at least this reader’s patience far less if you had made the post above, together with some (at this point, still-missing) numerical examples of how the distinction between the models makes a difference, your first installment.
That might have enabled the reader to assess whether any of the observations you’ve made in now-previous installments have any significance. Each subsequent installment could then have shown by further numerical examples how the model’s various constituent elements contribute to the resultant differences.
Again, perhaps the approach you’ve adopted works well for most of the audience. But I can testify that for some it’s tedious in the extreme.
[Joe, please see Comment 17.1. – DE]
22
At the end of the day, I suspect David is hoping to generate enough interest that other scientists check out his work, rather than appeal to all laymen. But I understand that this is technical. I’m sure that’s one of the reasons that Jo is doing her summaries at the beginning of each post.
70
Joe,
When reading a book have you ever wanted to jump to the end to see how it all comes out? I certainly have. And I’m certainly impatient to see David’s final installments which I’m sure will be the equivalent of the end of the book where you find out how it all comes out. So even as a layman at this stuff I understand your complaint. But I think no matter how the material is organized it won’t be “right” in the eyes of some readers.
60
Absolutely. And I don’t claim to know how best to present this stuff. Having more times than I’d care to count endured the torture of trying to explain technical subject matter, I’m well aware of my own limitations in this area. So I’m not at all sure I’m right.
That said, I think there’s some value in getting feedback from someone who has, as I have, spent a great deal of time on both ends of such communications.
60
And the most important thing for credibility and clarity is to focus each difference between a new model and an old model and show the impact of each change one at a time, so reader can see if each new step makes sense. With the tradition approach to summing feedbacks, the closer you get to -3.7 W/m2, the closer the denominator gets to zero – a the closer we get to a runaway greenhouse effect
00
Despite some searching of the internet, I can’t find David’s “IPCC” version of the model. Can some reference be supplied that will point me to that exact model? Even if not the IPCC version, that would be OK, so long as it is a climate scientist’s version.
20
Earlier posts in the series covered this topic. See post 1 (the intro), and posts 2 and 3 on the conventional model (with references to paper by leading theorists, leading textbook). Links above, beside the author’s name.
See Project Home to navigate the series.
50
I hope you have found something game changing here, so what I’m saying is I’m on your side. But referring someone to thousands of pages of material in search of what you claim to be the warmists’ accepted basic climate model is untenable. Critics will claim you’ve set up a straw man. If a simple to follow link isn’t supplied to the IPCC or warmist basic physics model, I’m afraid you have entered the battle with a knife in a gun fight.
30
Jim2, I think not. What David Evans has done is abstract the mathematical essence of all the climate models. There were folks arguing this (Lucia at Blackboard, Willis at WUWT). I provided them links to the technical notes for one of the leading GCM’s for AR4, CAM3. That GCM is particularly useful because it fairly cleanly separates the dynamical core (how grids are stepped through) from the physics. Section 4.1 (physics of deep convection) suffices to show concretely that DE’s generalized abstraction is correct.
Dave has brought Seal Team 6 and grenade launchers to this gunfight. He has not set up some straw man.
185
It’s just that a ready reference would effect one less toe hold for the critics.
00
One of the references that David provided in the first post is “Principles of Planetary Climate” by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert. It contains a section (3.4.2 Climate sensitivity, radiative forcing and feedback) that describes in detail the basic model that David is discussing here.
100
That may be true, Nicholas. But I’m not shelling out $104 to find out.
24
Pierrehumbert’s book is downloadable. This seems to be legit: http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/ClimateVol1.pdf. See section 3.4.2, pages 135 – 138 of this pdf. I’ve followed Held and Soden (http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf) more closely, and neither account by itself has all the features covered in the posts here.
30
Thanks for that. So you’ve incorporated basic physics from multiple sources to make up your model.
00
I guess this is the point to confess my confusion about something. From the very definition of how they work and on down through everything I’ve read about the mechanism involved, I can’t see how GHGs can be heating anything. They can be slowing the rate of cooling by their action, exactly what is described as the mechanism by which they work. So I don’t get the treatment of GHGs as a heat source. They add no heat to the system. So still, after all this time, it seems incorrect to think of it as a source of warming.
I remember the argument Lionell Griffith made over and over concerning this point.
The logic seems so straight forward and inescapable. What am I missing?
50
Roy, a blanket adds no heat to the system but, because heat is constantly being generated by your body (or by the Sun in the case of climate) can cause you (or the planet) to heat up, up to a point.
122
OK. I get the analogy, except that the Earth is not generating any heat like my body does under the blanket.
20
No, but the Sun is, and it penetrates the blanket and adds to the total heat, not entirely unlike sitting in the Sun, a camp fire, or even central heating does (part of what the Sun does is radiative, but it also heats up molecules, the atmosphere, near the surface).
110
Christoph Dollis wrote;
“Roy, a blanket adds no heat to the system….”
So why do you get under a blanket at night?
79
In order to stop the continuous stream of body heat added to the air surrounding my body from convecting away.
150
omg, David.. did you really ask that question ?
roflmao !!! The dumb is strong with you, it truly is. !!
Then you have to ask yourself what sort of blanket COOLS you when you get too warm… Because that’s what the atmosphere does.
The “blanket” analogy is a joke.
26
Christoph,
I’m going to be the “wet blanket” here to your blanket analogy.
David is claiming CO2 causes surface warming, just less than predicted. Unless he is in the “CO2 causes immeasurably slight surface cooling” camp, he will never be right. And “less wrong” doesn’t count in science.
Radiative gases and liquids such as H2O and CO2 have the potential to thermalise surface LWIR and warm our atmosphere. They also have the ability to back radiate LWIR and slow the cooling of the surface, but this only works over land at night. Their primary role is to cool the atmosphere by radiating LWIR to space.
The atmosphere does act as a blanket on the surface. A wet blanket. Stand outside on a 2OC day with wind speed at 10 m/s. Now soak your blanket in water and wrap it around you. Feeling warmer? No. Just as the wet blanket’s evaporative cooling ability reduced your surface temperature, so too our radiative cooled atmosphere is reducing our planet’s surface temperature from a possible 312K to our current 288K.
511
Nice comment Konrad.
KK
36
Yes it does. I can’t begin to describe how stupid you are.
Newton’s law of gravity comes to mind ….
40
By analogy, Dr. Evans’ primary point, if I’m not mistaken, is that the blanket has several large holes in it from which most of the otherwise “trapped” (actually, simply slowed down) heat (slowed down by CO2) escapes. This is the other pipes he’s referring to, such as water vapor.
Not all of this trapped heat, by the way—just most of it.
The other major part that Dr. Evans is referring to is not the changing “albedo” or relative whiteness of the planet due to changes in cloud cover. If something causes more clouds, you get more heat reflected back to space (without first reaching the surface) and, thus, lower surface temperature.
110
By the way, they’re not actually pipes. That’s another metaphor to aid understanding. CO2 and water vapor are essentially everywhere in the atmosphere, to one extent or another.
So to use the blanket analogy again, modified, imagine a thick cotton blanket. Now, imagine a soaking wet cotton blanket. It is a fact that wet cotton does not insulate as well as dry cotton.
100
If I can simplify a lot. Earth receives energy from the sun and radiates it back into space. It generates no heat of its own. The atmosphere is the blanket your analogy uses. The blanket can slow absorption of heat and also slow the rate of radiation back to space.
Is that a correct understanding as far as it goes?
80
To the best of my knowledge, yes. However, some of the heat (in each case) will be convective and some radiative.
100
OK then. The action of CO2 and other GHGs is a part of that blanket which cannot generate any heat, except by the friction involved in wind in its various forms (storms and non storms), which I think must be insignificant compared to anything else.
So I’m still bothered by treating GHGs as a heat source.
51
Yes.
Now, in reality CO2 absorbs and re-emits the heat energy at a different wavelength, but it works out the same as a less than perfectly efficient reflector, in essence.
90
Thanks, Christoph. That confirms what I think, at least if the imperfect reflector is reflecting back at the Earth, which is certainly the case. I’ll be an avid reader through the rest of this series and I wish I could jump to the end of the book to see how it all comes out.
Patience is a virtue not included in my genetic makeup. So I struggle with it. 😉
50
I do see the logic behind modeling everything individually instead of lumping things together. Otherwise you have the problem of partial derivatives of equations with dependant variables.
50
Final notes.
The Earth probably does generate some small amount of heat, such as by radioactive decay of elements, even the odd forest fire and burning of fossil fuels. And our body heat!
The Earth will also exchange some energy (usually receive) with the solar wind and other plasma fields, and even in principle cosmic rays and neutrinos (not very much!)..
40
Christoph, I was relieved you got around to conceding that ‘the Earth’ generates some heat. In addition to the culprits you mentioned there are those pesky and unceasing volcanic vents, their cousins hydrothermal vents and lets not forget thermogenic plants. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen any quantitative estimate of the radiative contribution this inconvenient collective makes to the global temperature anomaly.
30
Manfred:
Geothermal is about 0.087 W/m2, or about 0.036% of the 239 W/m2 of average absorbed solar radiation.
Energy production from fossil fuels and nuclear is about 0.028 W/m2.
Tidal might be as high as 0.01 W/m2 (about 5.8 TW).
140
Photosythesis is about -3 to -6W per sq meter, human body heat 350W x 7 e9 /5.1e14 = 0.0048 and domestic animal body heat is about 5 times that at 24 mW per square meter, bacteria, termites, birds fish and other wild critters – only god knows maybe 100 times human influence say 2Watts per square meter. I know the little microbial blighters alone manage to get my compost pretty warm
Wind and ocean currents are huge when you include non surface winds and submerged currents.
I dispute your tidal number, that looks like a sum based on the available coastline not related to the actual energy added to the ocean.
The calculation is easy,
A cubic meter of water weighs 1000kg, the average tidal range is about 3 m, so average potential energy increase (mgh)= 1000kg × 1.5m x 9.8 x 2 tides per day is 29400 J per square metre/86400 secs per day = 0.34 Watts per square meter of ocean or about 0.25 Watts per square meter averaged over the planetary surface.
Note that this is only the recoverable energy The volume used in tidal power is the height gain of the surface of the ocean x the area of the tidal barrage, gravity actually raises the entire mass of the ocean, 1.4e21 kg x 1.5m x 9.8 x 2tides/5.1e14/24/3600 = 934 Watts per square meter (averaged over the earths entire surface) That is almost 3 times the energy of insolation
Lightning is
5 billion Joules ave per bolt at a strike rate of 44 per second = 5e9 x 44 / 5.1e14 = 0.00043 Watts per square metre.
30
Earth rotation produces a 21km oceanic bulge at the equator an average of 10.5 km higher so mgh = 1.4e21 x 10500m x 9.8 = 1.4E26 J
This bulge causes a gravitational gradient resulting in flow of water from equator to poles, accelerated by the coriolos force along the way. Unfortunately since I dont know the flow dynamics, its hard to estimate the energy involved in the polward flow caused by the earths rotation. One would imagine that with a potential energy of 1.4e26 Joules or 2.8E12 Joules per square metre, that kinetic energy imparted to the water from this mechanism would be significant.
Does someone here know how to answer that?
30
Earth’s rotational speed is trending downward primarily due to tidal losses:
http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/EarthRotation/LODsince1623.html?nn=12932
The moon is the largest factor in tides. Although the energy in the tidal flows is significant the losses are much less significant.
Ocean currents are primarily solar powered. Water rises when warm and descends when cold; at least to 4C at atmospheric pressure.
The variation in the rotational speed is caused by other factors. One being the change in momentum in the atmosphere, which shows cycles of varying period superimposed:
http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/lambeck_k/pdf/25.pdf
There is energy loss associated with air drag but still small and most of the energy input to wind is solar.
20
Sure, Manfred. The only thing I would say is that some of this “Earth-generated” energy, such as by the thermogenic plants, comes via the sun’s energy.
00
If the analogy of “pipes” and “blankets” is confusing, then look at figure 2 of the post “New Science 6” which shows the four emission layers quite clearly.
10
Chris: “…they’re not actually pipes…CO2 and water vapor are essentially everywhere in the atmosphere…”.
The pipes are for different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.
The CO2 pipe is at the wavelengths at which CO2 molecules emit and absorb photons, the water vapor pipe is at the wavelengths at which water vapor molecules emit and absorb photons, etc. Ignore overlaps, or ascribe wavelengths at which more than one GHG absorbs to the dominant GHG at that wavelength in terms of OLR, which will generally be the GHG with the highest emissions layer at that wavelength.
30
Sure, I’m just making the point that they’re not 3-dimensionally shaped like pipes. They’re metaphorical in that sense, diffused all throughout the atmosphere.
00
Chris: Ok, my misunderstanding.
00
Christoph Dollis October 19, 2015 at 2:09 am
“By the way, they’re not actually pipes. That’s another metaphor to aid understanding. CO2 and water vapor are essentially everywhere in the atmosphere, to one extent or another.”
OK fine. Does that have any meaning? What?
“So to use the blanket analogy again, modified, imagine a thick cotton blanket. Now, imagine a soaking wet cotton blanket. It is a fact that wet cotton does not insulate as well as dry cotton.”
Insulate from what? Conductive,convective, radiative; heat transfer, wet cotton in an environment at slightly higher than body temperature can result in hyperthermia and death! In every case of heat transfer, the temperature of the environment is much more important than the temperature of the object. The CCC dearly wishes you would forget that. For the EMR this is even more important, by three extra dimensions of temperature.
All the best! -will-
28
Roy, Chris:
Yes, GHGs are not a heat source and indeed they add no heat to the system.
The easiest analogy is the pipes and the dam (Jo’s diagram on post 11).
The heat/OLR has got to escape to space somehow. Increasing CO2 somewhat constricts the CO2 pipe (“the blanket is thicker”), so more OLR goes out the other pipes. So the surface pipe must carry more OLR, so the surface must be warmer. Hence increasing CO2 warms the surface.
To put it another way, increasing OLR pushes the CO2 emissions layer higher into the colder troposphere at crucial wavelengths out in the wings of the 15 micron blockage — the net effect of which is to reduce the amount of OLR emitted by CO2 molecules. By conservation of energy the amount of OLR is unchanged (ignoring minor surface albedo feedbacks). Therefore the OLR blocked from being emitted by CO2 molecules must be emitted by other GHGs or the surface or the cloud tops instead — and if there is any extra OLR emitted by the surface, then the surface must be warmer (because the amount of emissions of a body rises with its temperature).
90
David Evans October 19, 2015 at 11:31 am
“Roy, Chris:Yes, GHGs are not a heat source and indeed they add no heat to the system. The easiest analogy is the pipes and the dam (Jo’s diagram on post 11).”
I agree. Please put your one cap on your good analogy or they must crucify you for using the same scientific nonsense as they. They are much better at that than you. No intent to change your presentation. Please remain aware that the S-B equation must remain non applicable to this Earth and its atmosphere. The Planck equation is also non applicable, as no one temperature, and certainly no one emissivity with regard to wavelength. At least 50 partials with only 3 independent right there. The kicker you have, is that atmospheric CO2 has absolutely no known effect on temperature, except for major plant growth, above 200 ppmv.
28
And then there’s shielding effects from the magnetosphere, which is altered by its interactions with the solar wind and other solar-system plasma fields (and probably beyond). That is likely a very important factor, and helps to magnify the effect of, for example (but not limited to!) our Sun’s cycles; indeed, it may be at least partly causative of our Sun’s cycles.
The Sun’s total solar radiance in terms of heat clearly does not cause all of the climate cycles especially if Dr. Evans is correct that the climate is less sensitive than IPCC predicts. I’m curious if Dr. Evans will have anything to say about any of this in his model.
30
Mr. Evans has several major roadblocks that will most likely prevent his new model from getting much attention outside of “denier” websites (Due diligence: I am a Skeptical Denier and support all efforts to better understand climate change, as long as they are more than predictions of the future climate — I ignore predictions, in general)
(1) There is no demand for a new climate physics model, and there’s an entire “green” industry built around the old climate physics model, whose defenders include world leaders, including the US President, and even the Pope !
While I may think the Pope is a Dope for being a climate change cult member, he’s got quite a fan club !
(2) Mr. Evans is attempting to refute the old climate physics model, promote his new product, and make predictions of the climate in the next decade or two (read in a newspaper interview) at the same time.
Doing these steps one at a time would be very difficult.
Doing all three at the same time compounds the difficulty.
In addition, there was no logical reason to make any climate predictions, much less a short-term prediction for 2017 to 2012 (in the newspaper interview) = too risky, and likely to be wrong, as most predictions of the future are.
If 2017 does not start a period of global cooling, as predicted, Mr. Evans will lose credibility.
He loses credibility with me as soon as he makes ANY predictions.
(3) Mr. Evans has concentrated on minor, harmless, climate variations, rather than the big abrupt changes found by climate proxy studies.
Does it really matter if the average temperature warms or cools by a few degrees C. in a century?
I say no — that’s not a problem for anyone — it’s probably random variations.
Where is the climate model that summarizes the causes of the big climate changes — changes that could be problems for life on Earth?
Perhaps there are too many questions, and not enough answers, to design such a model? :
1) Why were there five ice ages in 4.5 billion years?
2) Why did their lengths differ?
3) Why were they unevenly spaced?
4) Why did glaciation tend to increase gradually, but decrease rapidly?
5) Why were there so many large, abrupt, seemingly random, changes in the climate?
6) Why would the Milankovitch cycles seem to explain the current ice age, but fail to answer the prior five questions?
7) Are the alleged shorter solar climate cycles (less than 2000 years) real, or just a result of mining unreliable data?
8) Why would anyone want to live in International Falls, MN, where the average annual temperature is 3 degrees C.?
Note: 8) was a joke.
In summary, CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth more of the atmosphere today than it allegedly did in 1750.
There is no scientific proof that CO2 caused ANY of the warming since 1850, and much evidence that greenhouses gasses were not the cause, because of:
1) Th missing troposphere hot spot, and
2) Global cooling in and around Antarctica, excluding the tiny Peninsula (2% of Antarctica) warmed by an underwater volcano.
Even if you believe CO2 in the air causes global warming, that would not prove an increase from 400 ppmv (today) to 500 ppmv (in the future) would cause enough warming to be measured.
I think of 100 ppmv CO2 as one blanket hung over a cold window.
I think of 400 ppmv CO2 as four blankets hung over a cold window.
Would five blankets covering the cold window do much more than four blankets to keep a room warm?
Would the room become too warm with five blankets?
Would anyone even notice the fifth blanket?
My post is filled with a lot of questions that I can’t answer.
That mirrors the current understanding of climate change.
So its hard to believe that anyone knows enough about climate change to create an accurate climate physics model.
Producing a better climate model should be easy — just don’t blame everything on CO2 !
Selling a better climate model to people who program GCMs seems like a tough job.
That’s just my opinion, and I’ve been wrong before.
118
“Does it really matter if the average temperature warms or cools by a few degrees C. in a century?”
Why don’t you ask that question (and your other questions) on a CAGW blog ?
50
StefanL asks “Does it really matter if the average temperature warms or cools by a few degrees C. in a century?”
*********
I am afraid it does.
UAH Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures shows a range of 1C from 1979 to present.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2015_v6.png
Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset.
The CET dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world and is considered to reflect global temperature fairly well. It shows a range of about 2.0C with the difference between 1960 and now about 1.5C
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif
The bottom graph shows the decadal movement of the Köppen boundries by about 200 miles in the US plains. The Köppen climate classification, is a widely used, vegetation-based system. Loss of 200 miles swath of farmland in Canada, Russia and China had major repercussions as shown in the 1974 CIA report.
http://www.sturmsoft.com/climate/suckling_mitchell_2000_fig2_3.gif
The 1974 CIA report:
“A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”
(wwwDOT)climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
32
Hi Gai,
Actually, it was Richard Greene who asked that question. But, I (intuitively) fully endorse your implication that cooling is way more devastating than warming (i.e. a significant relative cost).
LYW,
Vic
30
Thanks for the correction. The nested comments get a bit confusing especially when I am in and out of the house and trying to read between other activities.
10
On a CAGW blog they would just CHARACTER ATTACK me — that’s “debate” to most leftists.
Someone might argue that climate history started in 1850, and there has ONLY been warming!
Everything about the climate claimed to have happened before 1850 is just a wild guess, local weather conditions extrapolated to the entire planet, or just a fantasy created by oil companies … except for CO2 measurements derived from ice cores for the years 1750 to 1959 — they are REAL.
01
“the tiny Peninsula (2% of Antarctica) warmed by an underwater volcano”
Has it been definitely established that the warming is due to a volcano?
10
June 10, 2014 Researchers Find Major West Antarctic Glacier Melting from Geothermal Sources
10
But is that warming increasing? Or staying the same? If the latter, it can’t account for warming….
35
“Or staying the same?”
So.. you admit you DON’T KNOW..
Yet that tiny part of Western Antarctica is the only part of Antarctica subject to any melting.
DOH !!!
27
“No, Volcanoes Are Not the Primary Cause For the Melting Ice Caps”
By Kayla Ruble, Vice, June 11, 2014
https://news.vice.com/article/no-volcanoes-are-not-the-primary-cause-for-the-melting-ice-caps
84
Except David when you do the math, the latest simulation claims that the warming would produce 12-50Watts per square metre worth of melted ice by 2100. An earlier paper claiming 300 cu km of ice melting requires energy of more than 15 W/ sq m. These alarmist claims are all energetically impossible, since they violate the law of conservation of energy.
34
bobl October 19, 2015 at 7:00 pm
“Except David when you do the math, the latest simulation claims that the warming would produce 12-50Watts per square metre worth of melted ice by 2100. An earlier paper claiming 300 cu km of ice melting requires energy of more than 15 W/ sq m. These alarmist claims are all energetically impossible, since they violate the law of conservation of energy.”
You claim much. At the same time you clearly demonstrate absolutely no comprehension of the physical science, basic geometry, or basic mathematics! You use words like ‘warming’ as though there is some effect to your fantasy of ‘warming’! I.E. “warming would produce 12-50Watts per square metre worth of melted ice by 2100.”
What is warming worth? Absorbed insolation of 12-15W/m^2 can produce ice melt strictly proportional to the latent heat of solidification of that m^2 of H2O that is a rate of melting ice that can have no worth except if you are very thirsty!!
Your second is even more insane “300 cu km of ice melting requires energy of more than 15 W/ sq m.”.
300 cu km of ice spread over the cross sectional area of this planet if absorbing 15 W/m^2 of flux, must melt in a small fraction of a second.
All you have are deliberate attempts to replace understanding with religion!!;
18
But Will,
CO2 is a well mixed gas, it produces a diffuse warming signal of around 0.6Watts per square meter, that means that over the course of a year in the zone of interest say 1 million square km of the western shelf it provides a mere 0.6Wx3600x24x365 x 1e12 square metre x 0.4 years melt season = 7.5 e18 J.
How much ice can that much energy melt?
Well it takes 333.6kJ to melt a kg. So assuming all the 0.6W went into melting – which is impossible- you could melt 2.26 e13 kg of ice
Since there is about 993 kg per cubic metre of ice that represents 2.27 e10 cu meters of ice.
A cubic km is 1000x1000x1000m or 1e9 cubic meters
So this then represents 2.27 e10/1e9 = 22 cubic km.
At best CO2 can cause 22 cubic km of melt
Now let’s not assume perfection like we have, and say 50% of the warming goes into say, heating ice from one subzero temperature to another, uselessly heating water above 0C, evaporating that water, heating the atmosphere or water that causes the melt. Ie lets take the calculation from the fringe of impossible (all the warming energy can’t go into ice melt because then the atmosphere can’t warm to melt the ice, the idea that all the energy goes into melting is non-causal.)
If 50% of that 0.6W does something else then the maximum melt likely from CO2 is just half the 22 or 11 cubic km.
I might also add that the melting is uneven, at the interior limits of the million sq km we get less melt, so at the higher latitudes the higher temps causes more melt, the peak energy requirement for that 300 cubic km supposed to be caused by AGW is higher that even that.
But the paper claimed 300 cubic km, that would require energy of 300/11 times that of CO2, around 16W per square metre.
Math is great aint it?
10
To put it simply the 300 cubic km of ice is NOT spread across the entire surface of the planet, it is contained in a small space of less than 1 million square km on the western shelf of the antarctic continent.
10
Thanks for that. Perhaps not definitive, but looks like good support for the idea. I’ll be able to repeat it without making a total ass of myself.
00
Glad to help.
00
The peninsula is only 2% of Antarctica, and surrounded by oceans, so ocean current changes are a possible cause of warming too.
Leave it to the leftists to focus on 2% of Antarctica … and ignore the remaining 98% of Antarctica.
01
Richard Green wrote:
“There is no scientific proof that CO2 caused ANY of the warming since 1850”
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
104
From the Berkeley Lab reference:
“… [from 2000 to 2010] atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapour.”
So, yes there is scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming.
But is 0.2 watts per square metre per decade (2.0 W/m2 per century) really significant, compared to surface TSI of 340 w/m2 ?
Or are they implying that there is an amplification factor of 10 ?
11
“forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”
roflamo..
the ONLY warming since 2000 has been by Gavin’s data fabrication
There is absolutely ZERO CO2 signature in the whole 36 years of the satellite temperature data.
That illustrates exactly what the ” CO2 forcing” is….. ZERO!!
310
Your cites both refer to increases in the sky radiances in the 15 micron band The conversion to some downward radiative flux is a deliberate falsification by CCC. Such is in contradiction to Maxwell’s laws. as verified: ‘Lorentz realized that there only exists one fundamental electric and one fundamental magnetic vector at each point of space and time’ There can be no opposing flux!
More Apfull BS
03
Will: Sorry, vector fields only cancel when when you are dealing with coherent radiation. Try intersecting the beams from two flashlights or even two laser pointers. Interference is only observed when you don’t know which path light (photons) travel to reach a destination.
20
Richard Greene wrote:
“1) Th missing troposphere hot spot,”
“Climate meme debunked as the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is found,”
Sherwood and Nishant, June 3, 2015
https://theconversation.com/climate-meme-debunked-as-the-tropospheric-hot-spot-is-found-42055
paper in ERL:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta
98
Richard is correct. See http://joannenova.com.au/tag/hot-spot/.
73
The statistical maleficence in that Sherwood paper is a wonder to behold..
.. but you would never understand that, would you, rotten Appell.
Tell me.. does your sci-fi rag have an allowance for “personal development”…?
310
It will, if not a bit earlier, in my estimation. I suspect Evans has a deeper understanding of this than even his supporters realize, and that many of his supporters will be shocked and inclined to rebel, at least at first. It won’t change the fact that, if I’m right, Evans will be onto something physical.
Or perhaps he’s just making the couple tweaks above and the remaining posts will be tying up loose ends. In which case, I still agree with 2017, although 2016 will lead into it in terms of cooler temperatures, even if I see Evans’ model as an important step rather than an even more massive leap in the direction of being truly physical.
91
There are already several cool patches in the oceans, the only thing holding up the temperature is the El Nino. Notice that there has so far been no large spike that one usually sees with an El Nino.
As the El Nino dissipates, the following La Nina could cause a steeper cooling that usual after an El Nino.
Late 2016 to early 2017 would be about the right timing.
We do need to use the satellite data though, because there is no way that GISS/HadCrut will show cooling until the next major ice age hits.
1311
Ummmm, forgive me but I consider it unlikely that GISS/HadCrut will ever be able to show ‘cooling’.
My guess is that the concession they make when the glaciers grind across East Anglia is to publish their adjusted version with a caveat in microfiche along the lines of “There is a 49.99% certainty that this data indicates the correct temperature.”
62
Manfred: How would you adjust for the biases HadCRUT4 is trying to adjust for?
83
Rarer than hens teeth to see you visiting here with present frequency DA. I idly wonder what prompts such an admirable ascension?
Peremptorily, I suggest you pose your rhetorical question to Lewis and King having propelled their recent article to a dais on your own site, in which they stated,
to which you euphemistically add your headline, Proof that Australia is Heating Up.
The bias of the CAGW systematic type 1 error (false positive) bias that routinely lead to this (90 CMIP5 climate models) and this (ave 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models) and this (Global Ocean Surface Temperatures are warming only 60% as fast as climate models), each a disconnect from reality little different from that seen in Lewis & King and collectively, illustrates why the inspired re-working by Dr Evans witnessed here is so necessary not only to global and legislative sanity, but as a means of addressing systematic climate ‘science’ bias.
Of the winter of 2015, the season Lewis and King make so much of with their dramatic title, “Dramatically increased rate of observed hot record breaking in recent Australian temperatures”, and which you cite on your e-platform as “proof” even the Australian BOM manage to croak:
As regards HadCRUT 4 ‘adjustments’ as you well know, others have already dealt with this far better than me, including, McLean, J. (2014) Late Twentieth-Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 4, 727-742. doi: 10.4236/acs.2014.44066.
The bias I believe you allude to DA is regrettably one that requires considerably more than mere numeracy.
72
You have to realise that the rotten Appell writes low-end sci-fi for a backwater journal, for a living.
That is all he does.. and all he is.
He has so much free time, its a wonder he hasn’t spent some of it getting an actual education. Too much effort, I guess.
610
I’ve noticed he’s a regular of the very patient Dr Roy Spencer. I very briefly visited the Appell site after one glass too many. Regrettably, it was a sobering experience.
12
Meanwhile some mysterious technical and funding snafus mean the satellite temperatures are no longer consider “reliable” ;).
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/the-future-of-climate-alarmism-is-bogus-statistics/
57
LYW Andy
00
Greenland looks like it might be getting a head start !!
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/18/greenland-blowing-away-all-records-for-ice-growth/
65
Given the switch from zonal to meridional jets, the global temperature may not be all that good an indicator. What matters is what is happening to the snow at the glacial inception growth centres. As AndyG55 (and Steven Goddard) said Greenland has gotten a slow start to the summer melt season and a fast start to the winter snow season. — Not good.
Hudson Bay was the growth centre for the main ice sheet that covered northern North America during the last Ice Age. The Great Lakes are directly south. The sea ice on 25 July 2015.
https://polarbearscience.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/hudson-bay-breakup-july-25-2015_cis.gif
The Great Lakes obliterated all records for springtime ice last year, and this year. On March 1, 2014 the Great Lakes were approaching 100% Ice Cover – For The First Time On Record, only Lake Ontario was the only major holdout. By March 26, 2014 the Great Lakes broke all records. And on 14th October 2014, Water temperature of the Great Lakes is over 6 degrees colder than normal
In Europe Scotland was under ice. Almost 300 “snow patches” remained in the Highland mountains in 2014
(wwwDOT)bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-33581400
by August 27, 2015 “Massive Increase in Scottish Snow Patches”
weatheraction.(DOT)ordpress.com/2015/08/27/massive-increase-in-scottish-snow-patches
Scottish snow patches survey: “Although all the data from the different areas has not yet all be collated, the preliminary results of this years the Scottish snowpatch survey are impressive.”
https://weatheraction.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/wpid-scottish_snow_patches_20150827t140213.jpg
Add in the massive snowfalls of 3 meters or more in various northern locations, it is a bit hard to say it is ‘warming’
32
I think it’s risky and counterproductive to make climate predictions.
It might seem easy (chose either warming or cooling) and you have a 50% chance of being right?
Actually, if you predicted warming OR cooling in the early 2000s, you’d be wrong either way this year (the trend has been flat since then) !
The whole AGW cult is based on a bad climate physics model, which is the foundation for inaccurate GCM predictions claiming huge positive feedbacks piling on to CO2 greenhouse warming.
Approximately 97% of GCM simulations/predictions overstate warming, so the underlying physics model is very likely to be wrong.
Mr. Evans will improve the physics model — I doubt if anyone could make it worse.
The first step toward progress in climate science is to stop making climate predictions.
The predictions seem to drive the science!
After Mr. Evans made his climate prediction (I don’t know when that was — I had never heard of him or Jo Nova until a few months ago), he will be likely to seek confirmation of his prediction, and confirmation bias is anti-science.
I spend much of my climate reading time on solar issues, and recommend this article/study, which actually generally supports Mr. Evans predictions, along with predictions made by many “astronomers” in other articles/studies since about 2005:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html
02
Richard, obviously it’s risky, but you haven’t seen my reasons yet. Stick around 🙂
00
For those looking ahead to the end game, note that the David Evans optimal fourier transform routine updated yesterday is found here.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cfa/optimal-fourier-transform.pdf
db..
60
The new version is very similar to that of 2013.2
He calls DFT what others call an FFT
He calls MFT what others call an DFT
His OFT tries to find frequencies in a FFT that need the spectral precision of the DFT (his MFT)
His technique for deciding when to use which seems original!
02
The idea to address atmospheric mechanisms in relation to position and time vs effect and behaviour is one that appears overlooked by conventional GCM’s.
People are already questioning the mainstream accessibility of David’s work, a genuine catch 22 really as the IPCC will demand the scientific details in full but the public will only absorbed a severely abridged version, maybe not so as the public while having little time to grasp Fourier Math will be impressed by an “Egghead” that has put a lot of effort into finding an answer.
80
This work is (hopefully) coming out in two papers peer-reviewed papers next year. I could sit around and wait for those to come out, and then try to encourage people to read a couple of dense long papers. Btw, the publisher owns the copyright.
Or I could make them more accessible, earlier, by previewing them in little chunks in language suitable for a wider audience. Oh look, my wife has a popular global warming blog. (This, incidentally, is a tougher form of peer review.)
In addition, some people in the media are very interested in the project. I gave a couple of them a heads up two weeks ago and look what happened. I am currently knocking back interviews and requests for more material, until it is rolled out sufficiently on the blog.
Meanwhile, not that it will make any difference, the Paris conference approaches.
Guys, what other options are there?
120
Thanks David, it was just an observation from a few earlier comments above, personally I believe you can divulge the work as you see fit as eventually all will be revealed, remember one wrath at a time.
Oh I also noticed my comment might read as directly calling you an egghead, this is a generic term the public might perceive along with brainiac, mastermind, expert or even rocket scientist…… 😉
20
“(This, incidentally, is a tougher form of peer review.)”
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02601/moorocol_2601026b.jpg
00
If you really believe global cooling will start in 2017, then mid-2016 would be better timing to launch your new climate physics model.
2105, as an El Nino year, is more likely to be warm enough to make the current climate physics model look good.
Of course after NOAA “adjustments”, I’m not sure if global cooling would be possible in 2017, or ever again!
Weather satellite data are not even mentioned in NASA ‘warmest year on record’ press releases.
00
Don’t forget that David has written two papers that are in the peer review process. Hopefully they will satisfy the “geeks”.
But I still think David and Jo are doing the right thing in how they are presenting the detail. For most this is very complex. Even for people like Lucia who it seems that because she did not read all the posts first, got side tracked.
I’m no expert but it seems to me David has got right down into the very core of how these models work and are built. Then he has slowly step by step gone through the build up to find the errors which he has then corrected. In contrast, most other researchers have taken a built model( maybe tweaked it a bit on the surface) and then done their work with it. They haven’t tried to understand what they are working with —they just wanted a tool.
So the only way David could present his work was to show us the path he went down –I maybe wrong, but it would seem no one else has done it before.
101
Replace “read all the posts” with “think of it” in the second sentence.
10
Of the second paragraph.
00
This is great work, David and, hopefully, will set the cat amongst the pigeons of CAGW theory. Matters are complicated further by the latent heat of vaporization of water, which is very complex to deal with. Their models do not even touch that, and clouds. Water vapor is very variable and satellite measurement helps more than surface stations.
I hope that Satellites’ measurement can replace the discredited and manipulated surface stations’ record in the main debate.
121
I like to ask the really dumb questions. Here are two.
1)About that divide by 4 right at the start. It seems to me there are not 3 night sides of the planet there is only 1. For every illuminated metre of surface area there is a metre of not illuminated area. So why not just divide by 2? Each square meter of the planet would be illuminated for half the time over the year but radiate that back the whole time.
2) If there is some sensible reason to use 4 times then that too seems wrong for another reason.
The radius from pole to centre of the planet is 6360 Kilometres.
The radius from equator to centre of planet is 6378 ( It this difference greater at TOA?).
So the illuminated area is Pi x 6360 x 6378.
The re-radiating area is (2pi r1 r2)+(2pi r2^2)
While you would think this only makes a small difference of 4 compared to 4.005 that equates to 1361/4 = 340.25 compared to 1361/4.005 = 339.8
A difference of 0.45W/M^2
I got my radius numbers from http://www.space.com/17638-how-big-is-earth.html
Wiki has a larger difference.
“polar minimum of about 6,357 km and the equatorial maximum of about 6,378 km “
20
Sliggy,
The area of the Earth’s surface is 4*Pi*R*R. The cross-section, which determines the amount of sunlight energy intercepted by the Earth, is only Pi*R*R. Hence the divide by 4.
Each square metre of the earth is indeed illuminated for half of the time over the year, but areas away from the equator get much less sunlight than areas near the equator.
20
Thanks Stefani am aware of all that theory. But the area facing the sun is NOT a circle is it? The area you would see from above or below the poles is. The distance from pole to pole is less than Eq to Eq. The illuminated shape is an elipse not a circle. The are formula is
π × Ra × Rb.
An area of the planet that is in darkness for nearly half the year and covered in ice can hardly be expected to radiate the same amount as the equator at night.
Also see that the areas that do not get directly radiated square to the sun have a greater angle of incidence and thus a much larger reflection than albedo alone would dictate. To see what i am talking about look along a window with your eye pressed up to it. You will see it acts like a mirror at that angle.
10
RACookPE1978 “… duplicate below a “spreadsheet copy” of a spreadsheet I have for all latitudes for the actual radiation on to a horizontal surface at 12:00 on that “average” 342 watts/meter^2 day….” HERE
The problem I have is the energy from the sun going into the oceans at the equator (and sticking around for a while) is no piddlin’ little 341 W/m^2. It is more like 1150 W/m^2 at the equator at mid day.
And as a result you get this:
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter14/Images/Fig14-2.jpg
And just to add to the sun/ocean conversation a WUWT article: July 21, 2014 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/21/deep-oceans-are-cooling-amidst-a-sea-of-modeling-uncertainty-new-research-on-ocean-heat-content/
10
Thanks for those links gai.
My geometric 4.005 vs 4 problem means that there is more of that 1150W/M^2 area and less of the sub 342.
BTW if you are looking at reflection angle albedo change these short videos get the brain cells going.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crXGOEvazwk
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kBOqfS0nmE
and
https://youtu.be/euuAHjhDO6I?t=3m50s
10
Sliggy,
The feedback effects are also energy dependent, and there is no guarantee that the total effects are proportional to energy. As Willis has clearly shown using ceres data, they are not. The fact that the circle of light around 1/4 the surface is not evenly illuminated matters
10
Siliggy, this is just a basic model, where we are looking out for the main game and ignoring small factors of minor significance. What you say is correct. Also, the elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun causes the TSI hitting the Earth to vary about 7% around the mean from the usual values (which are at 1 AU). All of which we ignore in the interests of simplicity, for now.
70
Thankyou David. Like the “for now” part. Your choice of focus and huge effort is no doubt going to show some well calculated big numbers that matter in important but simple ways without deviating far from the accepted way. All these things of “minor significance.” will add up to a significant total but are worthless if not certain. Can see that you are on track to nail significant things down hard first without needing to challenge dodgy data sets. Looking forward past that with a bit much eagerness. Sorry if the excitement appears like heckling.
30
VW emissions and the climate models.
The Biggest Loser is 97% Doomsday Global Warming and it’s failed Global Computer Models:
VW emissions testing scandal shows that environmental governance is in trouble (theconversation)
“If we cannot figure out how to properly test car emissions, we might as well give up on regulating forests, factories or garbage dumps.
; according to the International Council on Clean Transportation, the NGO whose emission tests led to the fall of Volkswagen, the gap between official and actual carbon dioxide emissions in new European cars grew from 8% in 2001 to 40% in 2014.”
. . .
The carbon(sic) budget is blown.
The 97% computer models predicted a worse case scenario.
Where is it?
62
The unintended consequences of legislatively climate forcing!
30
I just read elsewhere that the researchers who “caught” VW, actually wanted to test BMWs and Mercedes but they could not afford them, so had to settle for the cheaper VWs. Unintended consequences for VW ?!?
20
The carbon budget, a mythical nonsense if ever there was one, was always going to be blown.
IPCC admit as much.
http://postimg.org/image/jwafq5e0f/
This is a very good thing for the planet, because the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 will continue to help provide food for the increasing world population, by the one chemical reaction that feeds the whole planet….PHOTOSYNTHESIS!
34
David,
You wrote ” . . . and for small perturbations, ΔTS,A is (presumably) proportional to ΔTR. Accordingly we model ΔTS,A as . . .”
I’ll try to be brief. Climate is defined as the average of weather, and Edward Lorenz, of “butterfly” fame, discovered that this hope that “small perturbations”, in relation to weather systems, can be wished away as probably being of little practical effect, may be an assumption too far.
If weather is indeed chaotic, your initial assumptions are flawed, and your whole carefully constructed and highly polished edifice crashes to the ground.
Mind you, even that pales into insignificance compared to the incontrovertible fact that nobody has ever managed to demonstrate the CO2 “greenhouse effect “, let alone quantify it.
I’m not trying to be offensive, but I believe my comment is based on facts, or reasonable assumptions (in the case of weather being chaotic in the scientific sense.)
Cheers.
210
Another math/physics type, Dr Robert Brown @ Duke commenting about climate models at WUWT:
………..
Worth reading in full at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/an-intriguing-mystery-and-a-very-speculative-theory/#comment-1606403
It will be interesting to see what Dr Brown thinks of Dr Evans model.
40
David,
When you’ve got some spare time :-), perhaps you could apply your model (appropriately simplified) to the toy problem mentioned by Gai and rgbatduke.
00
Mike, while weather is chaotic, climate does not seem to be, so like all of climate science we are working on the assumption that it is not chaotic.
Imagine a series of coin tosses or roulette wheel spins. An individual’s experience at a night at the casino is a random walk with his pile of chips. However from the point of view of the casino or a chain of casinos, the combined effect of millions of customers is highly predictable to a very high probability — the law of large numbers kicks in with a vengeance, and casinos make money predictably. (Take out the high rollers, because the numbers of them can be too small.)
70
Thank you for the clarification.
00
If climate was driven primarily by really big extraterrestrial oscillators, you wouldn’t expect it to be particularly chaotic at most time scales.
00
For this you must become aware of the negative complex conjugate of energy which is energy within something. Power accumulated over time is the mechanical concept of energy a Watt-second = Joule. Minus Power within a time interval (cycle) is called a unit of action Joule second.
Your large extraterrestrial oscillators while cyclic are not repetitive. The repetitive seems suppressed, by orbital inclination. They seem to be purposefully, amplitude or FM modulated to produce double sidebands of inertia on all coupled bodies without producing destructive resonance.
This certainly appears chaotic over many lifetimes.
Perhaps like the digits of PI appear non-deterministic because if the thermal noise of your computer crapping out at a precise elapsed instant while trying to calculate the next digit. Perhaps the replacement computer will not crap out at the same interval (higher speed).
All the best! -will-
27
David,
Climate is the average of weather, so your assumption that climate does not exhibit chaotic behaviour is unproven, of course.
J Murray Mitchell said “It is likely that no one process will be found adequate to account for all the variability that is observed on any given time scale of variation.” Time scales from a second to the life of the Earth exhibit similar behaviour, and self similarity at all scales is one characteristic of chaotic systems.
Lorenz also considered climate, as well as weather, and came to the conclusion that one could determine “climate” only retrospectively.
I could go on, but you get my drift.
Your analogy of a casino is flawed, particularly when you say the influence of high rollers must be disregarded. In other words, ignore the facts in favour of the model. Unfortunately, occasionally casinos do lose. Sometimes they lose so much they have to close down.
Chaos is chaos. My assumption is that both weather and its average, climate, exhibit chaotic behaviour at all scales. This of course, does not rule out the possibility of climate appearing to be stable for an arbitrary length of time.
Just don’t be surprised if drought wipes you out suddenly, after a thousand years of plenty. The past is not necessarily a guide to the future.
Cheers.
04
Mike, I agree that “climate does not exhibit chaotic behavior” is unproven, a guess.
But the casino analogy is good, because of the law of large numbers eventually forces behavior close to mean behavior with very high probability. But there is still some small chance of an errant trajectory — is that the chaos? And given long enough, those small probability events are like to occur.
00
This reply confounds “random” and chaotic. Not all the same thing.
00
Probability is just a quantification of ignorance about the underlying process 🙂
00
“If weather is indeed chaotic, your initial assumptions are flawed, and your whole carefully constructed and highly polished edifice crashes to the ground.”
Weather sometimes appears to be chaotic, as starting conditions at any location are unknown. That said, local weather is mostly deterministic and cyclic, but never repetitive! Mostly it is unknown, especially with regard to the cyclic orbital inertia of everything within the Sun’s gravitational field (not defined). There is also enough thermal noise to keep things interesting. But is that random like noise or more like the digits of PI?
Davids approach seems to center on the medium term response function of Earth’s weather system. Here the system must be characterized first by the the systems response to its own structure. Can this be done in some verifiable way? If not, there is no point in considering externals. At the same time the externals if measurable are the only way we have to verify response! We cannot test the response to no atmosphere or to decreasing levels of atmospheric CO2. So far the models try to guess at only local temperature, then destroy any learning by various statistical schemes that only result in some single aggregate that has no meaning whatsoever, except for political and financial gain. David is clearly demonstrating the “folly” (instead of more accurate words) of all the current incompetent models both basic and very complex, never verified for anything. The current models cannot even indicate the useful unknowns that may be measurable somehow.
All the best! -will-
38
Not offensice just wrong. To be brief, you are not even close to correct even if I use the physics definition. Sure weather fits the physics definition but your use of the term is not relevant to the argument you make.
One is not excluded from making predictions in systems that include chaotic elements as I am sure you know (e.g I predict that the weather in winter will be colder than in summer). So instead of bluster how about backing up your assertion?
22
Gee Aye: Thanks for the timely definition of ‘chaotic’. I’ve never quite seen how weather or climate can be ‘chaotic’, given the amazing consistency of average global temperatures.
Here in the UK at least, it’s possible to be walking in a summer’s rain shower, then step aside a few yards, and you’re walking in completely dry surroundings. There has to be a good reason for this – I doubt it’s chaotic in any way.
00
Chaos definitions requires a point of view. What you describe is a specific set of circumstances which can be described. This has nothing to do with inherent chaos.
00
Gee Aye, it is not chaos it is
Chaos Theory
the branch of mathematics that deals with complex systems whose behavior is highly sensitive to slight changes in conditions, so that small alterations can give rise to strikingly great consequences.
(Google definition)
10
thanks… at least you didn’t claim to know it better than me. I understand the gist of this but just because chaos theory is applied to weather does not make MFs (I wish those weren’t his initials) statement correct. He is trying to suggest that looking at a problem in a certain way is not possible because you can look at it another way. It is a bizarre argument.
00
“Not offensice just wrong.”
Ahhh.. the story of your life.!
Commiserations
04
V Andy are keyboard neighbours but what is astonishing is that the autocorrect did not change the word to Offenbach
00
I wasn’t commenting on your typo !
00
V and c are keyboard neighbours but what is astonishing is that autocorrect did not change the word to Offenbach
Ps I wonder if another version of this went through
00
Yes!
00
For what it is worth Dr Brown considers the present climate as bistable with two strange attractors Warm and Cold with the Cold attractor the more stable at the present time.
His comment on climate, chaos theory and “strange attractors” and a second comment.
You can see the two stable states in the last couple million years in this graph
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg
00
Gee Aye,
I do not bluster, as far as I am aware, but if that is your impression, then so be it.
As to your “predictions”, you appear to be confusing “predictions” with assumptions. You assume that winter will be colder than summer. So do insects and small animals. You will have to predict better than a small child to get much admiration, and I don’t believe you can.
Obviously, you do not understand chaos in the sense that I do.
The Wikipedia definition is a fair starting point. It says “Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics that studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.”
That’s probably as much use to you as me defining wind as “air in motion”. Quite true, but of little, if any, use.
What precisely would like me to “back up”. To which “assertion” are you referring? I’m always glad to provide further explanation to anything you can’t understand.
Cheers.
04
bluster encompassing a patronising comment
mansplaining?
MF… your meaning twisting is a problem here. Assumptions are all we have when making predictions whether chaos is involved or not. You are simply using a construction based loosely on a definition of chaos, and even looser on your defintion of assumption to make a false statement. You are saying that “the models” (whatever they are and whose ever they are) can have no value at all (ie you are being absolutist) because of the thing you called chaos and unknowable initial conditions.
But I am telling you first that winter being colder than summer IS a prediction, and that this prediction is based on long term data and knowledge of present conditions (my assumption is that the earth wont tilt the other way or suffer a comet impact in the interum) AND it is made in a chaotic system. Note that I never said that our ability to make predictions is not impacted by ignorance or complex/fuzzy/chaotic systems but that is not the sort of statement you were making.
00
Gee Aye,
I wonder if you missed my questions.
I repeat –
“What precisely would like me to “back up”. To which “assertion” are you referring?”
Maybe you believe the future is knowable, in a practical and useful sense. I don’t.
Maybe you believe that wrapping an object in CO2 will cause its temperature to rise. I don’t.
Cheers.
04
You’ve left yourself open to me making such a glib reply so I will. Tomorrow I will not put the snow chains on my wheels and wear my thick socks, wool hat and down jacket. I just won’t, even though weather is chaotic.
00
By the way… That was a joke to mock your comment about how one (or you at least) can’t predict the future in a practical or useful way.
00
Gee Aye,
A mentally retarded wombat could do about as well. Can you do better? If you can’t, your predictions are not useful or practical. I can assume that tomorrow’s maximum temperature here will be within two standard deviations, and based on daily figures for the twelve months to July 2015, I have achieved a 96% success rate.
As I said, not useful or practical. I assume you would put on your snow chains etc. based on your prediction of the weather twelve months ago, or do you look outside to see if it has snowed, perhaps?
Do you manage to sell your predictions, or does everybody else think the same way? The BBC is looking for a new forecasting service. I believe the contract involves many millions of pounds, so if you can provide a better view of the future than the hugely inaccurate Met Office, or even better than my friend, the amiable but slightly slow wombat, I’ll write a reference for you.
Good luck
Cheers.
04
“Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics that studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.”
Please show that the behavior of Earth’s weather is highly sensitive to your initial conditions! Earth’s weather seems highly deterministic against the measurable. Is chaos theory applicable when the Clowns refuse to measure anything except what the previous astrologist measured? Is chaos a measure of stupidity?
04
Will, I seriously have rarely understood any of your posts. At least this gives me the freedom to respond any way I like, comfident that my response is as wrong as any other.
What you might be writing is that chaos theory might apply but the scale at which MF is applying it is wrong. I can predict, using today’s observational data plus historical data to conclude that tomorrow it will not show in downtown Canberra. It is a trivial prediction, but I am still contending with mfs problematic butterflies which, from what he stated earlier, mean that I cannot make such a prediction owing to prior uncertainty plus the fact the I am using assumptions. Heavens!
I think MF has lost perspective. The butterfly or whatever is still a thing that applies and needs to be considered but is actually incredibly insignificant and not applicable in many circumstances. Repeat… Systems within which chaotic elements exist are not automatically rendered unstudyable.
10
Confident not comfident
Snow not show
00
Will Janoshka,
I’m assuming that your comment “Please show that the behavior of Earth’s weather is highly sensitive to your initial conditions!”, was directed to me.
Of course I cannot. I cannot even provide a rigorous definition of a chaotic system. Even a supposedly simple thing like “temperature” should be able to be defined – we all understand what it is. Take for example a definition which says “A measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a sample of matter, expressed in terms of units or degrees designated on a standard scale.”
Now if we have a comet, say, beetling along at say 500 m/s, the average kinetic energy will be, for our purpose, slightly greater than 500 m/s, as the material of which the comet is composed is some little way above absolute zero.
But we would measure its temperature as being that small amount above absolute zero, rather than the much higher “temperature” derived from the formula involving the square root of 3RT over M sub x. You get what I mean.
So it is difficult, if not impossible, to come up with rigorous definitions for common things like heat, temperature, intelligence, and so on.
Your confidence that I can show, in essence, that the weather is chaotic, is misplaced. I find the work of Lorenz and others convincing. The characteristics of observed weather seem to accord with what could be expected from a chaotic system.
But chaos, as I understand it, is fully deterministic. Unfortunately, this may avail one not at all. Even determining in advance whether the input to a very simple equation such as the difference logistic equation will result in chaotic behaviour is difficult, to put it mildly.
If someone can predict whether it will rain tomorrow better than I, I don’t care if they use witchcraft. Percentages impress me not at all. When I apply the brakes in my car, I expect them to work. When I am in an aeroplane, I expect it to deliver me safely to the terminal.
If forecasters cannot deliver the same certainty, I’m not interested in hearing “it’s very complicated”. So is a large passenger jet. Even the BBC got sick of the Met Office excuses, and are looking round for better forecasts. Possibly David Evans might like to put in a tender, if he believes his model is better than the Met Office ones. Possibly Gee Aye could toss in a few predictions based on the past. Pity the British Met Office didn’t think of that!
In conclusion, I don’t believe either weather or climate are “predictable” to any higher standard than a twelve year child with some data, a straightedge and a pencil can achieve, with, say, 30 minutes instruction from myself. As in the past, I’m prepared to put my money where my mouth is. I haven’t lost yet.
Cheers.
04
WIll wrote: “Please show that the behavior of Earth’s weather is highly sensitive to your initial conditions! Earth’s weather seems highly deterministic against the measurable. Is chaos theory applicable when the Clowns refuse to measure anything except what the previous astrologist measured? Is chaos a measure of stupidity?”
The systematic study of chaos theory practically BEGAN with Lorenz’s 1961 observation that the predictions of weather forecasting programs were extremely sensitive to initial conditions. The equations of fluid flow have chaotic solutions. A sensible question might be: Is there some time scale long enough that the chaotic behavior of the atmosphere and ocean will average out over time to give a deterministic answer. Chaotic systems that have predictable average long-term behavior are called transitive, but we don’t know whether climate is transitive. Defining “climate” as a 30-year average doesn’t guarantee that climate change can’t be unforced (or internally forced) instead of externally forced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory#History
The output of today’s AOGCMs is chaotic. The IPCC calls this “initialization uncertainty”. For the most part, modelers do not try to initialize their models to match conditions at any particular time. The CMIP5 project, however, did try to initialize models and see if they were capable of hindcasting climate observed (I believe) in the 1960s. The experiment was a failure. Guessing that past climate would continue for the next decade was at lease as accurate as model projections.
40
Jo, did you see this science?
“Dramatically increased rate of observed hot record breaking in recent Australian temperatures,”
Sophie C. Lewis and Andrew D. King
GRL Sept 2015, 10.1002/2015GL065793
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065793/abstract
which concludes
“…during 2000–2014, new hot records outnumber new cold records by 12 to one on average.”
Some of their graphs here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/10/proof-that-australia-is-heating-up.html
1010
David,
They are the adjusted data no the true records.
610
Well, I guess there’s always one bad appell! 🙂
15
Reality.
http://s19.postimg.org/va65su3ar/UAH_Aust2002.jpg
Australia has a cooling trend since 2002.
59
And again, ignoring all the really hot stuff from pre-1910.
Yes it has warmed a bit since 1960ish in Australia, after cooling from the 1890’s to 1960.
But the manic adjustment of the real data through erroneous homogenisation means that BOM’s records of the past climate are about as meaningless as GISS or HadCrut.
710
And again, saying things like the slight warming can’t be reproduced by their models without CO2 forcing…
….. is an admission of their model FAILURE.
69
Um, so what’s your point?, weather will be weather, is it hotter that 50 years ago, um yes, is it CO2 that dun it…. hmm with a christmas light per 10,000 cubic metre of aur free to convect, I’d doubt it.
The base energy in the climate changes every minute of every day, the number of records just depends on the base energy plus the delta for the period. This statistical spin means nothing. Of course we arent seeing cold records, -it’s warm at the moment. Before we see the opposite the base energy would have to be the same as the little ice age. Climate energy is a random walk, statistics based on a fixed long term meaningless average like yours mean Nothing.
Lots of warm records relative to cold DOESN’T mean it’s getting warmer, it just means that it’s warm now relative to when the cold records were set. Well duh!
30
finally, UK Times covers Verdier, thanks to Matt Ridley:
behind paywall:
18 Oct: UK Times: Matt Ridley: Now here’s the good news on global warming
Activists may want to shut down debate, but evidence is growing that high CO2 levels boost crops and nourish the oceans
France’s leading television weather forecaster, Philippe Verdier, was taken off air last week for writing that there are “positive consequences” of climate change. Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of mathematical physics and astrophysics at the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, declared last week that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide are “enormously beneficial”. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, said in a lecture last week that we should “celebrate carbon dioxide”…
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4589359.ece
71
Didn’t he comment a few years ago that while he had concerns about nuclear waste management he had come to the conclusion that nuclear energy to produce electricity made good sense?
00
David Evans wrote:
“The dependence of TS,A on TR is complicated because TR depends on the temperatures of the various layers that emit OLR, one of which is the surface, and the rest of which are somewhere in the atmosphere.”
The rest are EVERYWHERE in the atmosphere. Every infinitesmial layer of the atmosphere radiates. That’s what the 2-stream differential equations are composed of.
1010
No it doesn’t.
710
David Appell October 19, 2015 at 12:52 pm · Reply
(David Evans wrote:
“The dependence of TS,A on TR is complicated because TR depends on the temperatures of the various layers that emit OLR, one of which is the surface, and the rest of which are somewhere in the atmosphere.””
“The rest are EVERYWHERE in the atmosphere. Every infinitesmial layer of the atmosphere radiates.”
David Evans, tries hard to promote understanding of a dificult subject.
David rotten Apfull tries just as hard to confuse all for political gain. Apfull takes partial learning of the atmosphere and deliberately uses that upside down to attack any possible understanding.
“That’s what the 2-stream differential equations are composed of.”
The Schuster Schwarzschild two stream approximation is a useful tool for guessing the effective radiating temperature of an incandescent star with a continuum spectrum and anisotropic nonconservative backscatter. Whatever that may mean. 😉
Such is no more applicable to a non luminous planet with a temperature dispersive atmosphere with no backscatter, than is the intentionally corrupted Stephan-Boltzmann equation. Such nonsense can always be expected from the Clueless Climate Clowns (CCC).
Rotten ApfulL cannot even read the description of either!
His mommy shows him pictures of Bunnies! 🙁
1110
Well, all you’ve done here is (in eq. 4) rewritten the IPCC’s numbers in an alternate manner (as you are using the ratios and feedbacks from IPCC estimates), and then in equation 5 asserted that there is a separate factor λC for CO2 that you will LATER show is about a factor of 3 smaller. There’s still no beef here.
Also I ought to point out that your claim that CO2 has no effect on OLR is only true in the steady state – once everything has been restored to energy balance, all temperatures and other factors have adjusted, etc. In the interim CO2 actually temporarily INCREASES OLR (increasing outgoing radiation from the stratosphere) which quickly results in a cooling of the upper levels of the atmosphere so that emissions overshoot to below the previous steady-state OLR value, and during that period of time we get energy accumulation in the surface and lower atmosphere until balance is restored again. So with a jump in CO2 your radiating temperature bumps quickly up then down for a long time before returning to normal. Also CO2 and other GHG’s have a significant effect on your solar influence factor ‘M’. But you don’t use M in your CO2 equation so I suppose that doesn’t matter. Anyway, M does depend on CO2 levels…
37
Arthur, short of writing in all caps or something, how can we make it clearer that the main claim here is that the architecture is different? The CO2 forcing is given its own response, instead of having the solar response applied to it. Architecture first, then numbers.
Yes, the IPCC give us the numbers on the solar response. No dispute there.
Thank you for pointing out that CO2 has no effect on OLR only applies between the steady state, but we’ve already mentioned many times in this series that basic models only apply between steady states. We’ve also mentioned many times that CO2 does not effect the amount of OLR only when the albedo feedbacks are ignored — see the path from surface warming to ASR in the diagrams in this post?
No, M does not depend on CO2. The feedbacks in M are feedbacks in response to surface warming, and while increasing CO2 causes surface warming that affects surface albedo feedbacks that affects ASR which is multiplied by M, M itself does not depend on changes in CO2. You might also want to see post 5 and post 7, about the absence of feedbacks to CO2 in the conventional basic climate model.
93
M definitely does depend on CO2 and all GHG levels in the atmosphere. M is the link between your radiating temperature and the surface temperature. As you describe it, “The dependence of TS,A on TR is complicated because TR depends on the temperatures of the various layers that emit OLR, one of which is the surface, and the rest of which are somewhere in the atmosphere. The relationship between TR and TS,A is thus mainly mediated by the atmosphere.” It would be remarkable if CO2 (part of the atmosphere, and one of the few components involved in outgoing radiation) did NOT influence the relationship between TR and TS,A according to this description. The IPCC numbers are obtained under an assumption of current CO2 levels (they are partial-derivative based after all). Would they be the same if CO2 was 1/2 its currently value? Double? 10 times higher? I assure you M would change quite substantially. I think the burden of proof is on you to show it would not – you haven’t derived anything original yourself here at all that would show this one way or the other.
02
Arthur, M does not depend on O2 levels. See Fig. 1 and Eq. (4) above. M is the product of e, the in-line form of the non-albedo feedbacks to surface warming whose value comes from AR5 (see Eq. 6 in post 9) and eta, the ratio of the Planck sensitivity to the SB sensitivity. Neither of these depend on the CO2 concentration.
No, the Planck sensitivity does not depend (to first order) on the CO2 concentration. Likewise the feedbacks to surface warming. Yes, they would be the almost exactly the same if CO2 as plus or minus 50%. For the incremental changes we are interested in here, I am using the IPCC work which does not quote a CO2 sensitivity to either factor.
00
Hansen introduced the idea of different “efficacy” for each forcing, so this is equivalent to what you do by your various factors. IIRC this was used in AR4, certainly it was in AR5.
This of course just about doubles the number of parameters in the model meaning just about anything can be made to fit.
It is clearly not right to assume that shortwave the penetrates the mixed layer will have the same effect as IR which warms 10 microns of surface. I suspect that the “efficacy” of IR is vanishingly small but with enough poorly constrained fiddle factors the world is you choice.
20
Greg wrote: “It is clearly not right to assume that shortwave the penetrates the mixed layer will have the same effect as IR which warms 10 microns of surface.”
Like any location, the effect of DLR on the temperature of the top 10 um of the ocean will depend on total fluxes entering and leaving this location. For those who believe in DLR, most will all be absorbed in the top 10 um of the ocean. OLR from the surface of the ocean is emitted from the same top 10 um that absorbs DLR and OLR is generally bigger than DLR. Evaporation takes place from the top layer of water molecules (top 10 nm). So the top 10 um of the ocean is usually colder than the bulk of the water below – which is warmed by SWR. (Also, some SWR is absorbed by the top 10 um). The top 10 um is warmed by conduction and by convection when the surface layer gets to cold.
As best I can tell, all W/m2 are created equal, and none therefore has more “efficacy” than any other.
10
Greg, Frank – In the conventional basic model, each forcing has the same response regardless of origin, so the same response as applied to more ASR is applied to the CO2 forcing. That is cut and dried. Clearly it is unrealistic physically.
Yes, for the GCMs the notion of treating all forcings the same has been buckling for a while, hence the emergence of efficacies (which are emergent properties, btw). This might have more to do with the feedbacks they initiate (see post 5), rather than the effect of the radiation imbalance per se — all W/m2 are created equal, but they have different feedbacks depending on what causes them.
What we are proposing in this series is a much larger step, no mere fiddling with efficacies. Current GCMs treat CO2 and sunlight roughly the same — a W/m2 of forcing of either results in roughly the same surface warming and roughly the same pattern of feedbacks. I claim they should be very different. While I am developing this notion for the basic model, the application to the GCMs is obvious I think. One way this might be implemented is if the rerouting feedback of post 7 or similar were to be added to the GCMs — then if causes of global warming like EDA were permitted into the GCMs, tuning might indicate that the rerouting severely curtails the potency of increasing CO2. Merely assuming the current inputs to the GCMs account for global warming will not be sufficient, because under those conditions the rerouting will presumably be tuned into insignificance.
00
David: I fully agree that a W/m2 of absorbed energy in different places can have different consequences. That is what AOGCMs are used for – calculating the consequences of energy flux by absorption, emission, condensation, evaporation and convection at hundreds of thousands of grid cells several times an hour for a century. (The only problem is that tuned parameters, not basic physics, are still needed to describe subgrid processes.) IMO, the simpler models you are trying to refine have a different purpose – to create a conceptual picture of what is going on behind all of the number crunching. At the end of this series of posts, you may have a clearer picture, but one that won’t invalidate results from AOGCMs – as best I can tell at the moment.
00
A thousand times this.
60
On models.
Just had a quick look, and it seems the IPCC use in excess of 80 models of various types. Even if say, 30, are used to predict global temperatures 30 years hence, and all give a different answer, then at most 1 will be correct, and at least 29 incorrect.
Averaging 29 incorrect results will not give a correct answer, unless by the most incredible coincidence. The problem seems to be that at different times, a different model comes up with a “correct” answer.
There appears to be no way to predict which model will provide the desired “correct” answer.
The IPCC recognises this, and says “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
But there is funding involved, so we’ll just keep spending, building models which we know to be useless at predicting climate. (I made that last bit up, of course.) Surely nobody would accept money to do something they categorically stated was impossible. Would they?
Cheers.
13
The flow diagram is quite a concise way of presenting all this.
One thing that stands out is the statement that deltaA=deltaR ie any change in ASR is matched by an identical change OLR. This makes the ( unstated ) assumption that there is not storage in the earth system. ie that there is not change in OHC for example. I don’t think that is justifiable and in any case if that is the assumption it should be stated explicitly with justification.
10
The equality also assumes very fast equilibration. You state that the atmosphere settles quickly but even mixed surface layer of the ocean does not. There is a lag of about 12mo from peak forcing to peak temperature change and I estimated a time constant of around 8mo for the tropics.
Elsewhere ex-tropical southern oceans SST suggests a time const nearer 18mo.
Mainstream climatology talks about 50 years or more.
Time constant is intimately related to sensitivity. If you start with a ( probably erroneous ) and unjustified ( unstated ) assumption of near instant equilibration this will likely lead to negligible sensitivity and also certainly will get shot down.
ΔASR=ΔOLR does not look right.
10
Greg, glad you like the diagrams. People analyzing electronic recruits realized long ago that a circuit diagram is way more concise than a bunch of simultaneous equations or wordy descriptions.
ΔA = ΔR does not prevent a change in stored heat. E.g. if absorbed sunlight stepped up, when steady state resumed there would be more heat stored on Earth (presumably the oceans would be warmer) — but both A and R would have increased by the same amount between the initial and final steady states.
Yes, basic models assume that the Earth is fairly close to steady state all the time (very fast equilibration, as you say), so don’t apply them on short time scales (less than a decade seems like asking for trouble). Such objections apply to all basic models (which are pretty much characterized by the ΔA = ΔR assumption, btw), including the conventional. Hence their intrinsically approximate nature.
We covered these assumptions in the Steady State section of post 2.
00
Thanks David,
This is basically Trenberth’s “missing heat”. It was recognised as a problem by mainstream long ago. The current get out seems to be highly speculative assumptions about changes in OHC based on woefully inadequate measurements in the earlier period.
There was very few deep ocaan mesurements before the ARGO network was installed, so the early parts of Levitus are thoroughly unscientific.
Even when ARGO did have reasonably good coverage ( since 2003 ) they did not find the deep warming they expected, hence Trenberth’s famous climategate email, where he seems only to suspect that the data is not good enough rather than to be able to question thier *assumed* CO2 sensitivity.
I think you model must at least discuss heat diffusion to deep ocean otherwise you are just going bach 20 years. If you simply ignore it, you will get blow out of the water. ( not pun intended ).
00
Agree Greg, except about the need for heat diffusion. A basic model applies even taking heat storage into account — but the assumption is that one is “near” steady state, which is maybe a different way of highlighting the same deficiency.
As per post 1, our aim here is to show the conventional basic model that guides the CO2 scare has seriously overestimated the warming effect of CO2 due to a poor and overly-simple architecture. For that, basic model-land assumptions are tolerable.
00
externally drive albedo should be included in the bracketed term:
(1-α 0 ) ie (1-α 0 α E ).
It seems that there is ‘first order’ approximation going on there in that the ΔS.Δα E can be dropped. Again if that is the assumption is should be stated and justified.
00
Sorry, the “sub” html tag seems to be filtered out on this site. You’ll have to sort the subscripts on α 🙁
00
Greg – Yep, first order only. This was stated in Eq. (4) of post 10.
00
fundamental problem with the physics of adding temperatures: you can’t add temperatures !
Land has about half the specific heat capacity of sea water. Unless you are assuming a water only planet that is a fundamental problem.
You can add fluxes and you can add energies but you cannot add temperatures. This is one of the big frauds of climatology that happily tries to do physics based calculations using land+sea datasets .
Intensive Versus Extensive Properties
https://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/majors/tutorialnotefiles/intext.htm
Temperature in an intesive propty.
00
Greg, the surface temperature is a measure of the heat content of the (upper level of) Earth’s climate system. Heat contents of the Earth’s climate system add. Therefore so do surface temperature perturbations (with the obvious caveats about lags and time constants). That is, while they are being applied to the same mass, temperature perturbations add.
01
No, that is unequivocally wrong.
Temp of water is a measure of the heat content of water. Temp of damp rock is a measure of the heat content of damp rock.
If you halve the temperature increase of damp rock, it may be roughly comparable to that of water, though it’s a gross approx and still not proper physics.
What I think you are meaning is while they are being applied to the same mixture of materials with largely different specific heat capacities. So you are arguing for an “average” SHC to which you can apply a radiative forcing.
Sorry SHC is also and intensive property: no adding allowed, no averages, no means. No way 😉
Here I compare dT/dt for land and sea, showing the roughly 2:1 ratio in heat capacities.Obviously land is not uniform so there is still some illegal averaging going on but it makes the point.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/land-sea-ddt.png?w=800
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=219
It would not be too complicated to have two reservoirs to address this but it does need to be addressed. Again you are just setting yourself up to be shot down and there are plenty waiting to do that.
10
The required assumption for temperature perturbations being additive is that the increased heat due to any climate influence under consideration raises the heat contents of the various components in much the same ratio.
The main example: although the heat content of sea and land may be quite different, so long as they are raised by heating due to sunlight and heating due to increased CO2 in much the same ratio, then a global temperature averaging the two heat contents will be additive.
AFAIK that assumption holds.
01
fundamental problem with the physics of adding temperatures: you can’t add temperatures !
Land has about half the specific heat capacity of sea water. Unless you are assuming a water only planet that is a fundamental problem.
OH dear, I used an F-word. Let’s try again.
You can add fluxes and you can add energies but you cannot add temperatures. This is one of the big cons of climatology that happily tries to do physics based calculations using land+sea datasets .
Intensive Versus Extensive Properties
https://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/majors/tutorialnotefiles/intext.htm
Temperature in an intesive propty.
20
You can’t attach physical meaning to a land+sea average temperature (global or otherwise) since an average implies an addition.
The usual weighting or 30% 70% only accounts for surface area. Thus the land area is disproportionately weighted by a factor of about 2. This suits the warmists since it warms twice as fast.
This explains why the land+sea records like HadCRUFT4 show more warming and are favoured by warmists.
21
Huge amount of work Greg.
🙂
00
Greg, the land/sea split is a good point. However if the temperature perturbations are “small” and both the land and sea are subjected to similar warming and cooling from different influences on the climate, it shouldn’t make much difference. This is only a basic model 🙂
01
A factor of two difference in SHC will still be there for “small” changes. I don’t think you can invoke ‘small’ for everything.
10
Ok. Greg, let’s join the land/sea split with the overall argument from Comment 31.1.1 and Comment 31.1.1.1.
00
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-13-the-start-of-a-new-architecture-for-climate-models/ […]
00
I love this series, David and Jo. I’m a biologist but you are seizing me with interest.
One thing I have to repeat to myself: No matter what is going on in the atmosphere or on the surface, 239 W/m^2 has to fly off into space, because that is what is coming in from the sun as ASR; and a little variance here would make the earth unlivable in a few weeks. I am assuming that the albedo, the geothermal, the fossil fuel and nuclear usage stays the same, the tidal stays the same and the negative withdrawal of energy by
photosynthesis, and the exothermic animal and bacterial heat stays the same.
Thus, we could have an atmosphere of 100% CO2 and we must still shed 239 W/m^2 into space. So this tells me
exactly what you are saying in 4 pipe cartoon, viz. if you add CO2 and shake and spin these molecules only, then you have to use less
energy elsewhere. So something has to radiate less into space if the CO2 is radiating more.
Is this approximately what you are saying? Even Venus has to shed exactly what its ASR is putting into it. After all, we and venus are not stars.
00
Thanks William. Yes, adding CO2 to the atmosphere is all about redistribution — less OLR emitted from CO2, and thus more elsewhere. As satellites confirm, the total OLR remains very close to constant.
See Jo’s picture of the dam with four outlet pipes in the intro to post 11.
The $10 tr mistake by the establishment climate scientists is to assume that slightly blocking of the CO2 pipe is the same as adding the same amount of blocked heat as extra absorbed sunlight — yes, same amount of water in the dam, but different effect altogether: addition (more absorbed sunlight, the solar response) is not redistribution (the CO2 response).
00
I think it would help readers to understand your alternative model better if you described in detail the differences between the CO2 response and the solar response. (Maybe I missed that post?) It seems I’ve read several posts that merely repeat that the two responses should be treated differently.
00
GM: You’re on the right post:
See Fig. 1 or Fi.g 2 above. The solar response includes the Planck sensitivity and the feedbacks to surface warming.
We are proposing that the Co2 response (which redistributes the water between the outflow pipes of the dam picture in post 11) is not the same as the solar response (which increases the inflow to the dam).
10