Home/Blog
In the debate arena, the public likes simple narratives. If the narrative supports their pre-conceived notions, they like it even better.
On technical issues which have major public policy impact, however, the nuances can be very important even if they are not easily explained or grasped.
The scientific nuances in the climate change realm are abundant: How much of recent warming has been natural? We aren’t sure. Will clouds respond to warming in ways that make it worse, or lessen it? We aren’t sure.
In the global warming (aka climate change) realm, there is a spectrum of beliefs among the public, as the following chart shows:
Those who tend to view issues in black-or-white terms, and who don’t want to be bothered with understanding the details of the global warming debate, tend to gravitate to one or the other extreme. Which one they choose depends upon their worldview, or even their view of the role of government in our lives.
I’ve heard from people representing the opposite ends of the spectrum over the last 25 years in emails, claiming either increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere simply cannot affect climate, or claiming that we have pushed the fragile climate system past a tipping point and unstoppable warming, more severe weather, rapidly rising sea levels, death, destruction, and mayhem, are the inevitable result of our burning of fossil fuels.
I find it more than a little ironic that Greenpeace was basically forced to admit its own extremism of message in their defense against a defamation lawsuit in Canada that their extremist statements really can’t be taken as factual, but more as hyperbole.
It should be obvious that the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes in the above chart. That is sort of a trivial statement, though, without much value because it is so unhelpful in the policy realm since it covers a wide range of potential outcomes.
Policy changes depend partly upon our confidence in our predictions. If we are certain that in exactly one year a large asteroid will hit Earth, there would be a legitimate global effort to come up with a scheme for averting disaster, no matter the cost. But if there is a relatively small chance of it happening in the next 100 years, there might be little or no effort.
Costs versus benefits must also be addressed, including the impact of forcing more expensive energy on the poor through either legislation or EPA regulations. If it was relatively painless to switch to renewable energy sources, sure, do it.
But it’s not. Ask the countries that have tried.
Also, global greening in recent decades indicates more CO2 isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Crop productivity continues upward, even without planting more acres. 2016 saw record yields in corn, soybeans, and wheat. I’ve been a consultant with corn market interests for the last 6 years, and climate change isn’t even on their radar screen… except indirectly, since the ethanol mandate was supposedly intended to reduce CO2 emissions. It didn’t.
We see in the global warming policy arena there has been a gradual loss of public interest in doing something about global warming. A lot has happened since NASA’s James Hansen sensationally testified in Congress that he was mostly sure that the 1988 heat wave and drought were at least somewhat the fault of humans influencing the climate system.
Despite the initial alarm, in the last 20 years Gallup polling has shown that climate change has remained at the bottom of the list of environmental concerns among Americans. Except for the most recent survey results, there has also been a long-term downward trend over that 20 year period in how serious the public views the threat of global warming.
Why has the public lost interest? The reasons are many.
For example, most of the world’s population experiences many tens of degrees of natural temperature variation, yet they are asked to fret over two degrees of warming on time scales so long almost no one would notice it in their lifetime. The observed rate of warming has been about half of that predicted by the average climate model, and the climate model average is what guides energy policy.
Furthermore, the models do not produce realistic natural climate variability without considerable fudging and tinkering to fit the observed temperature record. As a result, we really aren’t sure recent warming isn’t partly or even mostly natural in origin. (Our study of ocean warming since the 1950s suggests about 50% each).
Finally, like the rock musician who is embarrassed to admit he actually likes ABBA, we are hesitant to admit we love our fossil-fueled transportation. We like the convenience of flying in jets. And the smaller cars get, the more pickup trucks we buy. Leonardo DiCaprio loves his yacht, I’m sure.
The polarization of the debate has led to a simplification of the narratives: you are either a denier if you tend toward the no-impact end in the above chart, or an alarmist if you tend toward the dangerous impact end of the spectrum. Judith Curry has written a lot about the polarization of the debate in the years since the Climategate email release pushed her into the skeptic camp.
In the quarter century I have studied this issue, I dont think we are much closer to having an answer to just where the climate system will end up. Just about anything is theoretically possible. The science is much more difficult than putting a person on the Moon, which was basically just an engineering exercise involving man-against-gravity, and making sure he has air, food, and water for several days.
Nevertheless, a little-known hint of what direction the science might be going is the fact that the latest U.N. IPCC report (AR5), which historically tends toward the alarmist extreme (at least in its Summary for Policymakers) has lowered the lower limit of warming to about 1 deg. C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. (How could this be, you ask, if weve already experienced about 1 deg. C of warming without CO2 doubling? Because there could be natural warming influences causing a substantial portion of observed warming.) Admittedly, they consider 1 deg. C to be extremely unlikely. If I had to choose a number, I’d go with about 1.5 deg. C, but they consider that unrealistically optimistic as well.
The fact that our satellite observations have shown less warming than the surface, rather than more warming as would be expected theoretically is another hint that the theory encapsulated in the models has a serious bias. The most obvious potential reason for this is that water vapor feedback is not as strong in reality as in the models, since those models with the strongest positive water vapor feedback also produce the strongest amplification of warming with height in the troposphere.
My opinion tends toward the little-impact end of the spectrum. I suspect that future warming will be slow and relatively benign (say, 1.5 deg. C by the end of this century), severe weather events won’t become demonstrably worse, and slow sea level rise will continue roughly as it has for centuries. People will adapt to whatever slow changes occur.
And renewable energy (or maybe safer nuclear energy) breakthroughs will come from the private sector and market forces, not from legislative fiat.
While climate science will continue to try to nail down just where we are in the spectrum of climate impacts, what we hear in the news media will continue to veer toward the ends of the spectrum, with exaggerated claims from opposing tribes, based upon fears and click-seeking more than on evidence. Heat waves, freezes, floods, droughts… these events make news, just as they have throughout recorded history. Average weather does not. We lukewarmers will continue to be lost in the noise.
I suspect we will not have much more scientific confidence ten years from now. A lot will depend on where global temperatures go from now on, because the science will just remain too uncertain until Mother Nature shows her hand.
Congressional hearings into climate issues, put on mostly for show, will continue to pit competing views against one another. As usual, the opposing views will largely cancel each other out, despite each of the tribes claiming victory.
And the wheels on the bus go round and round.
at the neurinburgh trial of the nazis after the 2 nd world war Goering was asked, how did they mange to convince people to follow bthe 3rd richt, and persecution of the Jews,he replyied it was easy , you tell them that there lifestyle, country and children are in danger,and they will do anything,sounds very familiar
I once looked up all of the types of propaganda, and I found that Al Gore had used every one of them.
ian brown…”how did they mange to convince people to follow bthe 3rd richt, and persecution of the Jews,he replyied it was easy , you tell them that there lifestyle, country and children are in danger,and they will do anything,sounds very familiar…”
Actually, it was the beatings and killings by Hitler’s henchmen, along with the concentration camps into which they threw dissidents, that had a major impact.
German’s learned that opposing the Nazis was dangerous for one’s healthy and longevity.
The rest of the civilized world, pretty much, has no problem with the science of climate change, and thinks it is real. Only in the US, do we have opinion on a scientific issue, so divided along political lines.
Why? Because one major party, and its media cheerleaders, have adopted what amounts to an anti-science position.
All of the 17 repub candidates for president had to say, either, the I dont know, ‘I am not a scientist’ which has become a meme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_not_a_scientist,
or ‘Its a hoax’ or ‘Its a chinese hoax’.
What a cop-out. Imagine Senators saying ‘I dont know, Im not a scientist’, if asked about the multitude of science-related issues that they have to make policy on:
Scientific research, Nuclear energy, Nuclear proliferation, dirty bombs, AIDS, Ebola, Zika, internet regulation, drones, etc.
What should politicains do about such issues when theyre not scientists? Maybe ask a scientific body to advise them? Well theyve done that. They asked the NAS and the NAS told them, Climate Change is real and its a problem. The military got the message.
Look, I understand if conservatives are anti-regulation. Thats a genuine philosophy. What I dont understand is the need to disparage the science and the scientists.
“The rest of the civilized world, pretty much, has no problem with the science of climate change, and thinks it is real.”
This is the propaganda technique of argumentum ad populum.
Even in Germany, one of the most committed nations, past polls have only found a 60/40 split on the proposition that the past century’s warming has been primarily caused by human activity. The best global polls we have, which may be only as accurate as the past election cycle’s polls for US President, or the polls for Brexit, show only a bare majority worldwide subscribing to the notion.
‘propaganda technique’
Not saying you should follow the majority.
Am saying people shouldnt form an opinion on a science issue based on what they’re told to believe by groups that have an underlying political agenda.
This is what is happening in the US. These groups are industry lobbies, political parties, and aligned media outlets.
The other side has a political agenda as well, and they are much better funded. They have only been unable to foist their opinions as science so far because the climate has not cooperated with their doomsday scenarios.
Better funded?
Pretty sure the fossil fuel industry lobby is well funded. Just look at all the commercials you see promoting fossil fuels ‘I am an energy voter’ etc. Not seeing a ton promoting the other side.
Not even within an order of magnitude of the funding given by governments and environmental organizations to the pro-AGW camp.
As a matter of fact, every major oil company is on the record favoring “carbon” taxes. They have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. They know there is no real competition from so-called “renewables”, but it does hobble the real competition against their natural gas interests vis a vis coal.
But, everyone hates the oil companies, so what better bogeyman to sell the weak-minded? You have been manipulated.
Just this morning saw several commercials sponsored by the America Petroleum Institute, promoting pipelines and use of oil for all sorts of things. Didnt see any ads from Greenpeace or Sierra Club.
Ads Im sure are only a small part of lobbying effort. All the political donations to candidates, like Pruitt.
Open your eyes, if you want to see how you are being manipulated.
‘Orders of magnitude’ Show me the money.
It’s not even close. The tsunami of government money dedicated to supporting AGW is Brobdingnagian.
Companies advertising about the benefits of their products is hardly anti-AGW.
Open your eyes. Everyone has an agenda, and your heroes have clay feet.
Your just repeating the assertion-not proving it. Show me the money?
Are you including money for scientifc research? If so that is not equivalent to money spent on advertising, lobbying, or political action.
Yes, the money spent on getting scientists to produce “research” “proving” AGW is much more powerful than airy ads saying a company does good things.
We know scientists can be bought and paid for – see Tobacco Institute. Scientists gotta’ feed their families just like everyone else. And, some are creating empires and making LARGE sums from the gusher of funding earmarked to support “the cause”. Big Wind and Big Solar are making out like bandits for a virtually useless, and environmentally devastating, product.
Puleez Bart. What bollicks. Are u saying we shouldnt be doing research? Wr shouldn’t be trying to find out what us actually happening to the earth? We dont need to know.
Then ur saying $ targeted at few thousand scientists is more powerful than $ spent marketing to all americans? More powerful than $ spent coopting a political party??
Clearly the latter is more powerful since it enabled the defeat of legislation to regulate carbon.
Big tobacco is a good illustration of the need for government funded science. The internal tobacco scientists also found strong links between smoking health, just as the external gov funded scientists did. The difference was the corps hid and covered up their internal research.
There is nothing innately saintly about government funded projects, Nate. Governments lie just as often as corporations, if not more so, since they face fewer and lesser consequences for being found out.
You have merely chosen sides based on your preferences, and refuse to consider the possibility that those providing your rationalizations for doing so are not wearing white hats. It is just a willful illusion on your part.
No,
It is just human nature. A corporation’s stated goal is profit. Ideas that threaten that profit must be suppressed. Has happened repeatedly. Lead from gasoline-not harmful. Smoking-not harmful. Emissions from FF-not harmful. Thalidomide-not harmful, There is a good book of history of this crap, ‘Merchants of Doubt’, Oreskes. Some of the very same people involved in the tobacco wars got involved in the climate wars.
The stated goal of gov supported research is science in the public interest. Who is government? It is us. Does it fail at times, sure.
And, a government’s stated goal is power. Ideas that threaten power must be suppressed. The power to tax the very air is heavy duty mojo on that front.
Gov sounds very sinister…
Indeed, it is. That is why our Founders sought to limit its power. The bloody history of governments in the past century alone ought to be able to convince you that unfettered government is a plague to be avoided.
‘Indeed, it is. That is why our Founders sought to limit its power. The bloody history of governments in the past century alone ought to be able to convince you that unfettered government is a plague to be avoided.’
Ah, this drills down and gets to heart of why you find so much fault with climate science. It is not really the science you have a problem with, it is what you believe will come along with it.
Do you think this may bias you in your assessment of the science??
No. The bias is on your side. You are, to put it mildly, much less qualified to make an assessment, and thereby much more susceptible to bias.
Bart,
I am ‘much less qualified’. Ouch that hurts.
If you really think our govt, (‘governments stated goal is power. Ideas that threaten power must be suppressed’), is so little different than North Korea’s, then perhaps I can understand why you feel that climate change, and its consequences for govt control over us, must be denied at all costs.
It helps me to understand why if data doesnt fit your beliefs (historic CO2 levels from ice cores) you you are perfectly ok with simply tossing it aside and saying it must be unreliable.
And maybe why you are perfectly fine with altering data (e.g. low pass filter) with no justification other than it makes it fit your unrealistic models. BTW, this approach would never make it through peer review.
Nate…”Am saying people shouldnt form an opinion on a science issue based on what theyre told to believe by groups that have an underlying political agenda.
This is what is happening in the US”.
You are doing exactly what you are preaching that others should not do. You are appealing to authority without providing any scientific arguments.
I base my skepticism on years of studying and applying science. I accept the views of people like Richard Lindzen because they make good scientific sense. The views of modeler/mathematician Gavin Schmidt, of NASA GISS make no scientific sense to me whatsoever.
He’s not appealing to authority, he’s appealing to expertise. It’s the same logic as getting medical opinion from a doctor (instead of a political ideologue).
barry…”Hes not appealing to authority, hes appealing to expertise”.
There are many experts on global warming/climate change who disagree. One side has taken to claiming that anyone who disagrees with AGW theory is a denier and aligned with oil companies.
Ironically, the AGW side has the weakest arguments, based on consensus and innuendo not backed by physics. Therefore, he is not talking about experts, he is talking about propagandists with a bias.
Even you, when I pointed you to an IPCC statement that confirmed the IPCC claim of a warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012, went off on a red-herring argument about 15 years being too short a period to be significant. In your denial, you cannot bring yourself to see that 15 years with no warming effect from CO2 is very significant.
The slow-down was interesting, but I’m not convinced it is significant in the way you mention. I’ve looked at it in all sorts of ways, not just one.
Americans have a long history of being independent thinkers and suspicious of government. Germany, not so much,
bill…”Americans have a long history of being independent thinkers and suspicious of government”.
America is a continent and both the US and Canada are in the continent of America. Some of us in the Canadian part of America share your views of being independent thinkers but not that many of us have an all-abiding distrust of government. We don’t often like the shenanigans of politicians but our governments in Canada are trustworthy for the most part, although some are borderline.
I think the problem in the States is that politicians get elected mainly because they have access to large amounts of money for election campaigns. When was the last time a person of modest means became president of the US?
That in itself breeds mistrust when such well-heeled politicians look after their own primarily while ignoring the hoi polloi. The same is true to an extent in Canada but we have a strong social safety net to protect the less fortunate.
“When was the last time a person of modest means became president of the US?”
Barack Obama
Bill Clinton
Jimmy Carter
Gerald Ford
Richard Nixon
could even arguably throw Reagan into the mix, but he had some television and movie money and GE sponsorship dollars.
Carter was a successful peanut farmer, but not rich by most people’s standards.
Of course, lots of money to be made post-presidency.
Nate…”Why? Because one major party, and its media cheerleaders, have adopted what amounts to an anti-science position”.
I wish you would stop using the word science to represent your views on science. The man put in charge of climate science in the US made it clear he wanted to hear from both sides in the global warming/climate change debate. That’s a dramatic change from the previous Obama administration who blatantly refused to acknowledge skeptics, calling them deniers.
There is nothing anti-science in the skeptical view, in fact, it is far closer to real, observational science than the consensus-based attempts at science on the alarmists side.
Both sides of the debate? You mean like the ‘debates’ on evolution vs creation. Or HIV vs. something else causing AIDS?
When the vast weight of evidence is on one side of an issue then it is longer a legitimate debate.
Like the debates on Continental Drift, or the bacterial origin of ulcers.
Sorry, you are not the arbiter of what is legitimate or not. That is a policy that begets Lysenkoism, a close cousin of “Climate Change”.
Continental drift???? Was debated for many decades before definitive proof was found.
Nate: When the vast weight of evidence is on one side of an issue then it is longer a legitimate debate.
The evedence is on neither side. The only real evedence is 1 degree C per doubling of the CO2 (Stefan-Boltzmann). It’s the feedbacks that are debatable. The “end is near” crowd pretend that because sceptics rightly believe that 1 degree per doubling is hardly catastrophic, they are denying any CO2 warming. You just need to look at the IPCC reports to see how the estimates for CO2 warming keeps dropping and the empirical evidence to see how the models keep running hot.
Ideally, science is a search for truth and a good scientist follows the evidence wherever it leads. With climate change/global warming/weather weirding/whatever-the-current-catch-phrase-is people that call themselves scientists publish evidence only if it fits a preconceived narrative. The sceptic crowd is not anti science, they are anti bad science.
My point is that certain media outlets would like you to beleive that the evidence for AGW is 50/50 and so debate is legit. And they have convinced you. But the reason for the 97% consensus is that those who actually look at all the evidence see it is a mountain on one side.
My point is that certain media outlets would like you to beleive that the evidence for AGW is 50/50 and so debate is legit. And they have convinced you. But the reason for the 97% consensus among climate scientists is that those who actually look at all the evidence see lots of compelling data.
The “97% consensus” meme is pure crap, and you know it. 97% of scientists would not agree on anything. That’s tinpot dictator election margins, and a glaring tell that you are being lied to. The “studies” purporting to find that number have been debunked so many times, it is not worth even commenting on further.
‘Pure crap’
Show us where they have been debunked (other than a denialist blogger) In fact the studies have been reproduced over and over.
Your guys would have been much better off picking 80%, or 83.7% would have been a good homework fudge, making it look like actual analysis went into it. Everyone knows 97% is a lie just on the face of it. It’s ridiculously over the top.
As usual bart..youve got nothing
Nate, please listen carefully. The debate is NOT whether there is or isn’t warming. The debate is the feedbacks- water vapor, aerosols, ice albedo, natural sequestration, and on and on. You keep quoting the 97% consensus as if it confirms your view when the truth is that it has nothing to do with quantification. On the “deniers” side of the debate (that you claim doesn’t exist) is evidence of global greening and possible delay of the next glaciation. On the “warmster” side of the (apparently phantom) debate are stories of future doom that consistently fail to materialize and a possible tax on breathing. Which sounds more reasonable to you?
brian,
Agree. Its climate sensitivity for doubling CO2. Its range has been known for a while, 1.5C-5C or so, and best estimate is 3C. Roy wants it to be 1 C, but not much real evidence to support this.
‘Possible tax on breathing’ gets at the heart of the issue. For many of you, even the most science literate, the issue is not the science but the policy that you think will come with it.
For some reason, this legitimate concern about gov infringement on freedom and regulation, translates into a bias against climate science, or a bias (you?) towards low sensitivity.
For example, Roy and his coworkers have never published a paper showing high sensitivity while most other researchers (sometimes looking at the same data!) find a higher sensitivity. Why is that?
Nate,
The ONLY real evedence is 1 degree C per doubling of the CO2. The Stefan-Botzmann equation is actual science, everything else is speculation and debate. In real science it’s up to the people proposing a hypothesis to prove the hypothesis. My bias toward Climate Science is that it asks us to accept a non-falsifiable hypothesis and marginalizes those who don’t mindlessly accept that CO2 emissions are destroying “the planet” despite mounting evedence that life on Earth has been CO2 starved for the past couple of million years.
Brian,
There are several lines of evidence: the spatial pattern of the warming, the magnitude of it close to predictions, the unabated rise in ocean heat content, the continued sea-ice decline (ice thickness at record lows), the cooling of the stratosphere as predicted, the land heating faster than ocean. There have been tests that could have falsified it, such as this direct observation of CO2 forcing:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm
Yet you choose to downplay or disregard most of these things. I humbly would ask whether this is because of your great concern about what govmt will do if the science is proven correct? This may lead you to only look at sources of info that confirm your hopes and beliefs.
In the case of Bart, who is clearly mathematically capable, this same concern leads him to great leaps of illogic, flawed arguments, and denial of obvious facts, such as ice core data showing history of CO2 is wrong, Co2 is not at highest level in 400 ky, and humans are not responsible for CO2 rise.
Nate – these are not evidence. They are rationalizations. It is pre-Enlightenment voodoo.
Brian,
re: stepahn boltzmann
Stephan-Boltzmann doesnt get Earth to its temp 288 K, more like 258K. The understanding of GHE grew out of work at NASA on planetary atmospheres, and that the deviation from SB depended on the amount and type of atmosphere. So Venus, vs Mecury, Mars, the Moon, Earth. All of their temps can be understood through the GHE.
It is also clear that water feedbacks of CO2 are very positive. Otherwise H2O would condense and Earth temp would drop to 258K.
See http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356
Nate…”What should politicains do about such issues when theyre not scientists? Maybe ask a scientific body to advise them? Well theyve done that”.
Yes…but they did not check to see if the scientific bodies were crooked, or aligned with the politicians. Turns out the IPCC is about as politically biased as one outfit can get. And, NOAA, supposedly an unbiased scientific organization has used scientific misconduct to rewrite the historical temperature record to remove the pause/hiatus.
Scientists are human beings first and these days scientists stand to earn large amounts of personal wealth and influence by being onside. It chagrins me to admit this but many scientists these days are out and out crooked.
NAS is National Academy of Sciences. They regularly produce reports for congress. They must be crooked too?
Dont you think its a problem when the only way to win the argument is by labeling your opponents as crooked? Then you find that almost everyone must be crooked.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Dr. Spencer
A very good article. I have been on both extremes and now settle for the boring middle.
Transition to this primarily from reading your blog. You do actual experiments from time to time, build simple models to explain the science and keep us informed with lots of good information.
You blog attracts both sides of the spectrum and as long as no one gets too hostile to fellow posters you let the debates run hundreds of posts. Nothing ever changes on the extremes but I think allowing the full range of opinion you generate the boring middle.
I am also in the middle, but I don’t find it boring. I am fascinated by the details. There are external forces: the sun produces the solar wind. It also produces a magnetic field that affects cosmic rays. And then there are small changes in TSI. Changes in these produce changes in clouds and surface temperature. Literally closer to home, the heat produced by our civilization warms the area around our cities both winter and summer. In winter to keep us warm, and in summer to keep us cool. The extent depends on latitude and altitude. In the arctic, soot and other particulates affect surface albedo. All these things have been measured, noted, remarked upon, but forgotten or ignored by the alarmists. There is one thing that I have never seen in the literature, correct me if I’m wrong, is the idea that perhaps climate sensitivity is not constant over time. We know that CO2 sensitivity is logarithmic, but I’m claiming more than that. I am hypothesizing that because of changes in feedbacks, CO2 sensitivity is reduced below the log curve. I see evidence of that when looking at temperature and CO2 data across 50 to 70 year time spans.
It ought to be obvious that there is a spectrum of views on the climate issue. But, remarkably, social scientists, who really ought to understand this, don’t seem to. For example there is a paper in Nature by a bunch of social scientists, “Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities”, which simply asserts, falsely, in its abstract, that
“The public is divided between climate change ‘believers’ (whose views align with those of the scientific community) and ‘sceptics’ (whose views are in disagreement with those of the scientific community).”
And there are virtually no social science papers that even mention the term ‘lukewarmer’.
The chart is missing the left half of the effects of CO2. It should have Beneficial Effects on the left and No Effect in the middle. It is more likely that the net effect of CO2 is beneficial.
Yup, I could of done that instead. Point taken.
One correction Dr. Spencer. Your statement that “the ethanol mandate was supposedly intended to reduce CO2 emissions” isn’t correct. The ethanol industry arose in response to escalating oil prices. The program began in the 1970’s under Carter in response the oil embargo. It pretty much idled through the ’80s and 90’s with only minor increases in capacity. Extra capacity and the RFS cam into play due to sky-rocketing crude price in the last decade. The claim that ethanol use is in response to CO2 emissions is really just the industry getting on the global warming gravy train. I’ve always felt this was a mistake, mostly because I believe global warming is a mistake. Tie the two together and when one dies, the other may die as well.
Has ethanol helped keep the price of oil down? Probably so. How much? Can’t really say, but it’s likely not insignificant. A 10% swing in supply or demand of any commodity can have a major impact on price. Likely the greatest benefit gained from ethanol is that it burns about 40% of the US corn crop. This, in turn has driven seed companies to develop higher yielding varieties of corn. Prior to the ethanol industry, the growth in corn market was a gradual upward trend that essentially matched global population and food demand. During that period, had seed producers doubled the corn crop yield, it would have destroyed the corn price, farming, land value and the banking industry. Ethanol has created a major new market that has driven innovation in agriculture and biotech.
So, “nuances can be very important even if they are not easily explained or grasped” indeed.
Interesting background…I’ll ask my corn friends about it. You might well be correct.
My understanding here in Minnesota, as an auto shop owner at the time, was that the corn likker was touted as being added to reduce smog, it had nothing to do with price control. It was at first added to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area then when people got used to the increased cost (reduced fuel mileage and tax support), it was enlarged to include the entire state. The initial addition was about the same time that mandatory smog testing of vehicles each year in the metro area was also added, despite a published trend (by the MnDOT!) that smog was actually dropping due to more efficient cars. Nobody wanted to talk about the reduction in total efficiency of the system when the energy cost to produce the ethanol was higher than the energy available in the end product either. In my opinion, ethanol is a total scam pushed on the public by ignorant or hidden agenda politicians. It reduced the ability of growers to fill the market, reduced the worlds food corn supply, and increased pain in poor sections of the world.
Dam1953 – if 1953 is your birth date you are a little younger than me, but we were both adults early enough to know the history of the oil crunch and ethanol first hand. You are spot on in your analysis. I am gratified that some showed enough interest to remember. Most were still suffering a hangover from woodstock and pursuing free love.
Good article.
I find most people of the more fortunate classes whom I meet seem to believe blindly in the catastrophic global warming fable. I think they believe because it makes them feel virtuous and morally righteous. Such people have led politicians to act so as to pretty nearly condemn Australia to economic failure for about two decades. Our competitive industries and investment incentives have been wrecked. I think the American left has been a leader in this disaster. They are very inventive and clever in their mischief making. They fund many destructive outfits here. Our own left is also foolish and vicious and gullible. We have only feeble opposition to them. I think it will take 15 years to see how the next solar cycle works out, and probably 30 years to get a good idea on the outlines of the problem. By then, perhaps we may be using thorium fission or some other currently unpredicted power source. In the meantime we ought to use some of our 1000 year supply of brown coal, but the left has kyboshed that.
There is no spectrum b/c there is no way for computers to accurately model the climate or predict its future state. See Freeman Dyson and James Lovelock for details.
Roy’s spectrum is about opinion and I think it’s pretty accurate.
Freeman Dyson:
[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but its rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
Hey, hey, hey! Finally. Someone who is bright enough to at least know what it is that he doesn’t understand. How so unique in this pointless flapadoodle. Give Freeman Dyson a rousing cheer.
Dr spenceri like what you are doing but I am starting to have major regrets that I believed in what you do in your role about climate change to the scientific community. This article is a complete waste of time and effort. The science is settled. The facts are on the table. All that remains are absurd false unproven scientific claims including:
Claim #1: man made Co2 from the burning of fossil fuels is a major ghg that will cause disasterous catostrophic global warming in the near feature.
Fact: co2 makes up approximately 1% of all ghg in the atmosphere and has a role of 9-18% ghg affect in which less then 3% of that is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. It is also shown that in historical ice core records co2 lags temperature by a few hundred years.
Claim #2: 97% of all climate scientists think climate change is real and we are the cause of it.
Fact: yes, Climate Change is real and has been happening for millions and millions of years now and our tiny trace ghg emissions have a very small role if anything to do with it. The Sun is the main controller of all long term climate changes here on earth.
Claim #3: the past 18 years more specifically the last 5 have been the warmest on record:
Fact: there has been no global warming for 19 straight years now unless you blindly believe in the surface data that has been adjusted upward and left in warmer areas such as by the airport runways and in the city with the urban heat island affect causing a heat creap to show a bias warming trend much warmer then what is really observed
Claim #4: the Greenland ice is melting at a catostrophic rate
Fact: Greenland ice has been growing at a record rate blowing away all records
Claim: snow will be a thing of the past
Fact: the everage amount of snow cover in the northern hemisphere has been increasing at a catostrophic rate for decades now
Claim #5: the amount of hurricanes are increasing in the Atlantic.
Fact: the average amount of hurricanes in the Atlantic have actually been decreasing since 2005 in fact 2014 was one of the quietist years as far as number of hurricanes in the Atlantic go. I’ve been living in Florida for the past 15 years I know!
Claim #5: the western Antarctic is melting because of too much co2
Fact: the western Antarctic is melting due to an increase in underwater volcanoes. The rest of the Antarctic on average has been growing and set records for 2015 and 2014 of the most sea ice extent
Claim #6: the artic is melting due to an increase in co2
Fact: some evidence actually suggests the artic has actually been increasing over the past 5 years. If the artic is losing ice it is because of a shift in underwater currents and a bigger ozone hole allowing more of the Suns rays to penetrate it and maybe underwater volcanoes.
There are many other failed predictions and claims that I have not mentioned. I would provide links to support my evidence but this stupid webpage keeps on deleting everything I wrote everytime i do. Therefore, it is up to you to do your own research and make your own conclusions despite what I say.
ClimateChange4realz
I had similar problems with some links. I took the advice of one poster and converted problem links using tinyurl website. It converts the link to a shorter version and that has worked for all the links I use now. I would like to see your links and I believe if you use the tinyurl you will be able to post them without problems.
Norman, thank you I will try that
Links to supporting my claim and facts:
Claim #1: man made Co2 from the burning of fossil fuels is a major ghg that will cause disasterous catostrophic global warming in the near feature.
Fact: co2 makes up approximately 1% of all ghg in the atmosphere and has a role of 9-18% ghg affect in which less then 3% of that is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. It is also shown that in historical ice core records co2 lags temperature by a few hundred years.
http://tinyurl.com/lall9tw
http://tinyurl.com/lgbovzm
Claim #2: 97% of all climate scientists think climate change is real and we are the cause of it.
Fact: yes, Climate Change is real and has been happening for millions and millions of years now and our tiny trace ghg emissions have a very small role if anything to do with it. The Sun is the main controller of all long term climate changes here on earth.
http://tinyurl.com/ky7ue52
http://tinyurl.com/jvjk2pr
Claim #3: the past 18 years more specifically the last 5 have been the warmest on record:
Fact: there has been no global warming for 19 straight years now unless you blindly believe in the surface data that has been adjusted upward and left in warmer areas such as by the airport runways and in the city with the urban heat island affect causing a heat creap to show a bias warming trend much warmer then what is really observed
Source: dr Roy Spencer’s latest global temps and climate4you.com
Claim #4: the Greenland ice is melting at a catostrophic rate
Fact: Greenland ice has been growing at a record rate blowing away all records
http://tinyurl.com/kszmh33
http://tinyurl.com/qjajewp
***Read the headline not the full article!
Claim #5: the western Antarctic is melting because of too much co2
Fact: the western Antarctic is melting due to an increase in underwater volcanoes. The rest of the Antarctic on average has been growing and set records for 2015 and 2014 of the most sea ice extent
Claim: snow will be a thing of the past
Fact: the everage amount of snow cover in at least the northern hemisphere has been increasing at a catostrophic rate for decades now
http://tinyurl.com/m9vgmay
Claim #5: the amount of hurricanes are increasing in the Atlantic.
Fact: the average amount of hurricanes in the Atlantic have actually been decreasing since 1998 in fact 2014 was one of the quietist years as far as number of hurricanes in the Atlantic go. Ive been living in Florida for the past 15 years I know!
http://tinyurl.com/m7jcyqo
http://tinyurl.com/m7jcyqo
Claim #6: the artic is melting due to an increase in co2
Fact: some evidence actually suggests the artic has actually been increasing over the past 5 years. If the artic is losing ice it is because of a shift in underwater currents and a bigger ozone hole allowing more of the Suns rays to penetrate it and maybe underwater volcanoes.
http://tinyurl.com/jvjk2pr
The video is filled with misinformation. One can find covincing videos of almost anything on YOUtube, even the earth is flat. I would suggest using only published sci literature to support your claims.
climatechange..”Claim #1: man made Co2 from the burning of fossil fuels is a major ghg that will cause disasterous catostrophic global warming in the near feature”.
In the near future??? That was the mantra circa 1988, some 30 years ago when uber-alarmists James Hanson got on national TV and made a fool of himself declaring that.
Since then, you alarmists have been moving the goalposts. Disaster is always around the corner.
We’ve had 18 years with no global warming. There goes the theory.
climatechange4real…”Since then, you alarmists…”
Sorry, did not realize you are a skeptic.
Does it make a difference in a well-reasoned discussion?
The 97% consensus is propoganda to mislead the public. Only 75 scientists got interviewed and 74 of those agreed while 40,000 scientists signed a petition stating that man has no significant role in climate change
You’re under-informed. There are several studies that get numbers like, or close to, 97% percent, not just the one you refer to.
This SkS article has them listed. Do click on the papers – you don’t have to like SkS to check the references therein.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
(I almost never link to SkS, but I did this time for the references)
very well then. You got me there. Lets say for once you are right. In this case assuming that at least 90% of all scientists do agree that mans co2 from the burning of fossil fuels is causing significant changes to our climate. The debate is over. The science is settled but wait a minute. How can this be when the science just doesn’t fit the hypothesis. This calls for an experiment. I do the expiremnt I come out with a totally different conclusion using the scientific method. For 18 years now there has been no global warming unlike the 73 models of the iPCC suggest. The claims these scientists make such as increase in number of hurricanes has declined as I have stated above in one of my posts. Glaciers were growing not reciding. California has had record rain and snow despite alarmist claims. I thought 97% of scientists believe that man is causing major climate change and that co2 is the main driver? I wonder what there opinion was in the 70s when they said the earth was going to go in an ice age causing food shortages by 1998 and starvation and hunger and civilization will collapse as we know it. What’s the point of having a 97% consensus when the science just doesn’t fit the hypothesis that mans co2 is a main driver in climate change. Simple, brainwash the people. Receive your funding because the human race is so gullible into believing anything that’s on the internet about a consensus.
The science is settled
The basics are settled. The details less so. More CO2 should make the Earth warmer. Human activity is responsible for the increase. The consilience of evidence for that is very strong. How much and how quickly is up for debate.
“Human activity is responsible for the increase” Not according to Hermann Harde, Ed Berry Phd, Murry Salby. Their calculations show <5% is anthropogenic. Ocean temperature is more likely the main cause of CO2 increases.
A cherry pick of polls is not science.
Exactly! Most of those scientists aren’t even real scientists! They have very little knowledge in climate science except to mislead the public using basic elementary school scientific scare tactics to brainwash all of us! The people who run this scam are evil money making rats who care about themselves and no one else!
From Barry: “Youre under-informed.”
Brings to mind the well-known quote from Samuel Clemens:
‘If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.’
I didn’t cite newspapers.
If you cite SkS, you are misinformed.
I didn’t cite SkS either, and took pains to point that out. I cited the studies. SkS just happens to have them all linked in one place. You know how annoying it is to try and link half a dozen papers on this site, don’t you?
You’re just being argumentative. You’re better than that.
SkS has a cherry pick of studies. Come on. You think they would post studies that go against their propaganda message?
You’re waffling. Cite a study or two that demonstrates this is a cherry-pick.
I know of more that come to similar conclusions. I know of none that put the weight of expert opinion lower than 90%. Do you?
Yes, I do. Seek and ye shall find.
No, you don’t. Not any that haven’t been retracted by the author.
Please, no blog posts. Just published literature.
If you dont read the newspaper, youre uninformed. If you read the newspaper, youre mis-informed.
Replace newspapers with Fox news, and Ill agree. In fact there was a study of peoples knowledge of current events-it found exactly that!
Heh. That study had to be retraced, because they found they had mixed up the results, and it was the libs that were less informed. But, it served its purpose, which was to give you a warm, fuzzy feeling about your tribal identity.
Barts reading fake news again
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Fox-News-effect-What-causes-it
Cherry-pick? Can you provide an alternative peer-reviewed study?
Not my responsibility to do your legwork for you. If what other people believe is so important to you, then you are doing a disservice to yourself if you only seek out the opinions that reinforce your preferred belief.
No, it’s absolutely your responsibility. You made a claim that I cherry-picked. It’s up to you, not me, to corroborate that. otherwise your comment remains baseless.
I don’t think you can find a peer-reviewed study (that hasn’t been retracted by the author for error) to demonstrate your claim.
But if you could, I’d be grateful for the addition to my understanding.
No, you see, I don’t care what random strangers think. I trust my own abilities, and I can see plainly that they are idiots. You care. It is up to you to make sure you are not fooling yourself.
Waffle. No data. I think you’re just saying stuff with no basis on this.
I’ve looked. You obviously haven’t.
I do not require external validation. If you do, you should make sure you are thorough.
That’s good, because I don’t give your comments on this topic any validation. I just assume you’re making stuff up.
Cue waffle.
Here is how the “consensus” papers did under peer review: http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html
ClimateChange4realz says:
“Only 75 scientists got interviewed and 74 of those agreed while 40,000 scientists signed a petition stating that man has no significant role in climate change”
The Oregon Petition? Most signers were engineers and dentists and the like.
Also, Fred Flintstone and one of the Spice Girls. Ginger, I think, but please double check that.
It’s funny how deniers refute the idea of a consensus, and then point to the Oregon Petition as some kind of proof of their position.
Then tell me David what is your definition of a consensus. It is not science I tell you that much. Far from it.
A) Engineers are scientists who actually make things that work in the real world.
B) Polls purporting to show overwhelming scientific consensus also often include poets, priests, politicians, and other vested interests.
Many scientists are cowed into towing the line, because they have to provide for their families. If you removed the threat of economic ruin from their deliberations, you would see substantial movement to the skeptical side.
B. The 97% is not from polls. It comes from lit reviews
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8G81ggVUAA7rX6.jpg:large
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Abstract:
‘We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.’
Must be true. It’s on the internet,
Some internet things are BS. A thing is on the internet. The thing must be BS.
Another addition to your lengthy list of logical fails.
Not to mention that a petition is a completely different kettle of fish to a survey. Surveys take a sample and perform statistical analyses trying to account for various factors to get mean results. Petitions do the opposite – highlights a sub-group and ignores the rest.
Roy wrote:
“If it was relatively painless to switch to renewable energy sources, sure, do it.”
What a biased answer — conveniently, you ignore all the negative externalities that come from burning fossil fuels.
What do they add up to, Roy?
Come on David their is no alternative to fossil fuels at least not in our lifetime. Try smelting iron with a windmill.
Solar? Wind turbines?
Good day Mr. Spencer,
I cannot presume to have the academic/theoretical understanding you have in climate, satellite or anything even remotely close to what you do and know. However, I’ll take a stab at what you are proposing and say.
I do realize you are a Luke warmer. I am quite extreme. My position is that anthropogenic CO2 has, absolutely, no influence on global climate. At least not a measurable one. Here you can probably chew me to pieces and disagree. That’s fine (I am sure you will not threaten my life, family or DNA as alarmists do).
My experience is 20+ years, hands on, working as an environmentalist and energy expert; chemical engineer by training.. thermodynamics, physics and biological sciences are quite familiar to me. My vocation is the environment, dealing with O&G wastes and impacts, minimizing them and figuring out ways of recovering as many valuables as I can from the waste. One man’s waste is another man’s treasure and all that.
As well, I have done many projects for soil reclamation, impact mitigation and utilized natural attenuation as much as regulations have allowed me to. Which BTW, have become quite stu… unrealistic.
I have lived in seven different countries and three continents doing this job. I come from the, arguably, largest city in the world and now live in one of the coldest countries in the world. I have had the ‘luxury’ of working at -60C and +60C (yeah, the + side if far more bearable than the – side. Anybody saying otherwise, is talking out of hypothesis).
From all the environments I have lived in, environmental impacts I have seen and all I’ve been involved in I can say that our activities have, indeed, and environmental impact. But we can only affect micro-environments. We can alter them and even change them completely (Mexico City would be a prime example)..
However, I am still quite reluctant to accept that a marginal concentration of a gas can have any measurable impact on the global climate.
As a very intelligent and smart friend of me told me once: Unless you can articulate it, you don’t understand it… as an engineer that calculates the energy requirements of a facility and the multiplies it by two.. and being bang on every time, I go a bit by ‘gut feeling’. My gut says that there is absolutely no way such a small component can have any measurable impact on climate. No matter how strong it is. Natural attenuation (or buffer in chemistry) is quite a remarkable phenomenon.
What I would agree with you on, is the polarization on opinions…. which coincidentally, in my own little bubble, lean towards the most scientifically educated to the deniers side and the mostly scientifically ignorant towards the alarmism.
Yadda yadda yadda. Prove your belief that anthropogenic CO2 has no effect on climate.
Sorry David no need for the sarcasm.co2 as a greenhouse gas is just a theory .The jury is well and truly out. We are just stumbling around in the dark.it is cheep easy science .To blame co2..To many studentsit was ien take the easy option and go with flow. As that well known master said .It was folly to do the same experiment over and over and expect a different result.q Michael Man.just maybe we are not as clever as we think we are
See Tyndall, 1861.
Invoking Tyndall addresses only a tiny portion of the question of how CO2, in particular, impacts surface temperatures. You have to jump forward to Arrhenius in 1896 to find the first link proposed between CO2 and Earthly temperatures. But, Arrhenius’ work was flawed in many ways, and has not been confirmed. Indeed, it has already been contradicted, though widespread acknowledgement is lagging.
In 1898, Lord Kelvin estimated that the world had only a 400 year supply of oxygen remaining. A lot of 19th century science lies in the dustbin of history. I love steampunk. But, the fact of the matter is, they were only taking baby steps in a darkened room at the time.
“You have to jump forward to Arrhenius in 1896 to find the first link proposed between CO2 and Earthly temperatures”
Bart, Tyndall 1861 does indeed discuss proposed link between CO2 (his carbonic acid) and Earthly surface temperatures. Easy to find and read, for free.
A more detailed reply isn’t permitted here.
There’s a workaround for this site’s glitches, but it’s a little cumbersome. Take a screenshot of what you want to say and link it here. Use tinyurl if the link doesn’t work.
David, prove my belief? Simple, all I have to do is state I do not believe.
Prove that I do not THINK anthropogenic CO2 has no influence on climate? Well, that’s quite different and a little bit more long winded. But my post already explains a bit of the reasoning.
Oh, also Mr yadda yadda yadda, could you yadder a bit of empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has any influence on global climate?
Nah, I can’t either
DA…”Yadda yadda yadda. Prove your belief that anthropogenic CO2 has no effect on climate”.
He’s a chemical engineer for cripes sake. I already proved to you using the ideal gas equation that the contribution to temperature in the atmosphere is directly related to mass.
Once again, hold V constant along with N = number of atoms = mass)
P = (nR/V) T
If you want the partial pressures wrt T use:
Px/Pt = Tx/Tt, with n, R and V constant.
Pressure is directly related to mass, but P is largely controlled by gravity, diminishing with altitude, but we are talking about a very simply model. All I am trying to do is establishing a relationship between the partial pressure of a gas like CO2 compared to all atmospheric gases and how it relates to it’s contribution to atmospheric temperature.
Since Px (CO2) is << Pt for all air, in fact it's almost infinitesimal in comparison, then the contribution of heat, Tx (CO2) must be << the heat contributed by all atmospheric gases.
The truth is that the contribution of CO2 is in the order 0.01C over the past century.
Gordon Robertson
Your thinking is very flawed with your post. The gas law would only apply if all the gases were the same, not radiating, then you could determine the amount of temperature contribution each gas would give based upon their relative masses in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is a radiating gas. It will radiate energy based upon its temperature. In the atmosphere Carbon Dioxide has enough temperature and molecular number that it will radiate downward about 60 W/m^2.
I have linked you to Hottels gas emission graphs but you choose to ignore it and then post this meaningless gas law that is not relevant.
I really think you lack a lot of knowledge of physics and put together patch work to try and make yourself appear knowledgeable to the uninformed. You may convince a nonscientist of your gas law temperature equation but those who understand radiation physics will call you out.
Wish you would spend some time understanding why carbon dioxide is a GHG instead of pretending you know what you are talking about. I think you have much potential but are in the tribe that can’t accept the reality that Carbon Dioxide emits IR toward the Earth’s surface and it is an empirically measured quantity, it is part of the surface energy budget.
Please spend some time to learn the reality of the topic, then you don’t have to pretend to know something about it.
One can derive the adiabatic lapse rate from the ideal gas law, based on gravitational increase in pressure with decreasing altitude. Some have latched onto this fact as demonstrating that “greenhouse” gases have no impact.
The flaw in that reasoning is that this is not enough to tell you the absolute temperature, but merely the rate at which it changes with altitude. For a complete description, you need to fix the effective radiating level (ERL) of the atmosphere, providing a boundary condition.
The meme is that rising CO2 concentration will cause a rise in the ERL, which results in a longer path to the surface, and a longer path spent at the same rate results in a higher result at the end of the path.
But, there is no actual evidence of an increasing ERL due to increasing CO2 concentration. If radiation were the only means of transporting heat, it would have to happen. But, outward radiation is not the only means of transporting heat away from the surface.
Conditions at the surface are driven by the tendency toward radiative-convective equilibrium – heat can be convected above the atmospheric IR absorbing layer, and from there, radiate unimpeded to space. Moreover, clouds can form, which reflect incident energy back to space before it even has a chance to heat the surface. These are just two obvious negative feedback effects which would tend to regulate surface temperatures, and resist changes due to the minor perturbation of increasing CO2 concentration.
In short, there is no physical imperative that increasing CO2 concentration must increase the ERL. Moreover, there is no truly adiabatic lapse rate. H2O is the governor of the system. It maintains our planet in its habitable range of temperatures, and resists external perturbations to its regulation, a la Le Chatelier’s principle.
Bart says, March 26, 2017 at 1:33 PM:
Well, only to the extent that ALL other radiative transports from surface to space always stayed totally unchanged, including constant tropospheric humidity and cloud profiles. If so, then yes, it would have to happen. There is, however, no reason to assume this to be the case.
True. But remember, changes in rates of convection and in cloud cover do not necessarily come as mere feedbacks to changes in the atmosphere’s radiative transports. That’s just an “AGW hypothesis” assumption. A prerequisite. In the real world, they are normally completely independent (and much more powerful) processes.
Mmm, no. Our atmosphere’s MASS is what maintains our planet in its habitable range of temperatures. Remove all N2, O2 and Ar from our atmosphere (99% of its total mass), but keep the absolute amount of IR active gases unchanged, and I can assure you the temps would plummet. Empirical evidence from the real earth system consistently shows that average sfc temps below tropospheric columns containing lots of water (WV and clouds) are significantly lower (by several degrees) than average sfc temps below tropospheric columns containing less water, when comparing regions with similar average solar heat input (net SW, ASR) at the ToA.
“Our atmosphere’s MASS is what maintains our planet in its habitable range of temperatures.”
Mmm, no. Only if you use it for fuel and burn it Kristian. Ice ages have same atm. mass, less habitability.
Bart: “For a complete description, you need to fix the effective radiating level (ERL) of the atmosphere, providing a boundary condition.”
A much better boundary condition than unmeasured ERL, is thermometer measured surface temperature T(0). When fixed at actual surface T, with standard lapse (6.5K/km), the temperature at altitude is normally found within about 10% of radiosonde thermometers (not so much in storms). If fixed at adiabatic lapse, find T(z) within ~20% of radiosonde thermometers. Good first guesses if you do not have the money for radiosondes and actual data is not available & for airplane instrument calibration.
There is no actual evidence of ERL changing as the standard atm. is unchanging. However, you could repeat that work today and find a different ERL. There is plenty of evidence of surface temperature changing, monthly on this site!
Bart: “In short, there is no physical imperative that increasing CO2 concentration must increase the ERL.”
I doubt you can back that up with theory or observation. On the contrary, the most basic atm. optical depth theory and test disagrees with you.
“Px/Pt = Tx/Tt, with n, R and V constant.”
R is not constant Gordon, you really have Rx too. Plus your multivariable calculus is questionable. I will leave that for others but may respond if you are interested.
“A much better boundary condition than unmeasured ERL, is thermometer measured surface temperature T(0).”
The point is to demonstrate, if one can, that rising CO2 concentration produces a rise in the ERL, and hence the surface temperature, so this is not much use for that.
“On the contrary, the most basic atm. optical depth theory and test disagrees with you.”
In an closed environment where all heat transfer is radiant, and there are no cloud cover feedbacks. That was the whole point. Don’t know how you could have missed it.
“R is not constant.”
Mmm, no. That is why they call it the gas constant. It is 8.3144598J/mol/K. It is the product of the Boltzmann constant and Avagadro’s constant.
You would have been on firmer ground if you had said the volume is not constant. In fact, for adiabatic conditions, P*V^g is constant, where g is an exponent. For general “air”, an average of about g = 1.4 is accepted. From that, and the ideal gas law, one gets T*P^(1/g-g) is approximately constant, under adiabatic conditions.
Bart, in context Gordon was writing about a mixture of gases, not AN ideal gas with universal R (sometimes Rbar) so Rspecific which varies (dry air to wet air for example) is what was meant in context, air is a mixture, well mixed mostly, except for wv which condenses.
P*V = constant by law. Not V. Though some processes can be considered constant V. Pistons and cylinders do not inhabit the atm., so what is often encountered and used in meteorology is enthalpy.
You will get nowhere using ERL as BC + lapse down, you will get somewhere using surface temperature as BC + lapse up.
Gordon is in part trying to re-invent Dalton’s law of pp, rather poorly.
“In an closed environment where all heat transfer is radiant, and there are no cloud cover feedbacks. That was the whole point. Dont know how you could have missed it.”
Didn’t miss “it”? What is “it”?
“P*V = constant by law.”
No, as I stated, for an adiabatic process, P*V^g is constant.
“You will get nowhere using ERL as BC + lapse down, you will get somewhere using surface temperature as BC + lapse up.”
That does not tell me anything about the validity of the ERL raising hypothesis. It is completely beside the point.
“What is it?”
The discussion above, where I went into detail regarding the lack of a physical imperative for warming with increasing CO2 concentration.
“For a complete description, you need to fix the effective radiating level (ERL) of the atmosphere, providing a boundary condition.”
That’s “it”? No, you need to use the surface temperature. And atm. optical depth theory/test. As CO2 increases, atm. opacity increases.
y=mx+b, m=LR, b=surface temperature at y=0. If you use the temperature at y=ERL for BC both T and y are then unknown and you have two unknowns, one equation. You could resort to the standard atm. where T=255K is known at a known y and eliminate the problem but that is a fixed case. As ERL moves you are back in a fix.
“In short, there is no physical imperative that increasing CO2 concentration must increase the ERL.”
No, optical depth theory shows as pressure, gas extinction coefficient increases (+CO2, +wv) the optical depth increases driving the ERL higher. This is basic meteorology.
“No, as I stated, for an adiabatic process, P*V^g is constant.”
True, but an adiabatic process need not be isothermal, which is required to derive the adiabatic lapse rate as you wrote in “it”: “One can derive the adiabatic lapse rate from the ideal gas l…” where T is assumed constant over z (taken outside the dz integral) thus P*V=constant (for constant T) holds in that derivation not P*V^g is constant which is for adiabatic process, not necess. isothermal. Of P,V,T only two variables are independent which is probably where Gordon’s pp discussion is lacking in this thread.
“As CO2 increases, atm. opacity increases.”
That is not sufficient to establish that ground temperatures will necessarily rise. With rising temperature, you get greater convection, and with greater convection, you loft heat higher to the point where it can be radiated away without encountering significant impedance from atmospheric CO2. And, convection is a very powerful means of moving heat. The system is always striving for radiative-convective equlibrium, not just radiative equilibrium. Google that phrase to find out more.
Furthermore, with greater temperature, you get more evaporation, leading to greater cloud formation, which reflects incident solar radiation before it can even make it to the ground.
Those are just two obvious negative feedbacks that would tend to resist a temperature rise. There are assuredly others. This is a dynamic system. You cannot make grand proclamations on what must happen under the assumption that there will be no countervailing reaction. There is always a countervailing reaction. You have to prove your hypothesis, not just take it for granted. Evidence to date indicates clearly that the hypothesis has not played out according to script.
Bart writes: “That (atm. opacity) is not sufficient to establish that ground temperatures will necessarily rise.”
Actually, it is.
Read up on atm. opacity, I can suggest a ref. or two, if needed, better to find your own. As the atm. opacity rises, the surface energy balance (of any atm. that has a trop.) will shift to higher surface temperatures & lower temperatures higher up, the ERL will rise as any LBL RTM analysis will show. The earth global temporal, spatial OLR will at first reduce below ~240 W/m^2, then as equilibrium is regained rise back to ~240 to equal incoming ~240. The spectrum”notch” will deepen and widen.
Concur on radiative-convective equilibrium, that is your best bet for understanding things (re-read M&W1967 if in doubt) but winds and rain do not make it to space thus their energy is, as you write, dumped within the atm. so cannot change total T (they dont burn a fuel). To the extent they add to the radiative spectrum notch, that is the extent of their effect on surface T.
Ball4 says, March 28, 2017 at 9:30 PM:
Hahaha! Classic troll Ball4. He lives happily inside his little bubble where the way he understands things holds up against any counterargument from the outside, his surrounding shell simply repelling them all like water off a duck’s back.
You will get nowhere with this person, Bart. There is simply no way of talking sense to him. He will look at data directly contradicting his argument and he will just see past it and pretend he is still correct and you’re wrong. That’s his MO.
Ball4:
“…but winds and rain do not make it to space thus their energy is, as you write, dumped within the atm. so cannot change total T…”
Incorrect. When they release their energy as photons from high altitude, those photons do not encounter the same resistance on their way out. In fact, they get more resistance to coming back in.
You appear to have very little experience with and understanding of feedback systems. They are not intuitive, and natural systems that have been settling towards equilibrium for billions of years are very resistive to change.
“When they release their energy as photons…”
Correct, the photons make it to space, not the winds or rain which cycle in the earth/atm. system.
Do I really have to spoon feed this to you?
The photons released at altitude are relatively unimpeded at exiting to space, compared to those released from the ground. Convection lofts heat to higher altitudes, from whence it can radiate away relatively unimpeded, irrespective of CO2 concentration.
It is a bypass. Like the spillway from a dam. Even if you build the dam higher, the water level behind it will not rise above the level of the spillway. And, if CO2 concentration rises and produces more heat to be retained, that will stoke convection higher, leading to greater unimpeded release, ameliorating the heat retention. It is a negative feedback that resists change to the system.
“Convection lofts heat to higher altitudes…”
Not heat, energy actually, both latent and sensible, the convective and latent energy being dumped within the atm. (mostly up to the tropopause z & sure, maybe a bit higher, your stratosphere jet rides get a bit bumpy at times) therefore cannot change the total energy in the system. The photons released to deep space by this process change the energy in the system, can affect total T, are included in the count for the OLR ~240…and the DLR. The DLR amount due latent & sensible being in balance with their ULR near the surface in all the system energy balance papers. barry posted a summary one here recently that adds a few decimal points to the cycling balance of latent and sensible energy, LEcuyer 2015.
“irrespective of CO2 concentration.”
Not irrespective, the opacity of the atm. will affect the photons ability to dump their energy to deep space, thus are respective of total pressure, each constituent mixing ratio & each well mixed gas extinction coefficient.
“if CO2 concentration rises and produces more heat..”
Again, here you mean energy, as CO2 cannot produce energy as it does not burn a fuel, so CO2 cannot affect total system T only move energy around due atm. opacity (high to low z, +CO2 for +ELR). The sun produces the total significant energy by burning a fuel.
The opacity of the atm. controls the amount of photon energy emitted to deep space from each atm. layer. At higher than about 0.1 bar p going down, atmospheres are observed to become increasingly opaque to thermal radiation causing temperatures to increase and convection to ensue (Earth tropopause at about 0.2 bar). Above that z, 0.1 bar & lower p, atmospheres become transparent to thermal radiation (as you write the photons do get out) & allows SW warming from above, mostly eliminating convection for isothermal ~9km of z in the standard stratosphere in midlatitude tropics.
“..that will stoke convection higher…negative feedback…”
Feedback? The signs are not even well understood let alone the magnitudes. Feedbacks, drivers are much debated, much studied, much published and will remain food for future work & thought, these are not as simple as you write or the top post cartoon would be much narrower.
I don’t know why you are trying so hard to deny the obvious here. Below a certain altitude, IR photons will have a harder time getting to space than back to the surface. Above that altitude, it is the reverse.
If heat (yes, heat – heat is a form of energy and is stored in the kinetic and potential energy of the atmospheric molecules) convects above that altitude, then the energy can be released more readily, and that impacts the balance of stored energy over the entire planet.
“Feedbacks, drivers are much debated, much studied, much published and will remain food for future work & thought, these are not as simple as you write or the top post cartoon would be much narrower.”
And, that means that there is no physical imperative that says increasing CO2 concentration must produce greater surface temperatures. Thank you.
Bart says, March 29, 2017 at 8:54 PM:
Are you by any chance an engineer? In physics (thermodynamics, that is), the “heat” you’re describing here is very clearly defined as “internal energy” [U], while the term “heat” [Q] is just as clearly reserved for a particular energy TRANSFER, one that moves energy between regions or systems at different temperatures, as a direct result of that difference in temperature; and/or for the (net) energy moved this way.
An object never contains “heat”. Heat is always energy in transit:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
Bart: “heat iskinetic energy of the atmospheric molecules”
That is the meaning Clausius wrote, leave out the other stuff. So when you write “Convection lofts heat” your meaning misses the latent energy as it is not KE. If you write more clearly, in all that you write, some of the rampant confusion in the top post cartoon will begin to dry up. My expectations for that are somewhat low though. And not just you, witness the comment after yours (the one at 11:01pm) where heat becomes something that is not contained in an object yet it can transfer from that object.
Bart’s inconsistency demonstration continues:
“IR photons will have a harder time getting to space than back to the surface.”
” there is no physical imperative that says increasing CO2 concentration must produce greater surface temperatures.”
It’s like you hop, skip, and jump over parts you don’t like, and cut and paste the parts you do to generate a random message. I clearly included potential energy. And, the complete passage was:
“Below a certain altitude, IR photons will have a harder time getting to space than back to the surface. Above that altitude, it is the reverse.“
You’ve as much as admitted that feedbacks are poorly understood, and they have the capability of nullifying any potentially induced warming from increasing CO2 concentration. Thus, as I stated, there is no physical imperative that says increasing CO2 concentration must produce greater surface temperatures. I claim victory.
“I clearly included potential energy.”
Which is not heat. Be specific, use the Clausius definition of heat or just drop the vague at best term “heat” altogether far easier, there is NEVER, ever a need to use the term, your writing could then help reduce the bandwidth in the top post cartoon.
Clausius 1st memoir, p.18: “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
Kinetic energy is contained in a body, kinetic energy can then transfer from/to that body.
“Below a certain altitude, IR photons will have a harder time getting to space than back to the surface. Above that altitude, it is the reverse.”
Concur, as that is what observations show. The altitude where the pressure is about 0.1-0.2bar. Opaque to thermal IR below, transparent above. The atm. opacity being increased by +pressure, higher extinction coefficient and higher mixing ratios of IR active gas.
Both my clip and your complete passage is Bart being inconsistent with your:
” there is no physical imperative that says increasing CO2 concentration must produce greater surface temperatures.”
Bart 9:31am: Ok, I get Bart’s meaning.
Bart means if CO2 ppm goes up and (for example) solar irradiance goes down (or combination of any other of the ~8 relevant forcings) in a period producing no greater surface temperature (aka a pause) then increased opacity of the atm. by increased CO2 ppm had no effect.
Sorry, no victory, that is just poor atm. physics, or unclear writing or some combination thereof. You effectively widen the bandwidth of the top post cartoon.
Bart will want to study up F2015 we have been discussing. It breaks out the CO2 ppm forcing on surface T from all the other forcing by spectral radiance trend signature over a decadal period of atm. observations.
I am speaking of heat colloquially as the sum total of energy that can be transferred between bodies by conduction, convection, and radiation. This quibbling on semantics is immaterial to the question.
There is a huge difference in the temperature profile from ground to TOA based on convective activity. There is a huge difference in temperature profile from ground to TOA based on cloud cover. If either of these, or other significant components, change in response to CO2 increase, then the CO2 increase does not necessarily produce any significant change in temperatures at the surface.
IOW, there is no physical imperative that says increasing CO2 concentration must produce greater surface temperatures. And, indeed, the data are showing that the globe is not heating proportionally to CO2 concentration. The hypothesis has failed. Ditch the dogma and deal with it.
Bart, you are right that the 9 or so relevant radiative forcings can increase/decrease global T to veil the effects of +CO2 ppm on global surface temperature.
F2015 proves by testing the hypothesis has not failed as it unveils the +CO2 forcing finding surface +T independent of all other forcings in the wild from CO2 unique spectral signature in both a rising and falling overall surface temperature trend.
F2015 is not dogma, it is decade long measured observation in the wild which is in accord with basic atm. opacity theory.
David, your alarmist hypothesis has already been dis-proven. All your models have been proven wrong. There is exactly zero data available that shows any of the alarmist claims are outside natural variability. Even the claim that what is happening is happening much faster than ever before… prove it! We do know that $billions are being wasted on garbage science that has moved away from the scientific method. We do know that alternate energy bird and bat mortality is accelerating more in line with emissions than temperature is. We also know that global emissions are going to increase for decades to come, so you can’t win the battle whether it exists or not.
Fransisco…see my reply below regarding the ideal gas law and partial pressures. Appreciate a rebuttal. My analysis is not very elegant but with CO2 accounting for 0.04% of atmospheric gases, the heat contribution of CO2 by mass should be as you claim, totally negligible.
Gordon,
You have brought up this issue of the .04% and its heat content many times, and it has been REBUTTED and explained to you many times by many people. Most recently in the comments by several people in the last blog entry.
If you have no intention of dealing with these rebuttals head-on, and making logical, fact-based counter arguments, then it is just not a supportable position anymore.
Gordon, you are making a logical error regarding the “0.04%” value.
Blog won’t permit me to post details.
Take a screenshot of what you want to say, up load it to photobucket or similar and link it here. Convert URL to tinyurl if the link doesn’t work. It’s cumbersome, so I guess it depends how badly you want to say something. Get’s around the glitches of this site.
‘ My gut says that there is absolutely no way such a small component can have any measurable impact on climate. No matter how strong it is. ‘
Why do so many, otherwise intelligent people, decide that ‘going with their gut’ is a good way to decide if science is right or wrong.
In this case, as in many other cases, your gut is not as good as many brains, measuring and modeling, using math and empirical knowledge.
Well, Nate. Opposed to what you think, some of us have an educated gut. The fact that we have yet to figure out the nuances of an exact determination of certain variables in no way undermines to overall understanding of the phenomena.We might not be able to articulate it to the degree that it’ll suffice a detailed scrutiny, but certainly enough to understand the process
I ask again, since all I have seen are theories and hypothesis. I do not refute the science, but at this point there should be empirical evidence that CO2, anthropogenic to be more precise, drives the climate.
All empirical evidence points to the opposite. While CO2, indeed might have a minute amount of influence, it seems to lag on temperature changes and pale in comparison to other climatic factors, such as ENSO, land use, gravitothermal effect and so forth.
‘but at this point there should be empirical evidence that CO2, anthropogenic to be more precise, drives the climate.
All empirical evidence points to the opposite.’
Where are you getting these ideas from? There is PLENTY of evidence to the contrary. But you have to look at it. Plenty of it has been discussed here at length.
Nate, shall we start from the fact that CO2 has increased while global mean temperature (which I have my reservations as being meaningful) has not?
Or should we state the fact that while anthropogenic emissions have stalled, CO2 keeps increasing?
The idea that a mere few ppm of CO2 can have the alluded impact is ludicrous. Particularly when water if far more prevalent and dominant. The global specific humidity shows a rate of change time dependence on the global tropical sea surface temperature, where the latter follows a similar time dependence shown by the global ENSO process.
The hypothesis that H2O ‘follows’ CO2 as a positive feedback has never been validated through empirical evidence. Actually, CO2 lags on temperature increase and so does water, which lag is shorter. Oceans warm before the troposphere does… all this is empirical data that negates the CAGW hypothesis.
While I do not negate the GHG effect and that it might have influence on climate, seems to me that it is a marginal effect and a consequence of much larger factors. My bet is still on ENSO within the tropical Pacific and of its role in modulating interannual climatic changes globally.
As I said, while I cannot really articulate on the nuances of detailed analysis, from a broader perspective there is no empirical data that can even start to suggest anthropogenic emissions have any measurable impact on global climate.
Francisco says:
“The hypothesis that H2O follows CO2 as a positive feedback has never been validated through empirical evidence.”
An increase in water vapor has been observed.
“Actually, CO2 lags on temperature increase….”
Not when people are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere regardless of any temperature change.
This is so bloody obvious I am amazed deniers cannot understand this.
David, it is almost funny. Not only the anthropogenic emissions are marginal, but they have declined while atmospheric CO2 has increased!!
In any event, all empirical data shows the lag. All hypothesis were hoping for the opposite. So, no, not denying anything. Merely making an observation
Oh, and in a true Canuck fashion: I am sorry I did not post supporting your beliefs and merely posted my thoughts
‘seems to me’
Seems to me that if you dont fully understand the nuances, then you ought to learn more before passing judgement, and particularly asserting that all the experts, who’ve learned the nuances, must be wrong.
‘CO2 has increased while global mean temperature has not’
That is just plain false. ~ 1C rise in Temp since CO2 began increasing
~1C, and that’s attributable to evil oil, right?!?!
Whereas the non-increase on the last couple decades where CO2 HAS increased is to be ignored, right?
And the CO2 increase is solely due to human kind, right? In spite of anthropogenic emissions stalled an CO2 keeps increasing… you still have to explain these ones away.
Francisco,
‘Whereas the non-increase on the last couple decades where CO2 HAS increased is to be ignored, right?’
No not ignored, but like all study of change on the planet (or among humans), one can’t ignore contributions of all other variables when trying to determine the effect of just one of those.
And looking at the last 50y of the temp here
http://tinyurl.com/ka5guwu
The recent pause appears over and looks like just one of several wiggles on top of a clear upward trend.
Remarkable when you use a weather phenomena to claim a change in the climate trends… particularly when you are supporting that <3% of a gas that is <3.5% of the total GHG can have any significant impact on climate; where all empirical data shows how it lags on temperature changes… interesting point of view
‘you use a weather phenomena to claim a change in the climate trends’
Huh? I dont understand. I showed GLOBAL temperature trend over 50 y.
Do you see weather in that?
You are absolutely right, my bad.
Within the 50 years were 30 of warming followed by almost 20 of no warming until last El Nio… while CO2 kept increasing.
If you go even further in the past, there has been a constant warming since the late 1800’s, preceded by cooling, preceded by warming.
And an interesting fact, CO2 has been considerably higher during an ice age.
Your point?
The pause that I see was 2004-2012, hardly 20 y. I also see a dip in 1970s of similar duration. Clearly there is internal climate variability due for example to volcanoes, and ocean dynamics (El Nino, PDO, AMO).
My point is that the recent surge in warming was predicted by physics-based Greenhouse models circa 1980, before it became truly apparent in the temp record. The detailed predictions proved remarkably accurate for global and Arctic warming, Arctic sea-ice retreat, warming of west-Antarctica, etc. Some regional details less accurate.
‘cO2 HIGH DURING AN ICE AGE’
Not in any recent ice ages at the current level of sun’s output.
My understanding is CO2, unlike water vapor is non-condensable GHG. Without CO2 most water vapor would condense and GHG will drop to near 0 and the planet would cool to an ice ball.
http://www-atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/people/mem/co2-main-ct-knob-lacis-sci10.pdf
Try the Ordovician.
The last 400,000 years (give or take a few millennia) of somewhat reliable paleoclimatological and ice core data we have, clearly shows CO2 and CH4 trailing temperature increase. You could, at least, have attempted to say that due to the increase of CO2 and CH4 after warming, the gases made the climate even warmer. The try to justify the marginally few ppm we humans put into the atmosphere.
That, at least, would have had some resemblance to the empirical data.
You are right, though, that CO2 will not condense, but it will react chemically. However, the replenishing rate of water vapour overwhelms by far the shorter mid life.
Furthermore, if the GHG effect was the leading culprit (forget about just anthropogenic emissions), the troposphere would warm before the oceans. The exact opposite is true.
The land is warming faster than oceans.
few ppm. No we have added 120 ppm and counting. CO2 higher now than anytime in last 400 ky https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
I dont have a problem with Co2 trailing temp in the past. Hasnt been the case this last century
Francisco, this plot shows a bit more clearly the slowdown in temps post 1998. The global temp data derived from satellite measurements.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend
I included the temperature trend for the whole period (satellite measurements begin in the late 1970s).
Looking at the lang-term, you can see ups and downs, sometimes for years at a time, but current temps are even higher than the trend line.
That tells me that there is a lot of variability, and you can get multi-year periods when the temperature is lower or higher than the trend. Presumably because other things affect global temps on shorter time-scales than the background rise of CO2. But the trend is clear.
FTR, my view encompasses the middle to the extreme right, without settling on any point. That is, I expect some warming will occur, and that it will be somewhere between a little and a lot.
As for policy, not knowing what the future will bring, err on the side of caution. This is an experiment we cannot walk away from.
But, as stated, there is a cost to action as well. Energy poverty already has enormous deleterious impacts on public health globally.
Moreover, the proposed cures are worse than the disease. Wind and solar power will never, ever be able to satisfy more than a fraction of our energy demands, and they have horrendous environmental impacts. From the toxic runoff from solar cell manufacture, to the strip mining for rare Earth materials for wind turbines, to the slicing and dicing of already endangered raptors and carrion fowl, not to mention the bats that are integral to insect control.
And, what are the consequences, anyway? Warmth is better than cold. CO2 is an essential compound for life itself. More uniformly distributed temperatures means lesser, not greater, storm activity.
To me, erring on the side of caution means, don’t take measures that would fundamentally harm life in general based on a fear of monsters under your bed. There are no monsters.
Bart says:
“…and they have horrendous environmental impacts. From the toxic runoff from solar cell manufacture, to the strip mining for rare Earth materials for wind turbines, to the slicing and dicing of already endangered raptors and carrion fowl, not to mention the bats that are integral to insect control.”
Hilariously myopic.
Far more birds are killed by generating power with coal and oil than with wind and solar, even on a per unit energy basis:
“Avian Mortality by Energy Source,” US News, 8/22/14
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds
“Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately 20,000 birds in the United States in 2009 but nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and fossil fueled power plants more than 14 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to birds and avian wildlife than wind farms and nuclear power plants.”
– The avian benefits of wind energy: A 2009 update, Benjamin K. Sovacool, Renewable Energy, Volume 49, January 2013, Pages 1924. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857
“Far more birds are killed by generating power with coal and oil than with wind and solar, even on a per unit energy basis:”
Complete red herring. There are birds, and there are “already endangered raptors and carrion fowl, not to mention the bats”. We do not worry so much about small, rapidly reproducing species that are in no danger of extinction.
We consigned millions of Sub-Saharan Africans to death from malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases because of a hint that DDT might, possibly, maybe damage the eggshells of such niche creatures. Now, we are embarked on a campaign of eradicating them because we fear monsters under the bed.
Disgusting.
your bang on there Bart,ask John Christy about the poverty in Africa, and the rest of the third world,all the green sollutions heap more misery on the poor ie bio fuels and methanol just two of them,last winter an estimated 30 to 40 thousand eu citizens died as result of fuel poverty,in the uk we now have fuel poverty telephone helplines,that was unheard of five years ago,and this in the fifth richest economy,god help the third world it this continues for much longer
What’s the “bird mortality per kilowatt energy produced” rate?
And where’s the call for “cat control” regulation to save billions of birds?
Again with the red herring. If a house cat goes up against a bald eagle, the eagle is going to win.
What we are concerned about are the large, slowly reproducing, yet ecologically necessary, birds of prey and carrion fowl.
Small, rapidly reproducing song birds are not endangered by any stretch of the imagination.
No sense of humor, Bart? [grin] The entire meat and seafood industries kill animals for profit. I’m sure logging has its creature casualties as well. It’s a pipe dream to think human existence ever could be free of collateral damage. The pre-US native American Indians couldn’t do it. Australian Aborigines can’t do it.
We try to preserve threatened species. Birds of prey and carrion fowl inhabit important ecological niches, and bats are crucial for insect control. There is no reason to wantonly kill them off, especially for such a pittance of unreliable and intermittent power.
the proposed cures are worse than the disease
You are positive you know how global warming will evolve in the future, how high the seas will rise, etc?
Just as no one can convince me that the effects will be severe, no one has convinced me that they won’t. Hence, my view encompassing a range of possibilities.
The other alarmists in the debate are those proposing economic Armageddon. They’ve obviously never read a proper economic study on the issue.
But don’t worry. Political inertia will never allow a rapid reduction of fossil fuel use. We are going to see the results of continued emissions for many decades.
I am positive that the proffered “cures” are worse than the purported disease.
There are hundreds of potential threats we cannot rule out on a day to day basis. It is neurotic to fixate on this one.
As for me, I am positive that our emissions are not changing the climate. You may disagree. But, the above should be enough for you to turn away from this madness.
I am positive that the proffered cures are worse than the purported disease.
Based on what? Can you cite an economic study?
It is difficult to post links with the site filter here. But, all you have to do is google a little. Look up the cities in China that have been laid waste by toxic runoff from solar cell manufacture. Look up the avian slaughter of windmills, and the strip mines for rare Earth minerals.
The information is out there, and readily accessible. Unless you just prefer to see no evil, hear no evil, you can easily find enough to convince yourself.
Bart,
If I said using oil is bad and we shouldnt use it because of the BP oil spill. You would say nonsense. It has obvious benefits.
Or if I would say no level of lead pollution is acceptable. You would say hogwash.
So why should we accept your arguments?
The neg effects you claim of wind and solar are there, but you do not compare them in a meaningful way to vast neg effects of FF.
Looks like you haven’t balanced the ledger by looking at the damages of conventional energy – aside from the global warming issue. The Deepwater Horizon event comes immediately to mind.
You’ve lately been making claims with no back-up and calling me on it for not doing your legwork. Your view becomes less compelling as a result.
No, you don’t have to convince anyone of anything in these debates. And you’re doing a good job of that lately.
That is because you do not want to be convinced.
What is the impact of Deepwater Horizon today? Virtually none. It was a one-off deal, and nature has quickly recovered. Nothing like the chronic, ongoing pollution and toxic runoff from silicon tetrachloride and mining of rare Earth minerals.
Bart, you know perfectly well how to use tinyurl. I’ve seen you post them downthread. Tinyurl is always accepted here, so post your economic studies at will. It takes a few seconds to convert. I’m curious to see what published literature you’ve read on the balance sheet of mtigation/not mitigation.
If you’ve somehow forgotten, paste link in the dialogue box at the following link, copy the tinyurl that pops out and post it here.
http://tinyurl.com/
It’s a chore for me, and it is so easy for you to google it yourself. The information is out there. Just look for it.
It takes 5 seconds to convert a link!
If you’re saying it’s a chore to locate peer-reviewed material supporting your view on projected economics, then I sympathise.
There are hundreds of potential threats we cannot rule out on a day to day basis. It is neurotic to fixate on this one.
False dichotomy. Who says anything about fixating? This is a climate blog, that’s what we discuss here.
This is a “science.” If it is a science, let the numbers do the talking. When the numbers speak, there is no need for labels.
Climate Science on Trial; If Something is Understood, it can be Modeled
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/06/climate-science-on-trial-if-something-is-understood-it-can-be-modeled/
CO2isLife
I read your article and agree with a lot you say. Especially about the nature of science. You have people like Dr. No who appeal to authority and experts to try and prove something is true. You demonstrate just how unscientific this thought process is.
Einstein’s theories were accepted only after experimental evidence supported them.
Norman:
Design an experiments, even a gedankenexperiment, that would, in your eyes, definitely detect the presence or absence of AGW due to man’s emissions of CO2.
David Appell
Two articles you linked to have the potential to prove AGW but the problem is that they only are proving it in clear-sky conditions. What effect would they find if they performed their experiments in all-sky conditions to see the influence of Carbon Dioxide on surface temperature?
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase
Norman, what’s your experimental design?
PS: CO2’s measured forcing is present in clear-sky conditions — about half the sky at any given moment. That’s still a large forcing.
I’m in another category. “It’s the sun, stupid” Although I might allow for a minor CO2 effect from arctic warming in winter.
Prove it.
The Sun’s irradiance has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s.
Dave,
You or I can easily write an equation where part of the warming from sun’s increase from the G minimum at 1900 to a sustained solar max (from ~1940 to 2000) directly warms the climate and part is stored in a ocean circulation slug of water ((PDO AMO) or whatever) to reemerge a decade or two later. You can NOT invoke lags for CO2 and deny them for the solar climate system. Your answer of declining sun does not seem a valid answer based on the physics you (and I) love.
AaronS
Is there an equation that explains how this stored solar heat in the oceans managed to warm both the oceans and the surface at the same time as solar irradiance was in decline?
In other words, if the surface warming seen over the past 50 years was the result of the slow release of solar energy that was stored in the oceans during the first part of the 20th century, then how come there was no concurrent reduction in ocean heat content over that period? Instead a fairly steady increase in ocean heat content has been observed at the same time as the observed surface warming.
Thanks
TFN
I wrote a long reply that didnt make it to the page. Anyone know what am i not allowed to say?
Long story short. Good question. What data are you talking about? Ive never seen data that shows deep global thermohaline changes.
Wait. I reread and im not sure i understood. The Sun went from the G minimum at 1900 to the biggest solar max in 2000 years (based on C and Be radiogenic isotopes) from 1940 to 2000. The decline Dave speaks of was minor compared to the increase. Or are u asking for the equation?
Aaron, as I’ve pointed out many times, the climate simply isn’t that sensitive to changes in solar irradiance. And the data backs that up.
The IPCC puts it at about 0.1 degC/(W/m2).
That’s small compared to the radiative forcing change from increasing CO2.
Dr. Spencer, with respect, a well done exposition, thank you.
In case there is any doubt, I am on the “No Effect” (more accurately stated; an effect too small to measure) side of the spectrum.
Funny thing about “Radiative Forcings”, they often turn out to be “Mirages”, “Chimeras” or “Optical Illusions”. They appear scary at first but then they seem to not really materialize as “modeled”…..
And of course your spectrum seems to neglect the positive effects of increased CO2 (wherever it came from). I’m looking forward to better tomatoes going forward…
But I think we can both agree that paving our roads and parking lots with the equivalent of fine bone china (IE photo-voltaic solar cells) is about as stupid as it gets….
Cheers, KevinK
KevinK says:
“Funny thing about Radiative Forcings, they often turn out to be Mirages, Chimeras or Optical Illusions. They appear scary at first but then they seem to not really materialize as modeled..”
Feldman et al observed the change in CO2’s radiative forcing at two disparate locations, and found it agreed with theoretical predictions.
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release for Feldman et al: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
I believe a large degree of the problem lies with “Fake News”, distorted and twisted view of reality. I think Climate Change news is the worst of the worst for the “fake news” phenomena.
Here is an example.
This fake news is being spread far and wide by multiple media outlets.
https://wwa.climatecentral.org/analyses/extreme-heat-australia/
The fake part is this: “In the past, a summer as hot as 2016-2017 was a roughly 1 in 500-year event.”
Really? In another strong El-Nino year, 1997 you see an even more intense heat wave that is forgotten about or not mentioned. But wait that only took place 20 years ago.
I did a little research to prove this claim to be “fake news”
Using this resource for investigation.
https://tinyurl.com/lqs6wcz
In the Australian Summer of 1996-1997:
December 1996 set a total of 178 records (tied or broken) 2 exceeded previous records by 10 or more F degrees
January 1997 set a total of 255 records with 32 records 10 or above (F) from previous records and 5 (20 or more F above previous record)
February 1997 set a total of 456 records (tied or broken) with 11 records 10 or more F above previous records.
How does the Summer of 2016-2017 compare?
December 2016 set 253 total records with 3 at 10 or more F
January 2017 set 190 total records with 3 at 10 or more F
February 2017 set 122 total records with 3 at 10 or more F above previous records.
By all metrics it would seem 1997 heat wave in Australia was much worse than 2017.
If you go to the link you can see the actual temperatures of both.
Even more proof of fake news.
I looked at the Australian summer of 1987-1988 and it also had more broken heat records than 2016-2017 and also had more days breaking records by 10 or more degrees F (9 for 2016-2017 to 25 for 1987-1988)
So that makes another heat wave that was more intense than 2016-2017 and they claim this Australian summer was a 1 in 500 year event??
How “fake” can climate science news be? Do any journalists do any work anymore or are they all blinded by experts that they will not do any research on their own before writing a story?
Norman says:
“So that makes another heat wave that was more intense than 2016-2017 and they claim this Australian summer was a 1 in 500 year event??”
Both 1987-1988 and 2016-2017 can be 1-in-500 year events, if both are far above whatever the normal was.
The article is about New South Wales heatwaves. You’re comparing that with the whole of Australia. Not apples to apples.
The last time max temps in Summer were nearly as hot across New South Wales was in 1938, 78 years ago.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmax%26area%3Dnsw%26season%3D1202%26ave_yr%3D0
Bit sooner that once in 5000 years, but longer than their estimate of 1 in 50.
barry
Thanks for your response but I do not think your point will help with the major “fake news” problem with climate science. The “fake news” is what creates the extremes of deniers, they do not trust the scientists because of the false reporting and turn to whatever source they think might tell them truth (even though the denier sites are far more fake than the alarmist ones).
Using this year for Australia I ran through the record high and lows.
They only report the record highs and make things seem terrible but in this year Australia also had lots of record lows.
Here is the breakdown:
December 2016 Australia: Cold records total: 122 Hot: 253
January 2017 Australia: Cold records total: 48 Hot: 190
February 2017 Australia: Cold records total: 167 Hot: 145
So in February the number of cold records exceeded the high ones but not a word about that for a sense of balance.
I would hope you might move more to the middle when you realize how much bad news there is in climate science. Move to the middle and recover from the hype and start anew.
Re: sense of balance
So almost 2/3rds of the records were for warmth, but someone the remaining 1/3rd balances that out?
David Appell
My point was not that the cold and hot records are equal. My point was not about balance of temperatures, it was a balance in reporting. By only focusing on record hot temperatures and not indicating there were still a lot of cold records during the same time frame you create this false sense of what is going on, that it is only blazing hot over the whole continent with no cold air to be found. That is the balance I was asking for in climate change stories.
David Appell
The logic is that if the entire globe has warmed around 1 C in 100 years, if you have one region with very hot air you would also need to have some areas colder than normal to balance out or you would show more than 1 C warming.
Globally, for the last 15 years there have been more record-breaking hot days than cold at locations worldwide.
2002 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 204
Minimum 22
2003 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 394
Minimum 20
2004 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 113
Minimum 13
2005 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 120
Minimum 29
2006 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 145
Minimum 20
2007 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 297
Minimum 17
2008 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 90
Minimum 32
2009 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 138
Minimum 21
2010 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 505
Minimum 44
2011 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 169
Minimum 39
2012 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 296
Minimum 16
2013 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 405
Minimum 16
2014 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 217
Minimum 19
2015 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 328
Minimum 14
2016 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 323
Minimum 21
Reference:
http://www.mherrera.org/temp.htm
barry
On you list of record hot vs record cold I have no idea what these numbers are about. When I look at the NOAA page for records small areas of the Earth each have hundreds of records either way.
Australia alone had hundreds of hot and cold records in just a one month period. You are talking about world-wide region and over a whole year and the sample size is so incredibly small as to be meaningless. whoever or for whatever reason they compiled this study it would definitely be a strong case for “fake study”.
I would not consider this a valid list or representative of anything but it might make a good cherry pie.
When you examined the reference i linked, what did you discern?
The compiler has a large team from all over the world and contacts Meteorological Institutes worldwide to obtain the data. He’s been doing it for several decades and is hailed by Weather Underground (Jeff Masters) as one of the world’s leading climatologists.
I’m curious where you saw “Australia alone had hundreds of hot and cold records in just a one month period.” Could you please provide a very specific reference?
It should be pretty obvious that you will get more hot record-breakers than cold ones in recent times, as the world is warmer than it was at the beginning of the instrumental record. It is both intuitively and mathematically obvious. You would only be seeing an equal number of record-breaking events if the surface temperature of the globe had remained pretty much unchanged during the instrumental record. but no one (serious) holds this to be the case, so none of the above should be surprising at all.
It may be that the records you are seeing are for that month of the year (hard to know with no reference). The site I referenced are solely all-time records, regardless of the time of year.
barry
Your source is all time records, I was linked to daily records broken. But your logic that a warmer world would have to break records is not established. A record temperature is much above the normal for the location. You can still have a warmer background temperature of a degree that do not break any records. The location will record warmer temperatures but not records.
To Dr. No on the other thread I already explained to him why cold records and hot records cannot be compared since the nature of cause for both is considerably different. A cold record relies on cold air moving into a location that had not experienced such cold air before. As your record keeping goes on with your cold air the same every year (gets about -60 F for your source of cold) you get fewer and fewer cold records since all the locations have already been affected by the cold air moving in.
With hot records they are created by a stationary high pressure aloft and do not depend upon a hot air mass moving in to create a hot record. That means that one location or region can get a hot record just based upon the duration of a high pressure system getting stuck over a location. Since the size, duration of such pressure systems can be of many different variables you can always get new high temperature records.
I am not sure I explained this concept very well. Hope you can understand the difference.
Norman says:
“By only focusing on record hot temperatures and not indicating there were still a lot of cold records during the same time frame you create this false sense of what is going on”
Hot records outnumbered cold records by about 2-1.
What’s wrong with reporting that fact?
Norman, if the background gets warmer then the distribution shifts in that direction. Weather is still chaotic, you still get extreme highs and lows, but now the envelope has shifted (warmer) and more hot records than cold will be broken. This makes perfect intuitive and mathematical sense.
Weather patterns change, and for some specific locations you may see more cold records broken than warm occasionally (cf Polar jet stream slowing down allowing longer periods of Arctic air to flow Southwards).
But globally you will see more hot records broken than cold as the world gets warmer. There is no reason to expect otherwise. I don’t think it should be controversial.
Norman, I didn’t quite get your explanation, but I think that if you are taking global records of record-breakers, the particulars according to location will even out in the general.
barry
Here is the link I posted for Dr. No on an earlier thread.
https://books.google.com/books?id=0dqMyFOUqxoC&pg=PA242&lpg=PA242&dq=what+weather+pattern+produces+record+cold+weather&source=bl&ots=z3kS7Yt0Vl&sig=79Z8hNryTdNZK5OeTLEFWCzVYtA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI-KnMlunSAhUp94MKHTzkB88Q6AEIUDAJ#v=onepage&q=what%20weather%20pattern%20produces%20record%20cold%20weather&f=false
I don’t know what your time schedule is and you may not have time to look at it. It explains what causes extreme cold and later extreme heat. The conditions are not caused by random fluctuations (which the statistical math is based upon, you need random variables to use a bell curve and determine statistical probability of an event occurring…for a bell curve to work you can’t have loaded dice).
Cold records are created by very cold air from elsewhere (where it is normal, the dark of the Arctic or Antarctic in winter, no incoming energy to warm the air and it gets colder and denser and moves out based upon density differences between warm and cold air).
Heat records (this is not the normal 1 or 2 degrees that exist because the globe has warmed)…these records are maybe 20 degrees F above the normal temperature in that location so it is an considerable amount above. A heat wave is like a loaded dice, the day before determines the outcome of the next day. A high pressure forms in the air above. This suppresses convection (a surface heat removal process) which starts making the air warmer than normal. The high pressure limiting convection also limits cloud formation as the water vapor does not rise to the condensation level. This allows much more solar energy into the location than is normal which makes it even hotter. The final heating process to get to the records that are 20 or so degrees F above normal is that with no clouds forming, no rain falls, the ground gets very dry and evaporative cooling no longer removes the heat from the surface. Now the temperature will rise to very high temperatures for the location and break existing records. The chance for a record being broken would depend on how long the high pressure remains. Once it moves on temperatures return to normal and no new records are broken in that location.
Since the duration of a high pressure system aloft in a location is variable you can continue to set hot records for different or even the same location at a later time.
Does that help? If not maybe try and read some from the linked book.
Norman says:
“The logic is that if the entire globe has warmed around 1 C in 100 years, if you have one region with very hot air you would also need to have some areas colder than normal to balance out or you would show more than 1 C warming.”
Who says there aren’t such places? The North Atlantic has a very clear cooling region.
I actually described a similar cold-weather event above.
The examples listed describe weather producing extreme temperatures. These are short-term events that occur less frequently than ‘normal’ weather. Over the 100+ years of the instrumental record, we see events like this from time to time. They give us record-breakers. So far so good.
We’re talking about record-breakers in the context of 120+ years of records (for the most part). We know what extremes look like and much about their causes. What was being assessed in the article you linked was the mathematical probability of extreme temperatures occurring.
Side note: the first example listed mentioned cool weather not seen for ’40 years.’ So presumably not all-time record-breakers.
The dice is loaded – by the shift in the bell curve, which encompasses random weather and extremes (tails of the bell curve). The distribution is shifting warmwards, so it is more likely hot records will be broken than cold.
I’m not sure how descriptions of what causes extreme weather responds to this. The bell curves encompass those extremes.
Norman,
That stationary high pressure events lead to very warm temps makes perfect sense.
Still, such events must have happened thousands of times since record keeping began at each of thousands of locations, with varying durations. Warm records ought to be broken less and less as the record lengthens.
Therefore temps likely conform to ordinary statistics, with a bell curve (this can be checked). If the peak of the bell shifts warmer than (as Barry points out) more warm records ought to be broken.
You can check this by creating a normal distributed column of random data points in Excel, look for the maximum. Now add an offset to all points. The offset represents warming of the mean. Check how many points exceeded the original maximum. You will find that the number of points exceeding the original max grows rapidly (as David argues exponentially) with the size of the offset.
Norman, I’m quite alert to sensationalism in the media, as well as the context/s within which it happens. Deconstructing it is pretty much automatic. For me, the focus and conclusions of the article are not very compelling.
Your point, however, isn’t augmented by changing the frame of reference. NSW is the area under study in the article (as well as the two cities Sydney and Brisbane), not the whole continent. Summer of NEW South Wales was a record-breaker in a few ways (but not all), and the instrumental temp record was analysed to estimate the odds of this occurring. The other half of the continent had a very cool summer, which is why your results don’t match the numbers for NSW.
Average Summer maximum temperature NSW/ACT
Average Summer maximum temperature Western Australia
barry
Thank you for the links. In the first one it certainly does not look like anything unusual is happening in NSW region. It has numerous hot years with a few a degree warmer than the other hot years.
Not so sure the heat wave of 2016-2017 indicates any trend toward many more intense and severe heat waves coming to the Australians in the near future. From what I have researched it seems heat waves are quite normal in Australia. Every few years some region has one. I do not see this one as so much above the long term average that it would be a time to panic.
I’m not sure what panic has to do with anything. The article was a probability assessment. The Summer of 2015/17 in NSW was the warmest on record, which no doubt prompted the analysis.
Looking for ‘panic’ in the article, the last sentence probably comes closest.
The heat seen this past summer across parts of Australia is still rare in our current climate. However, if greenhouse gas emissions are not dramatically reduced, intense summer heat will become the norm in the future.
Perhaps we have a different definition of ‘panic’.
Note: your use of the word ‘panic’ is the same kind of rhetoric that you (seem to) deplore. I don’t like it either, and I see it constantly.
barry
It is articles like these that can create a sense of panic in a reader’s mind.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13022017/australia-heatwave-climate-change-sydney-melbourne
In it they mention heat waves as the greatest cause of weather related deaths in Australia, they mention bush fires all these things create this sense of dread in a reader.
Here is a clear example (they do not use the word “panic” but the tone can create a sense of panic)
“The buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gas pollution in the atmosphere means things will get much worse. By the end of the century, Australia’s tropics will see an additional 40-50 heatwave days, while Sydney and Melbourne will see 2030 more days of extreme heat annually.”
“things will get much worse.” can cause a sense of panic. Also I am not sure what 2030 more days of extreme heat annually means? There are only 365 days in a year.
Obviously a typo.
What does it mean that I read this and don’t feel panicked?
I can point to myriad examples of sensationalism and rhetorical copy in news media. Roy focuses specifically on global warming articles sometimes. Yep, some stories highlight the worst of things and leave out nuance. It also occurs on the side of the skeptics, when the Daily Mail opines that scientists are colluding to lie about climate change. But Roy doesn’t point out those kinds of articles.
And so there is some collusion with bias. We pinpoint only the sensationalism that offends us, rather than recognize it is prevalent on any opinion.
Me, I don’t cite newspapers. I prefer getting down to brass tacks.
Norman,
The fake news is what creates the extremes of deniers
I think there is truth in that, insofar as hyperbole, omitting uncertainty and whatnot causes an anti-reaction (I experience it myself fairly regularly). Sensationalism is rife, no matter what side of the fence a journalist sits (cf David Rose in the Daily Mail for fake news on the side of the ‘skeptics’).
I decided long ago that I would give little credence to news reports, and instead investigate the underlying science. Unfortunately, a lot of people (on all sides) have a different approach.
The media is sensationalist? Of course. It’s as obvious as the fact that the sun rises. How long shall we spend complaining about this well-known fact?
Great summary Dr. Roy. After studying both sides for years there just isn’t enough good data to convince me that the warming effect isn’t overblown. A lot of this is going to die on its own as nothing ominous continues to happen and the governments decide to stop wasting money. Time to spend the money on real science, I think.
Now, if we could only apply the same principles to what happened at Fukushima. Because it’s a bloody great mess out there with radicalization on both sides. I’ll not figure out the truth on that one.
It seems that, driven by the need to continually support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming thesis climate scientists are examining the temperature record at altogether too fine a scale, month by month, year by year.
Viewing the Holocene interglacial at a broader scale is much more fruitful, on a century by century and even on a millennial perspective.
Our current, warm, congenial Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years, spanning from mankind’s earliest farming to recent technology.
However Ice Core records, probably the most reliable longer term record, show:
• the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of the entire Holocene interglacial.
• each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.
• for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point known as the “climate optimum”, have had virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.
• but the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at ~1000BC, 3000 years ago, has seen temperature fall at about 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium.
• the Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and judging from the length of previous interglacials, the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.
• but the slight beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to the Modern high point has been transmuted into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Scare”.
• the recent warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, (Black death, French revolution, etc.) has been wholly beneficial
As global temperatures have already been showing stagnation or cooling over the last nineteen years or more and as the sun spot record is diminishing substantially, the world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of cooling, rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or now non-existent further warming.
A real tipping point towards cooling and the end of the Holocene interglacial occurred about 3000 years ago.
This point is more fully illustrated here:
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-holocene-context-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/
It is a mystery as to why so many are too stubborn to notice.
Low surface temperatures of the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.3.23.2017.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.obs.gif
Normalized Geopotential Height anomalies.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JFM_SH_2017.png
“A plot of geopotential height for a single pressure level shows the troughs and ridges, Highs and Lows, which are typically seen on upper air charts.”
Geopotential height in higher layers indicates whether there is heat or cold air mass below.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.aao.cdas.gif
22 March 2017
Strong electric currents in the upper atmosphere are known to vary according to the season, but ESAs Swarm mission has discovered that this seasonal variation is not the same in the north and south polar regions.
Named after Kristian Birkeland, the scientist a century ago who first postulated that the northern lights were linked to electrically charged particles in the solar wind, these currents flow along Earths magnetic field lines in the polar regions.
Magnetic field measurements from ESAs Swarm satellite constellation are allowing scientists to understand more about these powerful currents, which carry up to 1 TW of electric power to the upper atmosphere. This is about 30 times the energy consumed in New York during a heatwave.
It is important to understand the interplay between these Birkeland currents and the solar wind that bombards our planet and that can potentially cause power and communication blackouts.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Swarm_detects_asymmetry
the western Antarctic is melting due to an increase in underwater volcanoes not Co2 increasing
http://tinyurl.com/n7og78q
When the polar vortex will be weak ice will be less. But the temperature is going down further from Antarctica.
Your second mistake is to link the far-off volcano (singular) to melting ice in the West Antarctic. The volcano lies off the coast of East Antarctica.
Your third mistake is that the underwater volcano in the video is in the tropics (Tonga). It couldn’t possibly melt sea ice 3200 miles away, let alone on the opposite side of the continent.
You first mistake was to reference a random vlogger.
That sort of reference will never be taken seriously by anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity.
First of all just exactly how do you know all this? Or is your head still berried in the sand of man made global warming fantasy? Second of all there is a map showing volcanoes to be in the west coast in Antarctica so how could you rely on This when the information you claim to be true shows the exact opposite? You have been hypnotized by algore and put into a global warming coma! Wakey wakey! Barry Barry!
see underwater volcanoes on the WEST side not EAST! It says it right there in the map on the link I provided here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/surprise-west-antarctic-volcano-melts-ice/
You’ve belatedly cited a reference that buttresses your point. Well done. Hopefully we’ll see no more vlogger you tubes as references.
The study behind JoNova’s article is here.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070.long
I suggest you read it.
There is no suggestion in the study that volcanos are responsible for melting the West Ice sheet beyond the sublglacial dynamics that have been present for thousands of years. No mention of increased volcanic activity in the modern era.
So what is the contention in the paper? Read it and find out what they are actually saying.
Then what is responsible for it? And don’t give that increase co2 is causing it bullshit because I’m not going to take that. As I said already mans contribution to natural co2 is less then 3% of the 9-18% of the ghg affect total co2 is responsible for as one of my links I posted above states. That cannot cause warming to melt the western Antarctic ice sheet. If the western Antarctic ice sheet is melting then why would the eastern Antarctic ice sheet set record sea ice extent at the same time in 2014 and 2015? The peices of the jigsaw puzzle just don’t go together. It all doesn’t make sense from a logical standpoint.
The study you provided states this:
“Our results further suggest that the subglacial water system of Thwaites Glacier may be responding to heterogeneous and temporally variable basal melting driven by the evolution of rift-associated volcanism and support the hypothesis that both heterogeneous geothermal flux AND local magmatic processes COULD BE critical factors in determining the future behavior of the WAIS.”
So this study does admit that magmatic process is somewhat responsible for the melt. And why does it have the words COULD BE? Seems like your study needs closer examination as they are still not certain what the cause of the melting western Antarctic ice sheet is melting.
The study advances knowledge of where hotspots are around the Thwaites glacier, whereas before it was assumed that the basal heat was distributed evenly. This effects the evolution of subglacial ice/water flow and improves modeling of subglacial water transport as the glaciers melt.
Thing is, the heat has always been there. They are not saying that the subglacial magma has recently become more active and is therefore responsible for the melting of the ice sheets. It is part of a dynamic process that includes ice accumulation from snow and other factors adding to and taking from the glacier. The study looks to get more precision on the subglacial aspect so they can predict flows better.
C4, for what it’s worth, I’ll tell you what I did just after posting the study posted at JoNova.
I looked it up on google scholar and read it twice.
Then I clicked on the cite button to see what papers had cited it. Any papers in that list which investigated the same sort of phenomena I read (skimmed some).
Then I checked the list for other papers by the same authors that looked to be on the topic and read (or skimmed) those. I also looked for the most recent papers on the topic to see if understanding of the topic had evolved (it’s much the same now as in 2014).
By the time I was done I had a good understanding of what the original paper was about, and some context.
Had I wished to go further I would have looked at the references in the paper and read some of those for further background.
Sometimes I google for commentary on a paper (including blogs) in case there is clarifying descriptions of the contents.
This is how I tend to operate. I think it’s a good way to get a grip on the issues brought up in the general debate.
First of all just exactly how do you know all this?
I watched the video you linked to. Didn’t you?
Then I googled the location of the volcano and the distance to the nearest Antarctic sea ice, which is on the East (not the West) coast of Antarctica.
Barry, we are not talking about one volcanoe. We are talking about a chain of volcanoes charted on the western side of the Antarctic as the link I provided above shows
Then you made a mistake linking to a youtube that discussed one volcano near, Tonga, didn’t you? Unfortunately I was not able to time-travel forwards to the point when you did finally provide a reference to buttress your point. Now that you have, I’ve responded above.
Lest we lose track, this is what you posted yesterday:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/the-global-warming-debate-spectrum/#comment-240978
A link to a youtube video that mentions a single volcano near Tonga – as well as sea ice in…. the ARCTIC.
It will lend great credibility to your participation if you simply acknowledge this was a dud reference. Doesn’t even mention Antarctica! The study referenced by JoNove is a much better reference (responded above).
Barry, your right. I apologize. That mistake was on me.
Right about what the video says that is. Not right about what you claim is causing western Antarctic ice melt. Hope that comment above didn’t confuse you and I hope this clears some uncertainties up.
That mistake was on me
People rarely admit they are wrong in these debates, and you get a lot of kudos from me for doing so.
Whoa, slow down there lol. I never said I was wrong about my view on climate change I said I showed you the wrong movie by accident because I didn’t know it was for a different location. This debate is far from over my friend
I know that. No need to be defensive.
Spencer, you say:
Or not.
Or not.
The null hypothesis would be that an increase in atmospheric CO2 has NO discernible effect on global temperatures. This hypothesis has decidedly NOT at any point been shown to be wrong in any way or fashion. Rather, the available observational data from the real earth system very much seems to suggest it is, for all intents and purposes, correct.
Why, then, do you still take for granted that “The Truth” somehow lies between the no-effect and large-effect propositions? Because you’re a lukewarmer. You are fundamentally unsceptical and uncritical to the (purely hypothetical) notion that more CO2 in the atmosphere MUST lead to net warming of some magnitude, no matter what.
No, it should be obvious that the truth lies at the no-effect end of the spectrum. Because that’s what we observe. Everything beyond that is mere theoretical speculation and conjecture, for the most part based on completely circular argumentation (like: ‘But the models say so!’).
It is NOT a trivial statement to claim that more CO2 in the atmosphere MUST have a positive net effect on global temperatures no matter what happens. That some of the observed warming MUST and IS caused by the rise in atmospheric CO2. As if somehow established as fact. Still, without any empirical evidence from the real earth system to back it up.
Based on what empirical evidence from the real earth system, Spencer? Why exactly can’t 0% of the warming be due to the rise in CO2_atm and 100% due to natural forcing/variability (Sun + Ocean/troposphere system)?
Exactly. Your opinion. And what do you base that on? Narrow and isolated theoretical concepts? Or empirical evidence from the real earth system?
You beat me to the punch, but the mandate of scientific study is that any hypothesis must overwhelm the NULL hypothesis.
R.A. Fisher stands out as a giant by merging statistical analysis and the rigor required to assert something scientifically. Were he alive, he would vomit at the lack of rigor underlying AGW.
Harry Huffman’s basic Venus vs. Earth calculation demonstrates that the NULL hypothesis still rules.
Robinson &Catling’s interplanetary model does the same.
The earth is but a speck in a solar system where the sun holds virtually all of the mass & energy.
Our planet is bound by physics which will be consistent across our planet, solar system, and universe. For some reason, climate science has been given a license to suspend basic physics.
Although those noted above are sufficient to invalidate AGW, the gross malfeasance demonstrated by the Hockey Stick, the IPCC, and the climategate emails erodes any remaining foundations for AGW.
NULL hypothesis = 1
AGW = 0
FTOP says:
“Harry Huffmans basic Venus vs. Earth calculation demonstrates that the NULL hypothesis still rules.”
Huffman’s calculation is idiotic garbage — he ignores planetary albedoes.
This is very true. Ignoring albedo will get you nowhere.
Unlike 97% of the things David says lol
Kristain, I tend to mostly agree with you that co2 has a very minuscule affect on the climate although I am still not so sure that co2 has absolutely no affect on our climate yet. Co2 is a greenhouse gas. Although it makes up 9-18% of the total ghg affect and mans contribution less then 3% of total co2 and makes up approximately 0.04% of the atmosphere it is still a greenhouse gas. Adding more greenhouse gases trap more radiation in the atmosphere causing further warming even if it was to an extent where nobody would notice statistically. Water vapor which makes up approx 97% is a pretty good heat trapper at night. Back radiation is trapped causing a warming to establish an equilibrium from the cooling it provided during the day by blocking more radiation from entering our lower atmosphere
ClimateChange4realz says, March 25, 2017 at 9:22 AM:
You need to look at this from a purely scientific standpoint. We have – as of today – no empirical reason whatsoever (as in ‘relevant observations from the real earth system’) to simply assume that an increase in CO2_atm has a significant impact on our globe’s temperatures. We might think that it should, theoretically, but that’s not the same as knowing for sure that it does.
No matter how certain you are, you always need to test your theoretical assumptions empirically, against real-world observations. And if you cannot find any clear-cut, measurable signs of your assumed effect out there in the actual earth system, then you essentially have nothing except a theoretical claim. Then you simply need to go back to the drawing board. There’s no use at this point just stating as fact that your effect IS still there (because “theory”), somehow, somewhere, hidden. That’s how pseudoscience works. Not real science. A real scientist acknowledges when he has no (and/or cannot find) empirical support for a claim or an assumption of his. He might find the evidence he’s looking for at some other time, later on. But for the time being, he has no support for his claim/assumption. And so he will recognise this fact. That’s how science works.
I’m not saying that a rise in CO2_atm cannot possibly have an effect on global temps. Theoretically it definitely can. All I’m saying is that we simply don’t see it. In the data. And so the null hypothesis stands: The warming must be considered to be all natural. 100%.
Simply saying that “CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore it MUST have caused some of the observed warming” is a grossly un-scientific (and fundamentally circular, thus logically false) statement.
Show it. How +CO2_atm causes +T. Out there in the real earth system. Don’t just assert that it does …
Watch all of the links that I provided above then tell me whether or not co2 has no affect on the climate. I’m not saying co2 has a major affect on the climate nor am I a lukewarmist like dr Roy who say it causes some warming. I’m saying that the warming it causes is so small that it is not noticible enough to disturb the natural variations in climate change that are mainly cause by the weakening of the magnetosphere by galactic cosmic rays which controls the cloud cover and the variations in the jet stream and different mixed airmasses we usually don’t see in stable global warming periods such as 30 degree warm in artic and -60 record cold in Russia at the same time. Weather patterns are turning upside down but it is not our fault. solar cycles on the order of tens of thousands to even millions of years to 25-30 years. The 6-8 year solar prime cycles don’t have much of a noticible affect like the much stronger 200-400 bicentennial solar cycles do.
ClimateChange4realz says, March 25, 2017 at 11:32 AM:
What does “so small that it is not noticible enough” even mean? This sounds like a statement straight from the realm of homeopathy.
Look, if a physical effect is too small to be noticed (observed/detected/measured) even when looking for it, then it isn’t an operative macroscopic effect. “Effect”: Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/effect
If there’s no visible result, if there’s nothing brought about that we can distinguish, then there’s no effect.
We appear to agree on the THEORETICAL effect of putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, but NOT on the REAL (as in ‘observed’) effect (result) of the same action.
There’s no use looking at temperature data or data associated with temperature changes alone. That won’t tell us anything about the cause(s) of the changes in temperature. What we want to know is NOT whether it’s getting warmer or not, rather, if it is getting warmer, WHY? What’s the CAUSE?
And in order to test the “AGW hypothesis”, to see whether an “enhanced GHE” is in fact the cause of all or some of the warming, we need to look at and compare quite specific sets of data:
1) Tropospheric temps
2) Top of atmosphere radiation fluxes
This is basically the only relevant data for the test at hand. The only data we need in order to find out …
And what does it show?
ClimateChange4realz says:
“Watch all of the links that I provided above then tell me whether or not co2 has no affect on the climate.”
You’re just handwaving.
Instead, tell us what you calulate for CO2’s radiative forcing, as a function of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration.
That’s the function that matters here.
It says it in one of my links. Don’t be lazy. Just watch
No, I’m not going to watch a bunch of videos to try to guess.
What is your radiative forcing function? It’s a simple question.
What do you mean radiative forcing function? What are you talking about?
What’s your definition of a radiative forcing function?
Man made co2 is a minuscule ghg that has plays a minuscule role in the climate system. What more can you ask for? I provided all the evidence. If you want to read the links that is your choice. That’s my radiative forcing equation to you. Good day
The radiative forcing equation buget listed towards the bottom of this shows that water vapor already absorbs most of the inferred radiation that co2 can absorb therefore it is safe to say that co2 plays a very minor role in the ghg energy buget and there associated climate forcings
http://www.climate4you.com
Click on global temperatures listed on the left hand side of this webpage and scroll down towards the bottom and you will find it.
IPCC:
“Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in Watts per square meter (W/m2).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#IPCC_usage
For CO2, the radiative forcing (for CO2 concentrations like today’s) is
RF(CO2)=alpha*ln(C/C0)
where
alpha = 5.35 W/m2
C = CO2 value of interest
C0 = baseline CO2 (eg. pre-industrial)
ClimateChange4realz says:
“The radiative forcing equation buget listed towards the bottom of this shows that water vapor already absorbs most of the inferred radiation that co2 can absorb therefore it is safe to say that co2 plays a very minor role in the ghg energy buget and there associated climate forcings”
More handwaving.
Quantify “very minor.”
Co2 causes global warming but it is such a unimportant tiny ghg you can’t detect it when you compare it to what’s really happening with the climate. It’s like comparing a cat to the Empire State Building in New York. Any other basic kindergarten vocabulary terms I can help you with?
You do know there’s something called google that could help you define words right?
Next time you are on top of the Empire State Building try finding a cat on the ground? I bet you anything you can’t spot it! That’s how little an impact humans tiny co2 contribution from fossil fuels has on the climate.
ClimateChange4realz says:
“Next time you are on top of the Empire State Building try finding a cat on the ground? I bet you anything you cant spot it! Thats how little an impact humans tiny co2 contribution from fossil fuels has on the climate.”
More handwaving.
Where are your numbers?
0.03C by the end of this century
Doubling of co2 alone without the feesback mechanisms to stable it out would cause a 1C warming lower iPCC estimate that is using carbon 14 from ice cores. Feedbacks included will equal about 0.3C warming. C14 only makes up 1% of all co2 molocues so that is 99% less of what total warming C14 would bring it down to 0.03/0.04C
“0.03C by the end of this century”
Based on what calculation.
What’s your equation for CO2’s radiative forcing?
It’s in my previous comment above. Open your eyes.
Also Murray Salby talks about it on YouTube
ClimateChange4realz says, March 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM:
No it doesn’t, CC4r. Don’t state this as fact unless you’ve actually observed it. Stop paying lip service to The Cause.
Kristian says:
“Show it. How +CO2_atm causes +T. Out there in the real earth system. Dont just assert that it does ”
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
And in what way exactly do these two studies show that +CO_atm causes +T, David?
You really are a troll, aren’t you?
Feldman et al show more IR impacting the surface from CO2. More energy => higher temperature.
David Appell says, March 26, 2017 at 2:11 PM:
Mmm, no. More NET energy => higher temperature, David.
So let’s have a look, shall we? At Barrow, the average all-sky net SW according to CERES SYN1deg sfc is ~80 W/m^2. That’s the Q_in flux (the incoming heat) to the surface. This is more or less balanced by a total all-sky Q_out flux (the outgoing heat) that includes radiation (net LW), conduction and evaporation. The radiative part of this is (again according to CERES SYN1deg sfc) ~30 W/m^2, leaving about 50 W/m^2 to conduction and evaporation.
So in what way exactly did the Feldman study SHOW that +CO2_atm CAUSES +T?
– Globally. Or locally, for that matter.
– All-sky (clouds included), not clear-sky.
– Total net LW (30 W/m^2 UP), not just downwelling IR in the CO2 band(s).
– Total sfc heat loss, not just the radiative portion. Has it gone up or down? And by how much?
– Total sfc heat gain from the sun. Up or down? By how much?
– Sfc temp evolution.
Is ANY of this accounted for?
I know your faith is strong, little troll. But this is too ridiculous even for you …
Also: – Local air temp evolution.
So in what way exactly did the Feldman (et. al. 2015) study SHOW that +CO2_atm CAUSES +T?
-Globally. Or locally, for that matter:
Feldman et. al.: We used spectroscopic measurements from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer(AERI) instrument and atmospheric state data at these two sites to test whether the impact of rising CO2 on downwelling longwave radiation can be rigorously detected.
—–
-All-sky (clouds included), not clear-sky:
most CO2 surface forcing occurs in the absence of clouds (Feldman cite 16 from M&W 1967)
—–
-Total net LW (30 W/m^2 UP), not just downwelling IR in the CO2 band(s), Total sfc heat loss, not just the radiative portion. Has it gone up or down? And by how much? Total sfc heat gain from the sun. Up or down? By how much? Local air temp evolution. Is ANY of this accounted for?
Yes, all accounted for, the energy balance answers are all in the observed atm. state: The radiative transfer codes are also freely available
Kristian says:
“Mmm, no. More NET energy => higher temperature, David.”
You really doubt this?
If more energy strikes an object, does it warm, stay the same temperature, or cool?
“Is ANY of this accounted for?”
Read the paper.
“Total sfc heat gain from the sun. Up or down? By how much?”
They measured IR, not solar wavelengths. Like I said, read the paper before dismissing it.
To achieve/demonstrate depth of understanding of the techniques in Feldman 2015, Kristian will also need to read/understand its cites & Feldman, Collins et. al. 2014 “Far-infrared surface emissivity and climate”.
David Appell says, March 26, 2017 at 5:15 PM:
We cannot tell. Because we need to know the NET energy, troll. Read a book on thermodynamics, will you. This is one of the first things you learn in a 101 course.
Has the total sfc all-sky net LW gone down, or up, or stayed the same in each of the sites? And has the total sfc heat (net energy) loss (net LW+cond+evap) gone up, down or stayed flat? What abot the incoming heat from the sun? Net SW. Feldman et al. don’t tell us any of this. And so have nothing.
Exactly. They’ve measured downwelling IR in the CO2 band(s) in clear-sky conditions. And that’s all they’ve done.
– They haven’t looked at how the air temp evolved.
– They haven’t looked at the total DWLWIR flux (entire spectrum). – They haven’t looked at the total all-sky UWLWIR from the surface and how it evolved.
– They haven’t looked at net SW and how it evolved (clouds).
– They haven’t looked at conduction/evaporation + advection/convection and how these fluxes/mechanisms evolved.
– And, they’ve looked only at two (2) single spots on earth’s surface. This is a local study, not a global.
None of this is accounted for.
I have read the paper. And you know that, because you’ve commented on my blog post specifically addressing it. That’s why I’m asking you these questions. Because if you’d read the paper, you would know that NONE of what I mentioned is accounted for, and so there is absolutely nothing there SHOWING in any way or fashion that +CO2_atm causes +T.
Every time you’ve posted a link to this paper as somehow empirical proof of +CO2_atm causing +T, I’ve pointed these things out for you. It appears not to sink in. You ignore them and keep posting. And that’s why it’s clear you’re nothing but a troll, David.
Ball4 says, March 26, 2017 at 4:52 PM:
How cute. A companion troll to the rescue.
Kristian asks: “Has the total sfc all-sky net LW gone down, or up, or stayed the same in each of the sites?”
The answer is in the Feldman 2015 paper Kristian, do the work to dig it out convincingly for us and let us know, you seem to be interested enough.
“And has the total sfc heat (net energy) loss (net LW+cond+evap) gone up, down or stayed flat?”
The observed atm. state (sensible and latent) is in the paper Kristian, do some work and let us know.
“What abot (sic) the incoming heat from the sun?”
There is no incoming heat from the sun Kristian, the vacuum of space disallows KE transfer, though there is a lot of radiation incoming from the sun which is in the energy balances performed in the paper, do the work and let us know. This question shows the confusion Kristian continues to demonstrate over his using the word heat incorrectly. You will need to thoroughly study Feldman 2014 (and cites) to better understand the LBL radiative transfer sfc energy balance techniques involved.
“Net SW. Feldman et al. don’t tell us any of this. And so have nothing.”
Incorrect, in Feldman 2015 the sfc energy balances are freely available. Get busy so you have something to actually discuss instead of complaining, whining actually.
“- They haven’t looked at how the air temp evolved.”
Yes, they did. They used radiosondes for both temperature and humidity profiles at the sites over the period cited, go get their data, it is freely available.
“I have read the paper.”
If so, you would not need to be asking US those questions, you would be telling us what they found for how the air temp evolved, whether the total sfc heat (net energy) loss (net LW+cond+evap) had gone up, down or stayed flat. Yet you have no clue, you ask us, you did not read the paper as claimed.
“there is absolutely nothing there SHOWING in any way or fashion that +CO2_atm causes +T.”
Yes, there is, read the paper, study their freely available energy balances, find out for yourself that +CO2_atm causes +T.
“I’ve pointed these things out for you.”
Unconvincingly. To be really convincing about that Kristian, you will need to dig out their freely available data, and show us how to do the work to arrive at a different conclusion than Feldman 2015, then publish your results in the same journal so that the science can be convincingly studied with data and code freely available as in Feldman 2015.
Ball4,
This is real simple. The claim (by troll Appell, not you – why are you even here?) is that Feldman et al., 2015, provide empirical evidence that +CO2_atm => +T. In such a case the onus is naturally on the one MAKING THE POSITIVE CLAIM to show what this empirical evidence constitutes exactly. This is why I ask him (not you, him) these questions. He needs to respond according to the scientific method. No hand-waving. It is not enough to simply link to a paper and say: “Here. The answer’s in there somewhere. Now, YOU go find it for yourself.” No. The one making the positive claim needs to show and explain. It is also not enough to just say: “More energy => higher temperature.” Because in order to draw such a conclusion, you need to have included in your analysis the COMPLETE PICTURE, not just one tiny part of it. Again, SHOW AND EXPLAIN.
This is all I’m gonna say to you, troll. Now begone!
Kristian now asks me: “why are you even here?”
To be helpful. Kristian asked questions, I know where his answers are, I pointed out where to find those answers with exact clips from Feldman et. al. 2015.
Kristian writes DA wrote: Here. The answer’s in there somewhere. Now, YOU go find it for yourself.”
Kristian wrote that, not DA (search returns 1 hit in this post & comments).
I quoted exact text of Feldman 2015 to answer Kristian (although the site ate my quote marks at 4:52pm). I pointed Kristian exactly where to find his answers.
“Because in order to draw such a conclusion, you need to have included in your analysis the COMPLETE PICTURE, not just one tiny part of it. Again, SHOW AND EXPLAIN.”
Agree. Feldman 2015 analysis includes the “complete picture” (Kristian term) and the authors “show and explain” (again, Kristian term) to answer Kristian about +CO2_atm = +T with observed radiosonde atm. state and sfc energy balance data & code that is “freely available” (authors term).
*Sigh* [Apologise to self for breaking my promise.]
I know and you know you’re spewing deliberate nonsense here, troll. My reply to your comment above is simply: No. (With an added *eyeroll* and a *facepalm* for good measure.)
But even so, here’s one for you:
If it so obvious that Feldman et al., 2015, have shown empirically that +CO2_atm causes +T, how come the very same overall rise in CO2 “radiative forcing” (+0.2 W/m^2 per decade) at the two sites included in the study …:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/fig_tab/nature14240_F4.html
… apparently produced significant COOLING at the one (SGP) and significant WARMING at the other (NSA), seemingly causing close to perfectly opposite trends in clear-sky temperatures …?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/fig_tab/nature14240_SF5.html
Please show and explain.
Very…VERY good Kristian, you are starting to dig into the Feldman 2015 data details given my prodding. Your best bet for an answer to your new 1:08pm question(s) is in emailing the main author at the email address given in the F2015 paper or commenting at online version of the paper.
However, before doing so, to avoid embarrassment doing that, if I had your interest in why +CO2_atm causes +T, I would first look at Figure 2 a,d in the main body. Across the wavenumbers for site SGP annually (black) there is an overall decreasing radiance trend (~-2) per decade and for site NSA there is an overall increasing radiance trend (~+3) per decade in the lower wavenumbers. THEN look at 2 b,e which are the spectral residual trends due the CO2 changes in the period cited. Remarkably, the residuals are the same and both positive radiance trends due +CO2.
Fig. 2 c,f residuals are from another method of differencing calculations also look remarkably the same and positive radiance trends due +CO2 in the period.
This reminds me of many (unending) temperature discussions; here you can see that the effect of added CO2 is found the same (+ve) whether the site overall radiance trend is increasing or decreasing from all factors.
Thanks for (stumbling into) that, but check with the main author(s) is really my advice, let them have a go at your questions. Let us know.
Ball4 says, March 27, 2017 at 1:54 PM:
Yup. And still the claim is that +CO2_atm causes +T. Which it evidently doesn’t at the SGP site. CO2_atm goes up. And T goes down.
Q.E.D.
Hehe, no, I’m asking YOU and troll Appell. Show and explain. But you can’t of course. Sorry about that …
We’re not looking for evidence of more CO2 in the atmosphere. We’re looking for evidence that this rise causes temps to go up. You know: +CO2_atm => +T. There is no problem finding evidence for the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The Feldman et al. study provides such evidence. What it DOESN’T provide is what we cannot find ANYWHERE: Evidence that +CO2_atm causes +T. In fact, it provides clear evidence of the contrary.
Trolls Appell and Ball4 pretend that I’m asking for evidence of the former. No, I’m asking for evidence of the latter. For which there exists ZERO empirical evidence in the real earth system.
Kristian’s understanding of the science is evidently so shallow he cannot fathom that the spectral radiance trend residuals in F2015 Fig. 2 b do indeed show +CO2_atm causes +T at the SGP site where other factors (latent, sensible) combined to more strongly drive the SGP site overall T radiosonde decadal trend down (Fig. 5 a, 0 altitude, annual).
This mistake is made by many with similar shallow science accomplishment as Kristian. Without +CO2 the SGP site downward T trend would be even more negative at sfc as shown by the +CO2 component spectral residuals.
The effect of added CO2 is observed the same (+ve) whether the site overall radiance trend is increasing or decreasing from all factors driving T in the real earth system.
Ball4 says, March 28, 2017 at 6:40 AM:
EXACTLY!!! Thanks for proving my point, troll. That’s my “complete picture” you’re talking about right there. +CO2_atm can NOT be said to automatically cause +T, as is blatantly evident from the SGP temperature chart, because of the ever-presence of other and more powerful physical processes operating at the same time!
LOL! How stupid do you think we all are, troll? The profound hollowness of your alleged “evidence” is thoroughly and indisputably laid bare for all of us to see, and what do you do? You just dig your heels in and double down on it. As always. It is sad, but also a bit funny to behold. You never disappoint, troll.
One more time. The argument goes as follows: More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to (causes) increasing temperature.
That’s the claim. No more, no less. No caveats. Results from the Feldman et al. study is then specifically proffered as “empirical evidence” in direct support of this claim.
Well, at the SGP site,
1) the atmospheric content of CO2 went UP over the period under study, and
2) the annual average temperature went DOWN over the same period.
Simple conclusion for the SGP site: More CO2 in the atmosphere did NOT lead to (cause) increasing temperature. Ergo: The claim as it stands is actually falsified for the SGP site. The Feldman et al. study does NOT provide “empirical evidence” in direct support of this claim. The only thing the Feldman et al. study shows is that CO2_atm has gone up. And no one has ever argued against that fact, have they?
“Less cooling” is not equal to “increasing temperature”, troll. The claim is NOT that more CO2 in the atmosphere will make the temperature go down less. It is specifically that +CO2_atm => +T. You do understand the meaning of +T, don’t you? It is not 290K->289K. It is 290K->291K. Higher number to the right. At the end.
Troll Appell’s claim disregards ALL OTHER THINGS GOING ON (like the ones you mentioned in your comment above) at the same time as CO2_atm goes up, and so misses the big picture. What I pointed out to him is simply that he cannot claim what he claims before he’s accounted for ALL OTHER FACTORS affecting the final net result. Because THAT’S what we’re after. The final net (observed) temperature change. With ALL things considered. Not just the CO2 part of it.
All else is NEVER equal out there in the real world. Which is my point exactly. And you have now helped underscoring my point, troll. Thanks again.
What you’re TRYING to get away with here, though, is essentially a typical pseudoscientific line of reasoning, saying that other things might lower the ACTUAL final net temperature, as observed, but the rise in CO2_atm still somehow does increase some imagined component of the final net result. Inside the whole. Somewhere. Hidden. Which is just a pointless argument, simply an argument by assertion, and – most importantly – not the argument put forward in the first place.
If temps go down when CO2 goes up, temps go down when CO2 goes up. There’s no hiding from that fact. It shows unequivocally that +CO2_atm can NOT be said to necessarily and automatically increase temps. That is something you CANNOT just assume as a given. You have to SHOW it. Show the causality. Period.
I’m not the one who pointed to single measuring stations as somehow providing direct empirical evidence of the claim +CO2_atm => +T, ignoring all temperature-affecting factors at those local sites except the clear-sky CO2 band DWLWIR to declare “empirical evidence”. Troll Appell is.
I think we’re done here. It’s safe to say that troll Ball4 will most likely continue arguing about my “shallow understanding” and trying his best to direct everyone’s attention away from the crux of this matter, which is that +CO2_atm simply cannot be shown empirically in the real earth system to cause +T, as e.g. evidenced by the Feldman et al., 2015, study …
Kristian writes: “+CO2_atm can NOT be said to automatically cause +T, as is blatantly evident from the SGP temperature chart, because of the ever-presence of other and more powerful physical processes operating at the same time!”
Concur, appears Kristian is starting to get it. As a component of overall T trend causes, +CO2_atm causes +T in both increasing and decreasing decadal radiance trends as observed in nature reported in F2015.
“One more time. The argument goes as follows: More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to (causes) increasing temperature.”
Concur, as F2015 observes in nature at both SGP and NSA sites in the positive spectral residuals of Fig. 2.
“Simple conclusion for the SGP site: More CO2 in the atmosphere did NOT lead to (cause) increasing temperature.”
Incorrect Kristian, you do not get the science after all, this reveals you have a political position, not a science position as shown in the continuum top post. F2015 clearly observes positive CO2 spectral residual radiance trends for both SGP and NSA sites. A temp. change from, for example at SGP radiosonde altitude 0, annual, decadal -1.1K to -1K in the period is an increase in T because F2015 shows positive residuals +CO2_atm causes +T (of +0.1K/decade).
“trying his best to direct everyones attention away from the crux of this matter, which is that +CO2_atm simply cannot be shown empirically in the real earth system to cause +T, as e.g. evidenced by the Feldman et al., 2015, study”
I do not have to “try” anything Kristian, there is no try, only F2015 for the science view, the politics of Kristian are for a political site crowd. The political will cheer you Kristian, no science crowd cheers though at a science site such as Dr. Spencer runs unless you get the science correct.
Kristian writes in part: “…CO2_atm still somehow does increase some imagined component of the final net result. Inside the whole. Somewhere. Hidden.”
This is correct Kristian, though not hidden or imagined anymore, shown by test and decadal observations in the wild by the positive CO2 component spectral residual trends over a decade of natural measurements in F2015 Fig. 2 b,e in both increasing and decreasing annual spectral radiance trend environments.
Nope.
The claim is not about radiances or spectra. It’s about temperature. More CO2_atm is claimed to produce higher T. It doesn’t at the SGP site. And that’s all you need to know. It does not follow. Because “other factors” …
“It doesnt at the SGP site.”
If +CO2 didn’t produce higher T (+T) at the SGP site Kristian, the spectral radiance trend residuals in F2015 Fig. 2 b,e would have been negative, but they are observed positive.
Ball4 says, March 29, 2017 at 5:22 AM:
This is getting tediously stupid. You are just being an obstinate child here, and I’ve already responded to this inane argument above.
One more time: If T goes down while CO2 goes up, then +CO2 doesn’t make T go up. You’re talking about a trend in radiance. Not in T. That’s evidence of +CO2, troll. Not of +T.
The claim was not about radiance. It was about temperature.
The increased radiance from +CO2 did NOT produce +T. Because of “other factors”. Which YOU yourself pointed out …
The trends (CO2 radiance vs. T) tilt in opposite directions.
And so, the claim that “+CO2_atm => +T” simply because “more energy => higher temp”, is not correct. Because it’s too simple. It concludes based on just one tiny piece of the total picture. Which means it misses other factors. It ASSUMES all other factors remain unchanged.
Which is my point.
“You’re talking about a trend in radiance. Not in T.”
Because F2015 discusses/plots trends in radiance measurements from the AERI. In discussing radiance trends, they are in effect discussing T trends. Again, the +T trend from +CO2 component at both sites is shown in the positive +residual radiance trends in Fig. 2 b,e.
Also I might add the obvious, the top post cartoon width broadening in part comes from F2015 (and all scholarly papers) which assume some accomplishment in the reader when that accomplishment doesnt exist. Here Kristian demonstrates a need to accomplish some more work in understanding decadal trends in radiance residuals are trends in decadal T through deeper Planck, S-B study.
Ball4 says, March 30, 2017 at 7:05 AM:
Exactly. They’re looking at radiance measurements in a narrow band of the full spectrum only, in clear-sky conditions only. No other energy inputs or outputs. And so cannot say ANYTHING about temperature causality at the local site, much less about the global state. Which you know perfectly well, troll. But of course, at this point you have already long since painted yourself into a corner and are now spending all your time and effort on this subthread trying to twaddle your way out, blathering on and on about completely extraneous stuff, as if it mattered …
No, they’re not. In discussing radiance trends, they’re discussing radiance trends. And that’s it. T goes down and CO2 radiance up. No apparent causal connection. Likewise, the CO2 radiance has apparently gone up, not because of +T, but because of +CO2_atm. As you yourself have pointed out.
THAT’S what Feldman et al. have shown. They haven’t shown ANYTHING about temperature and causality.
No, it isn’t. That’s just YOU wanting to see T in trends of something else. But you don’t. T isn’t there. Not as an effect. If ANYTHING, just as a cause. FYI, a change in DWLWIR cannot by itself cause a change in T. Only if UWLWIR stays unchanged during the change in DWLWIR. A change in net LW (DW minus UW) is what CAN cause a change in T. I say “can”, because even this depends fully on what happens to the OTHER surface inputs and outputs of energy.
LOL! Our little house troll hasn’t got too much left in his little troll basket, has he?
Kristian, being even more unprofessional than your avg. screech machine comment (Norman term) does not help your credibility. At. All.
“they’re discussing radiance trends.”
Yes. Which as I wrote are in effect decadal effects on T trends, with residuals at the CO2 wavenumber of interest. The authors have good reason that their target readership will already know this and do not use up precious space to point it out to the unaccomplished reader in this field such as yourself since you demonstrate you are unaware.
The F2015 decadal measured annually avg.d spectral radiance residual trends shown (Fig. 2 b,e) & explained differ from the respective +CO2 (from 370ppm) +T trends by only two well measured positive constants at the wavenumber of interest (CO2 fixed at 370ppm). This long known tested science is explained in beginning atm. radiation text books for which I can give a cite (page number even) if/when you show you can absorb the material.
The thermometer measured T is from ALL wavelengths, all directions. F2015 shows & explains to accomplished readers in the field the magnitude of decade long +CO2 +T trends isolated from the decade long total environmental thermometer +/- T trend.
And round and round we go …
Troll, you have nothing. You’re just waffling on to make it seem you have a coherent argument. You don’t.
The claim was: +CO2_atm => +T. T being the actual temperature as observed at the site. It clearly doesn’t at the SGP site. And so the claim is falsified: The Feldman et al. study does NOT provide empirical evidence that +CO2_atm => +T. Because it evidently doesn’t. It’s that simple.
(The reasons why don’t matter. The claim specifically didn’t include any caveats.)
There’s nothing more to say. And I will keep pointing this simple fact out to you, troll. No matter how many repetitive comments like this one making irrelevant points you end up posting xcEFHWRH…
Ball4 says, March 31, 2017 at 3:03 PM:
However, the claim wasn’t about the “magnitude of decade long +CO2 +T trends isolated from the decade long total environmental thermometer +/- trend.” It was specifically about the “environmental thermometer +/- trend.” Because THAT’S what the argument is about, troll. Who cares what happens to the CO2 radiance, if what happens to the CO2 radiance cannot raise the “environmental thermometer trend”?
THAT’S what the argument is about, troll. You’re simply engaging in the wrong discussion.
You have nothing. You’re simply waffling on to make it seem you have a coherent argument. You don’t. You’re not even in the same playing field. We’re talking about different things.
The claim was: +CO2_atm => +T. T being the actual temperature as observed at the site, your “environmental thermometer +/- trend”. It clearly doesn’t at the SGP station. And so the claim is falsified: The Feldman et al. study does NOT provide empirical evidence that +CO2_atm => +T. Because it evidently doesn’t. It’s that simple.
(The reasons why don’t matter. The claim specifically didn’t include any caveats.)
There’s really nothing more to say. And I will keep pointing this simple fact out to you, troll. No matter how many repetitive comments like this one making irrelevant points you end up posting.
Kristian 4:29am writes the reasons why do not matter. I suppose that would be true for those that demonstrate they can not understand the reasons given in F2015, its cites and basic atm. radiative energy transfer.
Ball4 says, April 1, 2017 at 9:44 AM:
Discussing “basic atm. radiative energy transfer” is obviously not the same as “empirical evidence” of +CO2_atm => +T. You do not seem to understand this. Or, rather, you’re simply unwilling to admit it.
The Felman et al. study unequivocally shows that the claim +CO2_atm => +T is not a valid one to make. And that it certainly isn’t empirically verified. In fact, it’s empirically falsified at the SGP site, where CO2_atm went UP and T went DOWN over the same period.
You seem to have a problem understanding this, troll. Or, rather, you’re simply unwilling to admit it.
take a look at this paper, re: co2 vs water vapor
http://www-atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/people/mem/co2-main-ct-knob-lacis-sci10.pdf
Are you kidding me?
Nope, not in the least. Why do you ask?
Good article dr spencer. You have your argument yet concider the counter arguments than hold the middle ground yet tilt it toward your interpretation of the data. Keep up the good work. CLIMATE SCIENCE IS FAR FROM SETTLED.
I work for a grain export company on the willamette river in portland or. And yes it has been a record year for wheat, soy and corn we export all three.
This is actually a luke warmer site your readers may find something of interest in.
http://rockyredneck.simplesite.com/432812795
The caricature says it all, I like it.
For these types of nuanced discussions I think those that want to shut all power facilities that use carbon-based fuels, nuclear fuel, or falling water, should show with what these should be replaced.
Currently, wind and solar are the main candidates.
So, calculate how many of each are needed, and where do they go?
What and where are the materials for building these power producers, and what processes are needed to get them made, installed, and connected to the grid or users?
I can ask more questions, but wont. The idea is simple enough.
I also like to provide a link to an electric grid balance chart. It shows how different sources of electricity have to ramp up and down as other sources go down or up.
The chart linked to gives information for a week at a time and is updated in 5 minute intervals. The green line at the bottom is for wind. The brown line is for mostly small thermal producers, such as wood and paper mills and landfills. Hydro is the base, but other places it would be gas and coal.
BPA is the Bonneville Power Administration, and is an exporter of electricity to places, such as California. This is a long way, done via the California Oregon Intertie (COI), identified as Link: Path 66.
Now, here is the link to the BPA chart: BPA Balancing Authority
[Local air pressure has been going up today (Sat.) and is now 1018.4 mb {28.19 in}. Wind earlier in the week gusted to 26 mph, and is now at 3 mph. Nice beautiful blue sky]
Cheers all, John
“Moody’s: Falling wind energy costs threaten Midwestern coal plants,” UtilityDive 3/23/17
http://tinyurl.com/n6vucsd
Do you have a random response generator?
Whatever it is you posted, has nothing to do with my comment.
Carry on.
All those “pretty” windmills littering up the Gorge and that’s all they get from them…sad, what a waste.
Every discussion of climate change brings up the issue of glacier melt-backs and lessening polar ice coverage.
Why would any thinking person expect stable ice extents? The worlds’ ice has been melting more or less steadily for at least 12,500 years. I am certain it is likely to continue to do so.
The only question should be, are we speeding the process to any significant degree.
I think it will continue to melt, in spite of us, until we slide into the next glaciation (ice age).
Rick Kargaard says:
“The worlds ice has been melting more or less steadily for at least 12,500 years.”
What data show that?
Are you suggestion that the Puget Lobe of the Fraser Glaciation is still there?
I hate to have to drive over the Cascades to have a look, but I think Sunday is free.
The comment was about “the world’s ice,” not one little glacier.
After years of debate, I wish we would just return to the days when we called pollution-pollution. Since people seem to be losing interest in Climate Change/Global Warming, how about we return the talk to keeping the earth clean for ourselves and descendants? Everyone wants clean water and clean air to breath. Let’s all do what’s best for the Earth and ourselves.
What is your definition of “pollution?”
One of the definitions of “pollute” is “to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polluting
This would include manmade CO2.
Also, in Mass. v EPA 2007, the US Supreme Court ruled CO2 is pollutio under the definitions in the Clean Air Act and its amendments.
Well stop breathing then David. Come do your bit
Breathing is carbon neutral, Einstein.
Einstein also said “Do not use my name in vain to support silly arguments.”
Maybe that was Groucho Marx, or Harpo, or was it Karl?
Silly, anyhow.
Einstein also said “If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z. Work is x, play is y and z is keeping your mouth shut.”
Most likely breathing of 7+ billions people can by no means be “carbon neutral”.
Oh goodie, a vast opportunity for introducing notions that bedazzle the mind with complexity.
Now, does any other life form on planet Earth exhale CO2?
Ermm, ahh, hmmmm…. Yes, I do believe there are things called animals that exhale CO2.
Sums, sums. So, how many animals were there exhaling oxygen, say, a few hundred years ago, and how many are there now?
Gosh, we’ll need an inventory.
And humans have been hacking away at forests, and food animals have been trampling foliage to death and gobbling up CO2-sucking flora. So that adds a bit more CO2 because sinks are fewer.
But CO2 is plant food! And there is satellite evidence of the greening of the planet. So I need to put that part down in the minus CO2 column. Damn, my pen broke. Should have been using a pencil anyway…
Bugger. I had some smart-Alec, one-sentence snark to toss off, smack the opposition and feel good about my contribution to the betterment of humanity.. sorry, the whole animal kingdom… sorry, Gaia… no, actually it was just to inhabit the warm cocoon of smugness. I… Yes. Yes, I think I have it there.
But then I had to start thinking, didn’t I? What a wretched thing curiosity is. Just kills the snappy sarcasm right off. Life sucks.
‘time is for ocean to turn over’ uh that is long-time temp equilibration. The transient response of Temp and Co2 will be much shorter. This is the land and upper 100 m of ocean surface response
The response of CO2 to land and upper ocean warming ought to be short, it clearly is for El Nino, which is the response that you are artificially supressing with your filter.
Humans (currently exhaling 3 billion tonnes CO2 per year) don’t add much to the atmospheric total being part of the carbon cycle loop, as we have been for 200,000 years. Whereas current fossil fuel waste (currently emitting 40 billion tons per year) are mostly a one-way source. Some greening of the planet and increased ocean uptake has been taking up half of the annul fossil fuel emissions. (On the other hand, de-forestation has offset some of the greening).
“Some greening of the planet and increased ocean uptake has been taking up half of the annul fossil fuel emissions.”
No. The only thing you can say with certainty is that the observed rise is about half the cumulative sum total of anthropogenic inputs. But, that is not enough information to conclude that the rise is due to anthropogenic inputs. It all depends on the bandwidth of the sinks. If they are high bandwidth, they will swallow up virtually all of the anthropogenic input, and the remainder must be natural.
In fact, observations show that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is affinely similar to temperature anomaly. Since it is a rate of change relationship, the arrow of causality points to temperature driving CO2, and not the reverse. Ergo, the bandwidth is relatively high, and human inputs are swallowed up in continuous, dynamic fashion, just as natural inputs are. Their impact cannot be greater than their proportion, and their proportion is small.
Bart says:
“No. The only thing you can say with certainty is that the observed rise is about half the cumulative sum total of anthropogenic inputs. But, that is not enough information to conclude that the rise is due to anthropogenic inputs.”
The proof comes from trends in carbon isotopes in the atmosphere:
“How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?” RealClimate, December 22nd, 2004.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
If they are high bandwidth, they will swallow up virtually all of the anthropogenic input, and the remainder must be natural.
I find this extremely difficult to believe.
Can you describe a mechanism in nature that recognizes anthropogenically emitted CO2 and soaks that up to the exclusion of non-anthro emitted CO2?
Without that mechanism, your argument doesn’t work.
the arrow of causality points to temperature driving CO2
That is manifestly not so. You may be getting your notion from a derivative graphing of CO2 – temperature.
Or, are you able to explain the slightly increasing rise in CO2 from 1998 while global temperatures slowed down?
David Appell @ March 26, 2017 at 3:51 PM
Carbon isotope ratios are not proof. That is a narrative. A storyline that is consistent with selected evidence, but not uniquely so.
barry @ March 26, 2017 at 4:42 PM
“Or, are you able to explain the slightly increasing rise in CO2 from 1998 while global temperatures slowed down?”
Yes. The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 also slowed down, in lockstep with the temperature anomaly. That is what happens when, as I stated, “the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is affinely similar to temperature anomaly”. At the time, emissions were still accelerating. I would show you a graph if the site filter allowed it. It is very plain and obvious what is happening.
“That is manifestly not so.”
Yes it is. The rate-of-change of CO2 to temperature relationship is very plain and obvious.
“Can you describe a mechanism in nature that recognizes anthropogenically emitted CO2 and soaks that up to the exclusion of non-anthro emitted CO2?”
No, I cannot. But, I never tried, and would not try, to do so. The shoe is on the other foot. It is those who claim attribution to human emissions who demand that anthropogenically generated CO2 must be treated differently than natural CO2. Natural emissions are upwards of 30:1 compared to anthropogenic emissions, so it takes very little variability in natural emissions to swamp anthropogenic ones.
barry @ March 26, 2017 at 4:42 PM
I will attempt to post this separately, as the site filter may not allow the link. I provided a toy model describing my hypothesis for what is going on here:
http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/#comment-10993
And here, if the site filter will allow it, is a plot of the rate of change of CO2 compared to temperature anomaly. The agreement is quite remarkable, given the measurement issues. A very strong signal to noise ratio.
https://tinyurl.com/muo5shh
Ah yes, as I thought, the derivative graph. It isn’t showing what you think it is. I think this is a better way to do it at WFT…
http://tinyurl.com/klsfz9x
Firstly, CO2 responds to el Nino events. So short-term matches do occur and temperature leads those events. But the trend of the derivative gives you the change in CO2 trend rate not the trend.
The linear trend of the derivative CO2 is 0.007 ppm per year.
The actual trend is 1.76 ppm/yr since 1979 and increasing. You can see the slight acceleration in the following graph – click on the data link below the graph to get the linear trend.
http://tinyurl.com/mb6ldv7
Now, has atmospheric CO2 accumulation actually slowed since 1998? I’ll pick the same number of years prior to 1998 as we have after and only use full years to avoid contaminating the result with a misaligned phase (the annual CO2 cycle).
http://tinyurl.com/k2xbqkw
You can see by eye that the trend of CO2 post 1998 is higher than the trend for the same number of years prior.
The trend rates for CO2 are:
1979 – 1998: 1.47 ppm/year
1998 – 2017: 2.07 ppm/year
If CO2 followed temperature over the long-term the rate should have slowed from 1998.
It hasn’t. And that is very clear. Temps are not the cause of the long-term increase of CO2.
The shoe is on the other foot. It is those who claim attribution to human emissions who demand that anthropogenically generated CO2 must be treated differently than natural CO2.
I don’t know what you’re talking about here.
Your hypothesis relies on a mechanism that selects only anthro CO2 to the exclusion of of non-anthro. I’ll quote you in case you meant to say something else.
“If they are high bandwidth, they will swallow up virtually all of the anthropogenic input, and the remainder must be natural.”
How would “high bandwidth” sinks know to selectively sequester anthro CO2? Why not any CO2, anthro and non-anthro?
Without a physical mechanism to do this, your hypothesis doesn’t work.
What you are proposing is that high frequency sinks manage to selectively sequester anthro CO2, while at the same time an ongoing (as in every year) natural source pumps out almost exactly half of the anthro emissions, and does not get sequestered by these highly selective sinks.
I don’t see how this works without the magic sink.
It is no one’s job but your own to identify such a mechanism.
Furthermore, the accelerated rate of atmospheric CO2 matches that of
anthro emissions. So now we’re talking about a natural source that has somehow increased in line with the anthro emissions rate (minus sinks) over the last 200 years. The natural source hypothesis is getting more magical with each line of evidence it encounters.
And we haven’t even talked about isotopic ratios, or the fact that the ocean is also gaining CO2 – nearly enough to account for the fraction not remaining in the atmosphere each year from anthro sources (about half – there may be some sequestration from greening).
The most parsimonious explanation for the lines of evidence is that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the atmospheric increase since the industrial revolution. An explanation centred on natural sources requires some mighty convolutions and a mechanism that is not known to exist. Occam would not approve.
The trend in the rate of change of CO2 matches the trend in temperature, when the scaling is made to match the variation. There is also a trend in the rate of emissions. There is little to no room to add it in. Ergo, emissions cannot be the main driver.
https://tinyurl.com/mmlp2lu
“If CO2 followed temperature over the long-term the rate should have slowed from 1998.”
No, wrong. It is an integral relationship. The rate of change matches temperature. Over the very long term, the relationship must change, but for the modern era since at least 1958, the integral relationship holds:
https://tinyurl.com/kwmmsvk
“Your hypothesis relies on a mechanism that selects only anthro CO2 to the exclusion of of non-anthro.”
No, quite the opposite. It relies explicitly on a mechanism that treats them equally.
“What you are proposing is that high frequency sinks…”
Who says they are high frequency? Ocean uptake to depth is very low frequency, with a turnover interval in the hundreds, if not thousands of years.
“It is no ones job but your own to identify such a mechanism.”
I gave you a plausible toy model at the link above. But, it is not necessary to identify the mechanism to make conclusions on what the data are clearly showing. You do not have to know how a diesel locomotive works to know you better get off the tracks when it is bearing down on you.
“The most parsimonious explanation for the lines of evidence is that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the atmospheric increase since the industrial revolution.”
Quite the contrary. It violates everything we know about system responses. A linear or linearizable system takes out the inputs in proportion to their share. Human inputs are on the order of 3% or less of total inputs. Ergo, their share of the output cannot be greater than 3%.
William of Occam would be shaking his head at the current efforts to claim that the slowdown in the rate of change observed coincident with the slowdown in temperature rise is due to sink expansion. It isn’t. The sinks are behaving precisely the way they have all along. Our inputs simply are not in the driver’s seat.
Look, this is a slam dunk. There is no doubt about it. The proof is right before your eyes.
“And we havent even talked about isotopic ratios…”
There are other low C13 sources than human emissions, and the error bars are large. This is a rationalization argument, not a scientific one.
“…or the fact that the ocean is also gaining CO2…”
That would be the case no matter the source. The atmosphere and the surface oceans strive to equilibrate their CO2 content via Henry’s law. If the atmospheric content is going up, it is a tautology that surface ocean content is also increasing.
The rate of atmospheric CO2 rise increased post-1998, while global temperatures slowed. A straightforward trend analysis shows that very clearly. You’ve ignored it.
Human inputs are on the order of 3% or less of total inputs.
Per annum. again, you fail to factor the long-term (cumulative) effect. Your entire hypothesis ignores long-term effects.
Ergo, their share of the output cannot be greater than 3%.
Per annum. Cumulatively, the addition is 40% of pre-industrial total.
How I have I misunderstood this sentence from you?
If they [sinks] are high bandwidth, they will swallow up virtually all of the anthropogenic input, and the remainder must be natural.
Haven’t you asserted that “high bandwidth” sinks soak up only anthro CO2 and leave the rest untouched? Perhaps you could clarify how this sentence does not mean what it seems to.
If the atmospheric content is going up, it is a tautology that surface ocean content is also increasing.
On the contrary. During transition to interglacial the oceans warm and release CO2 to the atmosphere/become less soluble to CO2. Colder sea water is more soluble to CO2.
We are in a situation where the upper oceans are warming and more CO2 is accumulating therein. (Which tells us the oceans cannot be the source, and there is a significant source that is causing the oceans to gain CO2 while becoming less soluble to it – pressure effect)
You didn’t respond to this:
There must be a natural source that is emitting CO2 at an increasing rate with anthhro CO2 (minus sinks).
You are unable to identify such a source, or alternatively explain why sinks are changing in virtual lockstep with anthro CO2.
I cannot tell if your math is sound, but your hypothesis is so far unphysical.
Human activity emits CO2, year on year, about half that which remains in the atmosphere year on year. The rate of atmospheric increase has been in virtual lockstep with anthro emissions increase (- sinks), as have the upper oceans. How can you possibly explain that using a natural source/sink? The coincidence is magical.
I am going to have to post my response in pieces, to find out what the site filter is objecting to.
“The rate of atmospheric CO2 rise increased post-1998, while global temperatures slowed. A straightforward trend analysis shows that very clearly.”
Because temperatures were higher post-1998 than they were before. Why can you not understand this? The rate of change is affinely similar to temperature. You can see it right here:
https://tinyurl.com/mmlp2lu
This is a very weird mental block you have set up for yourself.
“Per annum. Cumulatively, the addition is 40% of pre-industrial total.”
And, cumulatively, natural additions are 30X or more than that, 1200% of the purported pre-industrial total.
By your logic, if I pee in a creek-fed pond for 100 years, the pond should have risen by as much as I peed into it over all those years.
It doesn’t work like that in a dynamic system. There is a balance that is created by inflows and outflows. The amount you can affect it with additional inflow is proportional to your additional inflow divided by total inflow.
In 100 years, barring any other changes to the system, the pond will be at virtually the same level it was when I started relieving myself. That is because I cannot even hope to match the volume of inflow from the creek, even if I drink suds all day long.
“How I have I misunderstood this sentence from you?”
I thought you were claiming that the sinks had only a transient impact, that there was in-effect a high pass response to natural variation. Some have claimed that. It is really the only way to counter the CO2 rate of change to temperature relationship. But, that hypothesis is utterly demolished by the fact that the trend in CO2 rate of change matches the temperature trend for the past 59 years. The odds of that being happenstance are infinitesimal.
In any case, your entire paragraph was off base. My model does not treat sink activity due to anthropogenic and natural CO2 any differently. The assumption of the models that attribute the rise to humans is that nature is in steady state, and only human additions have any impact. That assumption implicitly treats natural and anthropogenic inputs on a different level.
“During transition to interglacial the oceans warm and release CO2 to the atmosphere/become less soluble to CO2.”
Does not change the fact that atmospheric content is proportional to that of the surface oceans, and they will move in the same general direction regardless of the source of the rise. The immediate outgassing due to temperature change is a proportional effect. That is obviously not the cause of the CO2 rate of change to temperature relationship. It is a wrong-order differential relationship.
The CO2 rate of change to temperature relationship is due to long term equilibration of the oceans to a temperature change. Basically, you have continual upwelling of CO2 laden waters in the tropics, and downwelling of CO2 laden waters near the poles. If there is an imbalance between those two, if there is less CO2 downwelling than there is upwelling, then it must accumulate within the surface waters, and thereby to the atmosphere.
The upwelling concentration was set in motion centuries ago, and is not immediately impacted by temperature change. But, the downwelling concentration is, and this is what creates the imbalance that begets the CO2 rate of change to temperature relationship.
“You didnt respond to this:”
I most certainly did. I referred you to my toy model at the link I provided. In addition, since you seem to have no inclination to view that, I have provided the explanation immediately preceding in the above paragraphs.
And, again, you do not have to know how a diesel locomotive works to know you better get off the tracks when it is bearing down on you. The empirical observation is that the rate of change of CO2 is tracking temperature anomaly. Period. Full stop.
You do not need to know human activity to estimate CO2 concentration in any given year. Just a starting point, and the temperature profile since. Human activity is not needed. It is superfluous. It is negligible.
“Human activity emits CO2, year on year, about half that which remains in the atmosphere year on year.”
That is unphysical. If half of human inputs were remaining in the atmosphere, then half of natural inputs would have to remain as well, and they are more than 30X larger.
“The rate of atmospheric increase has been in virtual lockstep with anthro emissions increase (- sinks), as have the upper oceans.”
Not so much. Both have been going up, but that is a 50/50 coin toss. If you want to see what “lock step” is, this is lock step:
https://tinyurl.com/mmlp2lu
“How can you possibly explain that using a natural source/sink?”
Review the above discussion, and the toy model to which I referred you. It is very easy.
“The coincidence is magical.”
Not nearly so magical as this coincidence:
https://tinyurl.com/mmlp2lu
Like I said, this is a slam dunk. The fact that so few in the climate community have recognized it is testimony to their general mediocrity. If temperatures cool in the coming years, and it is quite likely they will, the CO2 rate of change will follow, and the discrepancy between emissions and concentration will become too great to deny it any longer. Stay tuned, and watch what happens.
Neither of us agree on what the derivative graph is showing. For me it’s tracking the change in trend rate on a monthly basis, showing correlation with short-term temperature variation. It does not give the long-term trend. If I run a linear regression on derivative CO2 I get about 0.002ppm/yr. That’s different from the actual trend by a few orders of magnitude.
You think that the derivative shows the long-term trend.
So can you tell me, without doing a linear regression, only by using the derivative function, what the long-term trend of CO2 is from 1979 to 2016 in ppm per year?
Meanwhile, I’ll do a straightforward linear trend comparison. We’re looking at mean trend rates, not rate of change in trends. If you please.
Using UAH6.0 data, there is no year post1998 that is warmer than 1998 except for 2016, which I will excise from the trend. I will start the trend from 1998 (to Dec 2015) in order to give the previous strong el Nino, and it’s concurrent transient spike in CO2, greater weight in the trend analysis (it should result in the lowest trend possible around that period). I’ll give as much rope as possible to your theory. The prior trend will end Dec 1998, in order to make the previous trend in CO2 higher, for the same reason. I don’t want to be accused of cherry-picking to get favoured results.
I will match the period for temperature trends to the period for CO2 trends. If you don’t like my choices, you are welcome to offer different start/end dates, but for the purposes of a straight trend analysis, not a derivative (which we don’t agree on).
UAH6.0 global temperature and trends pre and post 1998
You could shift the dates slightly and get slightly different trends, but the result would be the same – the temp trend pre-1998 was higher than post-1998.
We should then expect that the linear trend of CO2 should likewise slow down post-1998. Not the rate of change, just the actual trend rate. I don’t know why you have a problem with looking at it this way. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
CO2 trends over the same periods
It is clear by eye that the trend in CO2 accumulation post 1998 is higher than the trend previous to 1998. Same period length, and I’ve given the best chance to make the pre ’98 trend high (by ending with the CO2 spike of 1998), and the post 1998 trend low (by starting with the ’98 CO2 spike).
From 1998 to Dec 2015 global temperatures slowed from their previous trend. No year post 1998 in that series was warmer than 1998. The temp trend was, in fact, negative (not statistically-significant, of course).
Setting aside our differences re the derivative, can you not see that CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere at a higher rate post 1998 than prior to it?
If we can agree on that, can you not see that CO2 did not match the long-term evolution of global temps?
(Don’t bother referring to the derivative graph again – just please respond to this analysis)
Review the above discussion, and the toy model to which I referred you. It is very easy.
If you’re referring to the equations, my math is not good enough to grok it. Nor can I assess the veracity of your assumptions therein.
That is unphysical. If half of human inputs were remaining in the atmosphere, then half of natural inputs would have to remain as well, and they are more than 30X larger.
Not if natural sinks and sources are in equilibrium.
Of course, sinks don’t distinguish between anthro and natural CO2. So it’s not actually half anthro CO2 remaining, just the equivalent amount of CO2 (anthro and natural).
I’ve seen elsewhere that you’ve stated the notion of equilibrium is a furfy. Of course, there are minute changes in the last 8,000 years or so, but the atmospheric content has been pretty steady until after the industrial revolution. Certainly no excursions in that time remotely like that of the last 200 years.
Jaworski’s is a maverick view with no expertise in what he crticizes. Beck’s work is just shoddy, and belied by the CO2 record since 1958. Suddenly the atmospheric fluxes became regular just at the moment Revelle started measuring at Mauna Loa? Pfft.
Just to get that nonsense out the way.
Revelle – Keeling, rather.
Bart,
Do agree that atm Co2 is higher than its been in at least 400 ky, per ice cores?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/vostok_co2_ch4_from_bubbles.jpg
If so then, by your logic, temp must be similarly highest in 400ky. Agree?
Bart,
From ice core record we know that CO2 response to temp is ~ 10 ppm per degree.
LIA to MWP change is only 8 ppm, so doesnt fit your picture.
https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
“It does not give the long-term trend.”
It does. The long term trend in the rate of change matches the trend in temperature anomaly.
“If I run a linear regression on derivative CO2 I get about 0.002ppm/yr.”
Wrong units. The units of the derivative of CO2 are ppmv per unit-of-time. IIRC, the unit of time is months at the site in question (which I cannot name because the weird site filter doesn’t like it), so that would be ppmv/month. Computing a trend on the derivative of CO2 then would have to give you units of ppmv/unit-of-time-squared.
“So can you tell me, without doing a linear regression, only by using the derivative function, what the long-term trend of CO2 is from 1979 to 2016 in ppm per year?”
It seems you are perhaps not versed in calculus. The inverse of the derivative function is the integral. When you integrate the derivative, you get the original function plus a constant offset equal to the initial value.
I integrated the relationship for you here:
https://tinyurl.com/kwmmsvk
As you can see, the integrated temperature matches the CO2 profile very well.
“If we can agree on that, can you not see that CO2 did not match the long-term evolution of global temps?”
You are trying to match proportionately. That is not the model. The model is that the rate of change matches. You have to integrate the rate of change to get the absolute concentration, as I show you at the link I just included above.
I don’t think we can make further headway here. It seems you are not familiar with derivatives and what they mean.
“Not if natural sinks and sources are in equilibrium.”
Equilibrium does not come about by magic. Equilibrium is established by balancing inputs and outputs in a dynamic fashion. Just as the equilibrium of a lake level is set by the amount of water flowing in, and flowing out, with the pressure of the water producing the outflow acting as a governor on the lake level.
You cannot divorce those equilibrium dynamics from the process. To do so is unphysical. That is the elementary mistake those who attribute the rise to burning of fossil fuels have made. And, for a stable equilibrium, a steady incremental perturbation cannot budge the mean equilibrium point by a greater proportion than its ratio to the total forcing.
“If youre referring to the equations, my math is not good enough to grok it.”
Then, you are indeed a stranger in a strange land 🙂 But, I put its essential workings into words above:
“The CO2 rate of change to temperature relationship is due to long term equilibration of the oceans to a temperature change. Basically, you have continual upwelling of CO2 laden waters in the tropics, and downwelling of CO2 laden waters near the poles. If there is an imbalance between those two, if there is less CO2 being transported via downwelling than there is upwelling, then it must accumulate within the surface waters, and thereby to the atmosphere.
The upwelling concentration was set in motion centuries ago, and is not immediately impacted by temperature change. But, the downwelling concentration is, and this is what creates the imbalance that begets the CO2 rate of change to temperature relationship.”
Nate @ March 28, 2017 at 1:39 PM
“Do agree that atm Co2 is higher than its been in at least 400 ky, per ice cores? “
No, I do not. There is something fundamentally very suspicious about the ice core estimates.
In systems theory, we divide responses into categories of high bandwidth, and low bandwidth. These descriptors are both relative to a given time interval, but basically, a low bandwidth system responds slowly to stimuli, and tends to wander widely in response to random forcing. A high bandwidth system responds quickly to stimuli, and tends to maintain a tight tolerance about an equilibrium point.
The meme that CO2 levels were extraordinarily stable for centuries, and then suddenly took off in response to perturbative forcing from fossil fuel combustion, then has a fundamental contradiction embedded within it. For it to remain so steady for so long, the equilibrium process must be high bandwidth. But, for it to be so sensitive to our minor forcing, it has to be very low bandwidth. It cannot be both at once, it must be either/or, so there is a contradiction.
There are no independent corroborations of the ice core estimates available. I consider them unvalidated, and expect that eventually, we will find that they are unreliable.
Ah, the slap and run technique…
Now the old ‘data is unreliable’ meme…
I think this thread has gone on long enough, and I am not going to actively follow it henceforth. Failure to acknowledge future inputs should not be construed as acquiescence.
The whole fracas is a scientific fiasco of the first order, brought about by jumping to conclusions based on half-baked theories. AGW fails on each and every point:
A) We are not the primary driver of CO2 concentration.
B) There is no evidence that rising CO2 concentration has resulted in any deviation from natural, cyclic behavior of the climate – indeed, given point A, it is quite impossible for CO2 to have a significant impact on temperatures in the present climate state, as this would produce unstabilizable positive feedback, and we would have reached a saturation point eons ago.
C) Reduction of global temperature gradients would result in less extreme weather, not more.
D) Warmth is good for life on this planet, cold is bad.
E) CO2 is an essential nutrient for life on this planet. It has been decreasing steadily for eons, and has been approaching plant starvation levels in the relatively recent past. If anything, we need more of it, not less.
F) Wind and solar power will never, ever satisfy more than a small fraction of our energy needs, and they are environmentally horrendous.
In time, all of this will be realized, once the hysteria has passed, but not before much damage will have occurred. It is very sad. We are really not so different from our superstitious forebears, dancing in grass skirts and imploring the gods for rain. The climate always changes. Human nature, on the other hand, stays the same.
The meme that CO2 levels were extraordinarily stable for centuries
With a few strokes of a keyboard you’ve reduced decades of field research and ice core sampling (as well as records from other proxies that match) to a ‘meme’. Because you’re suspicious.
You’re right, this is becoming tedious.
From ice core record we know that CO2 response to temp is ~ 10 ppm per degree.
And yet you’re suspicious of ice core records. So much for consistency.
10 ppm per degree ..that wasmy comment. Point being this is nowhere near 120 ppm weve experienced last century
You are trying to match proportionately. That is not the model.
I’m afraid it is the model. It just doesn’t give you the answer you want. That’s why you have to push the data around with scaling and whatnot to get a fit.
If you were honestly comparing changes in trend rates, you would apply derivative function to temperature also. But you don’t. You’re comparing trend rate change of CO2 to bare temperature anomalies. As we know short-term temperature variation impacts CO2, it’s not surprising to see correlation. But you’re not seeing a correlation of CO2 trend rate changes with temperature trend rate changes. Your model derives CO2 ppm changes of less than 2ppm for the period, whereas we know the actual change is in the tens of ppm.
“With a few strokes of a keyboard youve reduced decades of field research and ice core sampling (as well as records from other proxies that match) to a meme”
Decades of research have gone into other defunct theories as well. I’m telling you it doesn’t add up on first principles, and you are coming back with time spent working on it. That is ignoratio elenchi.
“Im afraid it is the model. It just doesnt give you the answer you want.”
No, it just doesn’t match the data. I did not dream up the relationship between the rate of change of CO2 and temperature. It is what the data show.
This is how science works. You make an observation, and then you find an explanation for it. You do not sweep it under the rug and carry on with whatever hare-brained delusion you first came up with.
“If you were honestly comparing changes in trend rates, you would apply derivative function to temperature also.”
No, that would be forcing a subjective opinion on the data. One does not alter the data to fit one’s hypothesis, one alters one’s hypothesis to fit the data. That is how the scientific method proceeds. When you find people doing the former, you know you are seeing pseudo-science in action.
“But youre not seeing a correlation of CO2 trend rate changes with temperature trend rate changes.”
Yes, I am. It is right here:
https://tinyurl.com/kwmmsvk
I can’t discuss this with you because you do not understand the math. But, I assure you, everything I have done here is very well established mathematics.
Heigh-ho. Time will tell. Keep watching and see what happens.
I see I mistook Nate’s comment for yours, Bart. I withdraw that comment then.
Bart, as I understand it, the first derivative of CO2 effectively removes the long-term trend of CO2.
Agreed?
A linear trend of the first derivative CO2 from 1979 yields a trend of 0.002ppm/yr. Essentially nothing, or if it is significant in some way, then that trend is several orders of magnitude lower than the actual CO2 trend from 1979. It would be tempting to say that this is the overall change in trend rate over the period, but I’d guess that the result is too dependent on end-points behaviour.
With a bit of scaling one can get a correlation. Why would we not be suspicious that we need to fudge the analysis in this way?
Here’s a linear trend of the first difference for CO2 and temps from 1996.
http://tinyurl.com/n5oy86c
This is the long-term trend rate change rather than immediate. There’s no match in sign or magnitude. If the problem is with the time-period chosen, then that doesn’t augur well for the hypothesis that temps lead CO2 long-term in the modern era. This relationship should work at any scale longer than a couple of ENSO periods.
I just don’t think your analysis captures the long-term effects accurately, only the short-term, with which I agree.
Bart 2:35pm:
A)we are the new kid in town for the last century or two hell bent on manufacturing CO2 opacity for the atm. You know, in the last second on the earth history time clock.
B)Yes, there is “we” evidence deviating climate; from lab test and in the wild observations.
C),D),E),F) nothing to do with AGW fails on each and every point.
“Bart, as I understand it, the first derivative of CO2 effectively removes the long-term trend of CO2.”
No, it just transforms it into a constant. You get the trend back when you integrate. If you affinely fit the temperature to the CO2 derivative, then when you integrate, you get a very good representation of CO2.
“A linear trend of the first derivative CO2 from 1979 yields a trend of 0.002ppm/yr.”
No. The derivative already has units of ppmv/unit-of-time. The derivative is the instantaneous slope of the line. What the tool is actually plotting is not precisely the derivative, but a numerical approximation to it, which is each point minus the one preceding, divided by the time between them. That may help you conceptualize what the derivative is. The numerical integral is the opposite of that – the running sum of values multiplied by the time step from the last value.
When you take the derivative, you are then in a rate domain. Fitting a trend line to it and finding the slope then gives you an estimate of acceleration.
“Heres a linear trend of the first difference for CO2 and temps from 1996.”
Why should they match? The empirical observation is that the rate of change of CO2 fits the temperature.
I would explain more, but the site filter does not like equations. I guess it thinks it is spam gibberish.
Bart, when you differentiate the math process loses the constant. When you integrate back you integrate a zero and get an arbitrary constant. Sure you can assign the original constant but you can’t then claim constant comes back the same. That info was lost in the differentiating process you merely reassign the constant because you knew it then claim constant is the same. This is circular reasoning. Not helpful.
When you take the derivative, you are then in a rate domain. Fitting a trend line to it and finding the slope then gives you an estimate of acceleration.
Yes, that is what I figured was the case (but the trend may be contaminated by end-point behaviour).
So when you post the WFT graph with the derivative of CO2 scaled to temperature anomalies, you are comparing CO2 trend rate changes with… not temperature trend rate changes. Just anomalies.
The derivative is the instantaneous slope of the line.
Yes, I think I understood that – what I’ve been describing consistently as short-term (near instantaneous) changes. The derivative CO2 plot shows the point by point changes in trend rate. They are tied to temperature evolution. So we’re seeing the short-term response of CO2 to temperature, not long-term.
What would we be comparing if we took your original plot:
https://tinyurl.com/muo5shh
and ran a linear trend for each of the phenomena via your processing? Like this:
http://tinyurl.com/kgx5w5y
We’re comparing the trend rate change for CO2 with a simple linear trend for temperature. Aren’t we?
CO2 acceleration matches temperature linear trend? Something doesn’t seem right here.
Because I know that the temperature trend slowed down from about 1998 to to Dec 2015. But the CO2 trend did not. It accelerated.
I’ve not been satisfied with your responses here, because it seems you want to wave that off – and it’s a pretty straightforward check on long-term (36 years) trend changes – and draw attention back to “the instantaneous slope of the line.”
I have an opinion about the correlation with temp anomalies and first-difference CO2 which is different to yours.
So I made my own analysis and want to understand why it is not sound. Here it is again.
Pre and post 1998 temperature trends – Two sequential 18-year segments compared: long-term changes.
Temperature trend is lower after 1998 than before. Much lower.
CO2 trends for the same periods
Contrary to temperature evolution, CO2 trend accelerates after 1998.
Not instantaneous, but long-term evolution of both components.
If temperatures determine CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, why do the post 1998 trends not match?
You answered that it is because temperatures are generally higher after 1998 than before.
You seem to believe that if the rate of temperature increase slows down, the rate of CO2 increase will not.
Then I wonder how it can be that CO2 is tied to long-term temperature trends. Having already agreed that there is correlation on very short time scales.
And what if temperature trends colder in the future? Would you still expect CO2 to keep rising at an accelerating rate?
Because temperature DID trend colder for the period I selected post-1998. For 18 years.
I don’t see how CO2 can be led by long-term temperature changes if for 18 years the temp trend was cooling, while the CO2 trend was even higher than the previous 18 years.
Please, take on my analysis rather than refer back to yours. Explain why my approach is not sound regarding long-term evolution of CO2/temps.
And now, a brief word from our sponsor:
From: “Skeptic arguments That Don’t Hold Water”
7. WARMING CAUSES CO2 TO RISE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
“The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2 200 times as fast! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in todays temperature causing this CO2 rise? Cmon people, think. But not to worry… CO2 is the elixir of life… lets embrace more of it!”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
(Please don’t let this distract you from a response to my previous post, Bart)
Bart,
‘The empirical observation is that the rate of change of CO2 fits the temperature.’
I’ll grant you that the derivative of Co2 matches the temperature on months to annual time scale. But beyond a couple of years no longer matches.
Bigger problem is long term changes fundamentally dont fit your picture. For example the CO2 change from 1100 AD to 1650 AD (MWP to LIA) is about 8 ppm. Lets generously assume the temp change was ~ 1 C.
https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
1850-2017 Co2 change 120 ppm, Temp change also ~ 1C.
So either the MWP to LIA was much smaller than you think or your model of CO2 follows Temp is wrong.
Bart,
The breakdown of short term vs long term fit of CO2 derivative to temp can be seen here:
http://tinyurl.com/m8ksanx
This is Barts graph from http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/the-global-warming-debate-spectrum/#comment-241349
done in a fair way with equal averaging time (12 mo) for both time series.
Ball4 @ March 29, 2017 at 6:53 AM
“…when you differentiate the math process loses the constant.”
It would help if you would read more carefully. He was talking about removing the trend. It does not remove the trend. The derivative of a trend, a.k.a. the linear portion of a first order polynomial, is a constant.
barry @ March 29, 2017 at 7:59 AM
“CO2 acceleration matches temperature linear trend? Something doesnt seem right here.”
It’s pretty darn close. These are not perfect data, Barry. They are noisy. They have systematic error in them. And, both variables are subject to other independent influences.
What we have here is what is called in the trades very high SNR, SNR being “Signal to Noise Ratio”. The linkage between the two variables is obviously significantly more powerful than the influences they do not share in common.
“Contrary to temperature evolution, CO2 trend accelerates after 1998.”
Why do you keep doing this? Why do you keep trying to shoehorn your conception of what you think should be the relationship into the data? The data show that the rate of change of CO2 matches temperature. It’s like the rate of change of voltage across a capacitor matching the current. That is the dynamic model that describes how the system unfolds.
“You seem to believe that if the rate of temperature increase slows down, the rate of CO2 increase will not.”
That is correct. That is what the rate of change relationship means. If the rate of temperature increase slows down, then the acceleration of CO2 slows down, not the rate.
“And what if temperature trends colder in the future? Would you still expect CO2 to keep rising at an accelerating rate?”
CO2 is not rising at an accelerating rate. Its acceleration leveled off to zero at the same time the temperature rate leveled off to zero at the onset of the pause, which is precisely what gives me high confidence in the model. If the temperature rate goes negative, then CO2 will decelerate. It will not reach a zero rate until the temperature matches the equilibrium temperature.
“The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record.”
Again, there is a fundamental problem with this meme, which I described above. The ice core estimates are unverified, and unverifiable.
“So, where is the 100x as fast rise in todays temperature causing this CO2 rise?”
It’s not a proportional relationship, but an integral one. It accumulates over time.
Nate @ March 29, 2017 at 9:54 AM
“But beyond a couple of years no longer matches.”
Completely and utterly wrong. It matches very well for the past 60 years:
https://tinyurl.com/mmlp2lu
“…done in a fair way with equal averaging time (12 mo) for both time series.”
No, that is not fair. Firstly, you removed the offset. That is imposing an arbitrary equilibrium point for the temperature. These are temperature anomalies relative to a chosen baseline. The baseline has no physical significance. It must be adjusted to give the best fit to the data, and that is how you find the equilibrium temperature anomaly.
Secondly, when you apply a moving average filter to the temperature, you are attenuating frequencies above the bandwidth associated with the selected length. When you apply an average to the derivative of the CO2 data, you are not attenuating those higher frequencies, because the combination of the differentiation operation with the low pass response of the averaging filter is a high pass filter with unity gain at high frequency. For an apples to apples comparison, you need to do it the way I have done it.
Bart: “No, it just transforms it into a constant. You get the trend back when you integrate. If you affinely fit the temperature to the CO2 derivative, then when you integrate, you get a very good representation of CO2.”
I did read carefully. Appeared to me you are fitting the temperature to the CO2 derivative then integrating which allows you to fix the constant of integration to whatever you want; if you fit it to a good representation of CO2 then of course your end result will be a good representation of CO2. Seems you are just advocating your fit.
How does the rate of change of CO2 matter to plants, they eat the CO2 not its rate of change? You echo others* in the fitting. What do they say? What physically matters? Is it information to plants that hey, your food is about to increase (or decrease)? Have plants then selectively developed ability to sense rates of change for upcoming food changes? So to create a pattern?
*Bacastow Nature 261 p.116-118, 1976 early paper on correlation of rate of change of CO2 and ENSO, also C. Wang 2013 Springer, W. Wang PNAS June 2013.
Bart,
Thanks for replying on this matter at length. You are trying to explain reasoning you have derived with math to someone who can’t follow the math. I do, however, have some grasp on what derivative and integrals are. So maybe we can make some headway.
Now, armed with this….
When you take the derivative, you are then in a rate domain. Fitting a trend line to it and finding the slope then gives you an estimate of acceleration.
I compare CO2 acceleration pre and post 1998. We are agreed that the temps slowed down from then until Dec 2015. Here is what I get for CO2 acceleration for the two periods.
http://tinyurl.com/k4xbrrm
CO2 trend rate was lower when temperature rose quicker, and higher when temperature rose more slowly.
The acceleration from 1998 is also greater than acceleration for the whole period.
So the acceleration change you said should happen has not happened. The reverse has occurred.
That is what the rate of change relationship means. If the rate of temperature increase slows down, then the acceleration of CO2 slows down, not the rate.
If you feel my choice of start and end dates is inappropriate, I’ve tried by omitting the 1998 spike altogether:
http://tinyurl.com/ksj57hf
Same result, except the previous acceleration is now negative instead of merely lower than the post-1998 trend rate.
The relationship you have described isn’t happening.
That is what the rate of change relationship means. If the rate of temperature increase slows down, then the acceleration of CO2 slows down, not the rate.
Your original graph does not have a derivative for temps, so let’s test first difference of temperature.
http://tinyurl.com/mfkdp6a
No acceleration for the whole period. The pre and post 1998 are virtually identical, although the post 1998 acceleration is a couple hundred thousandths of a degree slower.
If the rate of temperature increase slows down, then the acceleration of CO2 slows down, not the rate.
I think we can say there is no appreciable difference in the acceleration pre and post 1998 for temperature. But there is for CO2, and it’s not in the direction you say should be happening.
If you wish to return me to the original graph, I see that it is only showing “the instantaneous slope of the line,” not the long-term relationship.
Shoehorning:
We both agree that 1998 marks the beginning of a multi-year trend (18 years) where temperatures slowed down until Dec 2015. When you replied positively on this I split the whole period into 2 equal time periods of the longest length I could to test for differences in trend and acceleration. I was conscious of potential issues with the precise choice of endpoints, so I adjusted the periods slightly to see if there was any difference to the general results. I actually tried more than I showed, but didn’t bother to post that work because there was no difference to the general result.
I can’t see anything wrong with applying a new test to your hpyothesis, based on our agreement of an inflexion point from 1998. I invited you to change the start and end dates for yourself, in case you felt they were not appropriate. I linked the results so that you could do so with a few seconds work.
I do try to be fair-minded. I’m not sure why my testing of your hypothesis is invalid. It’s based mostly on what you’ve said. For someone reason you seem to disapprove of comparing two longish segments of data, even though we’ve agreed on 1998 (or nearabouts) being an inflexion point. I don’t know why that is.
Ball4 @ March 29, 2017 at 4:45 PM
“Appeared to me you are fitting the temperature to the CO2 derivative then integrating which allows you to fix the constant of integration to whatever you want.”
The constant of integration is always the initial value. It is not arbitrary.
But, anticipating that you may have a different argument in mind, selecting the temperature offset does allow me to arbitrarily set the 1st order polynomial behavior of the integration, and one could argue on that basis that I am getting long term behavior from an arbitrary constant. But, the 1st order polynomial behavior of the integration is not the only long term influence.
The 2nd order polynomial behavior is set by the trend in the rate of change, and the trend matches merely as a byproduct of matching the variation. When I choose the scale factor to match the variation, the trend matches, too. That shows that the temperature influence is long term, and I cannot add much in the way of human inputs to the mix because the rate of emissions also has a trend. I would have to rescale to fit it in, and that would make the variation fail to match.
“What physically matters?”
Long term equilibration with oceanic turnover. I’ve explained this previously.
That is my hypothesis (though I do not lay exclusive claim to it), and it is a plausible one. There may be some other contributing process hitherto overlooked, however, so I cannot say with certainty that it is the culprit.
But, I can say with certainty what the data show, and they show that CO2 rate of change is proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly, in both the short term, and over the longer term of at least the past 60 years. Human inputs are not temperature dependent, so they are not a significant driver.
“Bacastow Nature…”
I’ve had this one tossed my way many times. 1976 was way too early to recognize that the long term pattern in temperature matched the long term behavior of the rate of change of CO2 concentration, and not just the short term.
Confirmation of the long term consilience came with the onset of the “pause”, when the rate of change, after ramping up in lock step with temperatures, also leveled out in lock step with temperatures. It is by now blindingly apparent that temperature is the driver of CO2 concentration, and human inputs have little impact.
barry @ March 29, 2017 at 6:43 PM
“CO2 trend rate was lower when temperature rose quicker, and higher when temperature rose more slowly.”
You really need to get your head off of trend estimates. They are not magical. They are operations on noisy data, and their output is thereby statistical, and subject to uncertainty. The shorter the interval, the larger the error bars. Selection of start and end points have a huge impact on them as well.
Just look at the plot at the link below. It carries far more information than trend lines. Trend estimates are really methods of data compression, not analysis. They reduce a graph to a couple of numbers. But, the graph is better. Your brain can recognize patterns that individual numbers cannot convey.
This is a match:
https://tinyurl.com/muo5shh
No matter how you might try to obfuscate it to yourself, there is no way to look at that plot, and not see the match.
‘When you apply an average to the derivative of the CO2 data, you are not attenuating those higher frequencies,’
No thats clearly not true. You have smoothed the derivative data at 24 mo. but the temp data at 1 mo. How can that possibly be kosher???
The el nino peaks in derivative data @ < 12 mo duration obviously will get smoothed out and their amplitude reduced. Try changing to 12 mo average and you will see the amplitude go up and you will need increase the scale factor for temp to match these higer amplitude fast variations. But then the low freq variation, long trend, will match less well.
Only fair way is to filter BOTH time and derivative data on the same time scale.
Bart,
And when you filter both deriv and temp equivalently you see that the long time fit breaks down.
Bart: “The constant of integration is always the initial value. It is not arbitrary.”
Hardly. Once you differentiate, the boundary condition constant information is lost.
“This is a match:”
Let barry (or anyone) put constant of integration back for you upon integration, see if your professed correlation still exists after that.
You use your own words for Bacastow report, what are Bacastow’s words? Do I have to look them up, do the work for you? You are the one professing a result and need to show other’s work in the field is consistent (what about the more recent work in 2013?). Or explain why not consistent using their words; this is why authors cite past work verbatim.
“Confirmation of the long term consilience came with the onset of the “pause”…It is by now blindingly apparent that temperature is the driver of CO2 concentration”
I don’t see where you ruled out all dozen or so T drivers on the pause except for the ones you are discussing (CO2, CO2 dot).
“Once you differentiate, the boundary condition constant information is lost.”
No, it isn’t, because you still have that information. You know the starting point. The starting point plus the definite integral recovers the original function. This is very basic calculus.
You would have had a semi-point if you had focused on the temperature offset, which I addressed gratuitously. It seems you were never even close to that sophisticated an argument, but are fixated instead on a basic error in your understanding of fundamental mathematics.
“You use your own words for Bacastow report, what are Bacastows words?”
Do you not understand that 1976 was 41 years ago, and a mere 18 years after MLO data started to be collected?
“I dont see where you ruled out all dozen or so T drivers on the pause except for the ones you are discussing (CO2, CO2 dot).”
You really need to write more clearly. I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.
nate @ March 30, 2017 at 7:16 AM
The points you are trying to make are not points at all, merely whinging. This is a match.
https://tinyurl.com/muo5shh
That is all you need to know. Temperature is the driver, not humans.
Bart now tries to tell us the constant lost in the derivative is recoverable upon integration of the results of the derivative. No, there is one equation and now two unknowns. Won’t work.
My guess, and from considering the comments on the work barry, nate did, Bart is really telling us he is using a 2nd independent equation to recover the lost constant of integration. That’s fine but others (1976, 2013, anyone) might use another 2nd equation and come up with no fundamental correlation at all or at least one that is not interesting or useful.
What forces that one 2nd eqn. Bart uses from all the other possibilities (the other non-CO2 surface T forcings I tried to make a point of that Bart couldn’t understand).
I also notice Bart just started using the term definite integral. Is it really?
No not a match at all when you use the same data set you used for the previous plot:
http://tinyurl.com/mswq5l9
Now Im beginning to think you’re trying to deceive us.
“Do you not understand that 1976 was 41 years ago, and a mere 18 years after MLO data started to be collected?”
What then did Bacastow use to write on the correlation you are insisting exists, any data longer (his words)? Did Bart just not even open it up because it was 1976 though he knew about it? G. Callendar wrote on CO2 data measured in the atm. in 1938. It appears Bart didn’t even read the relevant studies by others with supporting views. The two published in 2013 ought to have caught Bart’s attention in this work. Where did they differ or agree with you, are you adding to their work at all?
Ball4 is completely off the rails. I have no more time for such trolling.
Nate: you have to change the parameters just to get the different temperature data sets themselves to match each other. They all carry the signal, but in different proportions and with different baselines. You have to adjust to each one. Otherwise, you could just as easily claim that the temperature data sets refute one another, therefore we have no temperature data.
You are looking for excuses to deny the obvious. Stop fooling yourself. There is a match, and it is an extraordinarily good one.
barry @ March 28, 2017 at 5:04 PM
Barry – had to share this with you. At the above post, you wrote:
“With a few strokes of a keyboard youve reduced decades of field research and ice core sampling (as well as records from other proxies that match) to a meme.”
Sounds eerily like this statement:
“Substituting marketplace gossip for facts, Medvedev, with one stroke of the pen, crosses out the achievements of Soviet breeding in the creation of new varieties of plants and breeds of animals.”
Quote from Trofim Lysenko on Zhores Medvedev contained today at a site that must not be named.
If you are not familiar with the term “Lysenkoism”, read up on it.
https://tinyurl.com/l7vzmc3
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
Bart 12:26: The old attack the commenter meme instead of substance. Then I claim victory.
Anyway, for further discussion I’d have to first pull the papers by the several authors already published on your subject. The irony is they tend to agree with you.
Your point has already been shown (Kuo 1990, Wang W. 2013) that the rate of change of the level of atmospheric CO2 (expressed as its first derivative) has a similar signature to that for global surface temperature. The problem is your explanation has some debatable issues. You also profess no fundamental reason for the match.
As for Lysenkoism 2:23pm, seems you have it backwards when barry substituted published facts for marketplace gossip (today blog gossip). The very sort of action that decreases the bandwidth in top post cartoon.
Bart,
No matter how you might try to obfuscate it to yourself, there is no way to look at that plot, and not see the match.
As I’ve acknowledged and discussed the correlation of first-difference CO2 to temps many times in this thread, I have to wonder whether your block on that is a reading problem or a post-reading brain-processing thing.
You really need to get your head off of trend estimates. They are not magical. They are operations on noisy data, and their output is thereby statistical, and subject to uncertainty. The shorter the interval, the larger the error bars. Selection of start and end points have a huge impact on them as well.
Of course. But you have already agreed that there was a slow-down in temperature increase from 1998 to Dec 2015. Furthermore, you gave a conceptual analysis based on it (that the reduced temperature trend causes a reduction in CO2 acceleration).
When I attempt analysis on the trend change by segmenting with an inflexion point on or near 1998,in a different way to you, you now contradict all you’ve said before and argue that the trend is too uncertain!
So we have to take a step back for clarification.
Do you:
A) Agree that there was a slow-down in temp rise post 1998?
or
B) Consider that the purported slow-down is not statistically significant?
If you agree with A then my analysis is based on a sound premise.
If you agree with B, then your earlier argumentation tying CO2 acceleration changes to temp changes post 1998 is obliterated by uncertainty.
Note: I compared the CO2 acceleration for each of the two period segments pre and post 1998.
You have been arguing based on acceleration rate pre and post 1998, vouching that the acceleration in CO2 declined after 1998.
Are you saying that your conclusion is sound because acceleration rates are more statistically significant than trend rates?
Because if so, I get a different result to what you predicted when comparing CO2 acceleration rates.
But if the acceleration rate is not statistically significant, this means we don’t have a useful result for your prediction.
So which is it?
The shorter the interval, the larger the error bars. Selection of start and end points have a huge impact on them as well.
This is exactly what I’ve been saying (regarding trend of CO2 acceleration) right here in this subthread.
You’ve provided no uncertainty analysis for the derivative graph, and none when you vouched that the 0.0002ppm/yr was the overall acceleration for 1979-2016.
You also mention, in this regard, that choice of start and end dates have an impact.
But I’ve said the same myself above more than once (“end-point behavour”), tested a variety of choices, and displayed two of them in my last post. I even invited you to make different start/end choices while linking you WFT so that you could test for yourself.
To recap:
We agreed that 1998 (or nearabouts) marks an inflexion point.
I split the data into two segments to test that.
I made numerous plots with slightly different start and end dates around 1998, with the overall end points on or near the beginning and end of the whole record.
All those choices made no difference to the general conclusion.
I’m puzzled be seeming contradictions in your views. 2 days ago the data was statistically certain enough (presumably) for you to make confident claims.
Today you bring up statistical uncertainty, but it seems only to cut one way (re my analysis) and not with yours. You’ve never provided error bars. WUWT?
Bart,
No you are deluding yourself, adjusting parameters without justification, except to make things fit your beliefs.
I think you know well that you cant apply a filter to one set of data, then compare to unfiltered set, particularly when that filter is removing signal on a key time scale, 12-24 mo.
By doing so you are muddying the water. In particular the response of CO2 to temp step likely is exponential. With a couple of years relaxation time, may have a slow component as well. It does not make sense that it should be linear over decades.
This would explain the data, derivative response with decreasing amplitude with time, ~ 1/T exp(-t/T)
Barry – you are overrelying on mathematical tools that are ill suited to the task at hand, and overcomplicating matters. The actual functional form is not a series of straight lines.
Least squares linear regression is just a tool. It does not really tell you anything you cannot already see. Stop looking at trees. There’s a whole forest out there.
Nate – It might indeed have a largely exponential response. But, with an exceedingly long time constant on the order of the time for oceanic turnover, which is centuries to millennia. Over the past 60 years, such a response would still take the form we see in the data, and for all practical purposes over reasonable timelines, can be considered have the analytical representation of an integral relationship from temperature to CO2.
Shorter version: the question is moot.
Bart,
Barry you are overrelying on mathematical tools that are ill suited to the task at hand, and overcomplicating matters. The actual functional form is not a series of straight lines.
You vouched that the rate of CO2 acceleration must be lower than prior because temps slowed down.
When I ran a linear trend of first difference CO2 you told me that was the rate of acceleration.
So I did the same for the two periods at the inflection point agreed on (1998).
I simply wanted to know if the acceleration rate had done what you said it did.
How would you go about testing (and demonstrating) that the CO2 acceleration rate has slowed from 1998? To corroborate your own words.
And why was the linear trend of the derivative ok a few days ago when you explained what it was (acceleration rate for the period), but not ok today? Why is that method wrong now?
You’re being an idiot, Barry. Linear trend estimates are not truth. It’s no magical crystal ball. It’s just a statistic.
To see that the CO2 acceleration rate has slowed, just look at it. The rate of change levels off in lock step with the temperatures at the start of the pause.
Bart time is for ocean to turn over No,that is long-time temp equilibration time. The transient response of Temp and Co2 will be much shorter. This is the land and upper 100 m of ocean surface response
The response of CO2 to land and upper ocean warming ought to be short, it clearly is for El Nino, which is the response that you are artificially supressing with your filter.
To see that the CO2 acceleration rate has slowed, just look at it.
I can’t tell just by looking at it. The data is too noisy.
You have said that the CO2 acceleration rate is lower from 1998 than it was before 1998.
Could you please provide the two rates – some actual numbers – and explain how you calculated that?
Here’s the derivative CO2 plot from 1979 to 2016.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/to:2016/mean:12/derivative
It looks to me like there might actually be increased acceleration after 1998. But I’m not sure.
So how do you calculate the rate of acceleration from 1979 to 1997/98*, and the acceleration from 1998/99 to 2016?
* Feel free to specify your own start end points, based on your assertion that the acceleration rate should have slowed from 1998.
Could you also please provide uncertainty estimates for the acceleration rates?
“I cant tell just by looking at it. The data [are] too noisy.”
No they aren’t. It’s right in front of your eyes. The curves lie practically on top of one another.
You have an odd fascination with linear, least quares trends. But, you do not appear to understand its limitations, or the conditions under which it is a useful estimator.
A linear regression is only appropriate when you have an actual linear trend with independent, identically distributed (iid) errors. In actual fact here, we have a long term pattern with unknown autocorrelation, included with influences from unknown processes which independently or to varying degreees affect each variable, and with measurement noise of unknown autocorrelation riding on top.
A proper mathematical analysis would begin with modeling all of the above, and creating a filter that would extract all the modeled terms. This is a significant undertaking. It cannot be done quickly. It cannot even be explained how you would go about it without your having taken several high level courses in stochastic processes and filtering theory at the graduate level.
It isn’t necessary. All you have to do is look at the pattern, and remark that the two series, the rate of change of CO2 and the affine fit of temperature, lie practically on top of one another.
You are splitting hairs to try to avoid the ineluctable conclusion. I don’t know why you are doing so. You certainly aren’t subjecting the hypothetical (and a-physical) model in which human emissions drive CO2 concentration to the same scrutiny. You cannot, because you would find that the two series do not, in fact, match each other with anything near the same fidelity. The only thing they have in common is a general, upward progression, which is just a flip of a coin. They do not match at all in the up and down variability.
As I’ve said before, you do not have to know how a diesel locomotive works to know you better get off the tracks before it runs over you. You better get off the tracks, Barry. Because the train is bearing down on you.
“It looks to me like there might actually be increased acceleration after 1998. But Im not sure.”
You can say the same thing about temperatures. The plots lie practically right on top of each other.
https://tinyurl.com/muo5shh
The model fits. The rate of change of CO2 is proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly.
Bart, you’re basically telling me to do nothing else but look at your graph and agree.
For the 10th time, the correlation is good for the short-term behaviour. I noted that at the outset and explained what I think it represents.
You said,
When you take the derivative, you are then in a rate domain. Fitting a trend line to it and finding the slope then gives you an estimate of acceleration.
So I did that for the two segments. The acceleration is greater post 1998, no matter how I adjust the end/start periods around 1998. I tested for the acceleration rate based precisely on what you said.
Let’s do it again, with various choices for the timing of the segments.
1) http://tinyurl.com/k3orqay
2) http://tinyurl.com/lcx5uhq
3) http://tinyurl.com/lu574hr
1) Jan 1979 to Dec 1998 / Jan 1998 to Dec 2014
The line segments aren’t equal in length, but I wanted to give the trend estimates the best chance of supporting your contention. The first segment ends on a peak, the second begins on a peak and ends before the next (el Nino) peak. Even so, unlike the temperature trend, which slows after 1998, CO2 acceleration increases.
2) Jan 1981 – Dec 1998 / Jan 1998 to Dec 2015
Now the segments are equal length, and still using 1998 in both to best support your contention. If I did this with the temp data you would see a slow down in trend post 1998. But CO2 acceleration is greater post 1998.
2) Same as 2), but data from 1998 has been removed for both segments to avoid contamination of both of the huge el Nino spike. Same result as the first two.
I’ll remind you of what you said:
When you take the derivative, you are then in a rate domain. Fitting a trend line to it and finding the slope then gives you an estimate of acceleration.
All I’ve done is what you have described.
The results are antithetical to your prediction.
I think your claim that CO2 acceleration has decreased since 1998 is completely unverified. And thus, the tie to long-term temperature evolution (as opposed to short-term fluctuation) is not corroborated.
I will not accept “just look at the graph.” I don’t think you should either.
Here’s how it looks to me by eyeball – just the derivative CO2 plot from 1979.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/from:1979
If the axis represents the instantaneous slope value, then post 1998 the average value is higher than pre-1998. So I see more acceleration after 1998 than before.
If we look at the very end of the record (this is the first time I’ve included post Jan 2016 data), we see that the value is the highest in the record.
Regarding CO2 acceleration rates, whether by eyeball or by linear trend of first-difference, I see that the acceleration post-1998 is generally higher than pre-1998.
But you told me acceleration should be lower due to a temp trend slowdown post 1998.
I’m just trying to make your remarks add up.
Here’s a very simple way of looking at it.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/trend
It seems very clear to me that atmos CO2 is accelerating more quickly after 1998 than before. I’ve now tried 3 different ways to test your posit. Your argument has been to point out temps slowed after 1998 and then point to the correlation of acceleration to anomaly. But even in your original graph you can see that the acceleration values post 1998 are generally greater than those prior.
I am left standing exactly where I was when we first started. The instantaneous changes correlate well. The long-term changes do not.
“All Ive done is what you have described.”
All you’ve done is highlight the shortcomings of using a linear regression, intended for data with a steady and well defined linear trend polluted by iid error, for higher order data with extensive autocorrelation.
“The results are antithetical to your prediction.”
I did not make a prediction. I said “Fitting a trend line to it and finding the slope then gives you an estimate of acceleration.” An estimate always has error bars. These estimates using an inappropriate technique have very large ones. I was merely pointing out you weren’t even using the right units, as you were not considering the proper domain. You’ve lurched from clueless to clueless.
“If the axis represents the instantaneous slope value, then post 1998 the average value is higher than pre-1998. So I see more acceleration after 1998 than before.”
No, you see greater rate, not greater acceleration. Acceleration is the rate of the rate.
“The long-term changes do not.”
Yes, they do.
https://tinyurl.com/mmlp2lu
Your eyes are not lying to you.
I did not make a prediction.
Here it is:
If the rate of temperature increase slows down, then the acceleration of CO2 slows down, not the rate.
I’ve been trying all sorts of ways to get a numerical value for the CO2 acceleration pre and post 1998. You aren’t providing any numbers or calculation for CO2 acceleration rates for the periods before and after 1998.
Will you be getting around to doing that substantively?
I said “Fitting a trend line to it and finding the slope then gives you an estimate of acceleration.” An estimate always has error bars. These estimates using an inappropriate technique have very large ones.
It would really help if you gave some actual numbers and expressed the uncertainty instead of telling me to look at a graph. It’s incredible that you won’t provide numbers.
I was merely pointing out you werent even using the right units, as you were not considering the proper domain. Youve lurched from clueless to clueless.
You said that the units are monthly. WFT returns this result from the regression of first-difference CO2.
slope = 0.00228553 per year
That’s a copy and paste from WFT after performing the operation.
So you’re saying WFT is giving us the wrong units?
“If the axis represents the instantaneous slope value, then post 1998 the average value is higher than pre-1998. So I see more acceleration after 1998 than before.”
No, you see greater rate, not greater acceleration. Acceleration is the rate of the rate.
Just to be clear, when I plot the first-difference CO2 (with 12-month average), the X axis is not yielding acceleration values?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative
Then we’re left with an unquantified change in acceleration that you predicted should be less when temp rate slows down after 1998.
Please quantify with uncertainty estimates the acceleration CO2 pre and post 1998.
If it’s any help, growth rate is in the right hand column here.
http://tinyurl.com/kawjzeu
If the rate of temperature increase slows down, then the acceleration of CO2 slows down
Can you demonstrate this with actual numbers? The growth rate data above run from 1984 to Dec 2014. Concentration data is a bit more current. Temps slowed down after 1998.
I just do not understand why you are having such trouble with this, Barry, and I do not know how to get through to you. The rate of change data are in lock step with the temperature data. Whatever holds for the temperature data holds, on average, for the CO2 rate of change data.
The match is not perfect. Nothing in this world is ever perfect. These data are noisy, with significant measurement errors, as well as transient events such as the El Ninos of 1998 and 2016, as well as the La Nina which followed the former, and will probably follow the latter when the time is ripe. You want to fit straight lines to all this mishmash, and call it truth.
This is an arbitrary standard. The data are not made up of straight lines with a little noise on them, and there is nothing magical about a least squares prescription when applied to them. Any line you can draw through the data that more or less stays within the variability is as valid an estimate.
Let me repeat that: Any line you can draw through the data that more or less stays within the variability is as valid an estimate.
You are making something very simple into something very complicated, for no particular gain whatsoever. Just look at the plot of temperatures and CO2 rate of change. They are right on top of each other.
I don’t see any value to continuing to repeat this over and over. When temperatures start falling, the CO2 rate of change will fall, too. And, that will finally reveal the true dynamics to the simpletons. Until then, don’t panic. The world is doing just fine.
Let me try to put the above more succinctly: you are trying to deal with stochastic data as though they were deterministic. This is futile and quixotic. It is like trying to localize the speed and position of a single atom. It cannot be done (Heisenberg uncertainty). All you can do is, in general terms, specify a relationship that holds, on average, over time.
We have such a relationship here. The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is generally proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly. That’s enough to tell you that human inputs are not a significant driver. Fini.
I just do not understand why you are having such trouble with this, Barry, and I do not know how to get through to you. The rate of change data are in lock step with the temperature data.
It’s the other way around. I keep acknowledging the short-term correlation is good, and you keep saying I’m not seeing it.
The short-term correlation is good.
The short-term correlation is good.
The short-term correlation is good.
Has that penetrated your mind yet?
Your graph shows that CO2 acceleration at monthly scale is strongly influenced by temperature variation.
Your graph shows that CO2 acceleration at monthly scale is strongly influenced by temperature variation.
Your graph shows that CO2 acceleration at monthly scale is strongly influenced by temperature variation.
Am I getting through to you yet?
Having noted that at the very outset of our conversation, I moved on to query and test long-term correlation.
You have not moved on. You keep saying the same thing over and over.
Because you reject every attempt I make to assess long-term correlation – by selecting 15-18 year periods when the long-term temp rates were markedly different – I have asked you repeatedly to furnish your own analysis and, specifically, values for the comparative trends, with uncertainty estimates.
In a sane universe you would have addressed this. In the crazy universe i’m sharing with you just now, you dismiss anything I try and offer nothing in return.
You just keep telling me to look at the short-term correlation of first-derivative CO2 to temps and agree with you that the fit is good.
Which I do. And then try to get you to focus on long-term correlation.
And then you ask me to repeat the exercise of looking at the graph and seeing the correlation, and agree with you that the fit is good.
Which I do. And then try to get you to focus on long-term correlation.
And then you ask me to repeat the exercise of looking at the graph and seeing the correlation, and agree with you that the fit is good.
Which I do. And then try to get you to focus on long-term correlation.
And then you ask me to repeat the exercise of looking at the graph and seeing the correlation, and agree with you that the fit is good.
WHEN are you going to move on and give some actual values for the CO2 acceleration pre and post 1998?
Because you made a prediction. I quoted it. Everything I’ve tried (including averaging the acceleration rates for the two periods) refutes your prediction.
Nothing you’ve said even addresses your prediction.
Have you forgotten it? Then once more:
If the rate of temperature increase slows down, then the acceleration of CO2 slows down, not the rate.
So corroborate this with some actual numbers.
Temps rise from 1979 to 1998. Temp rate slow down from 1998 to 2015.
Give the acceleration rate for each period. Include uncertainty if you can.
Because you’ve made a prediction. Do you refuse to test your own prediction?
If you are unable to do this, there’s no foul in saying so.
But please quit avoiding the issue YOU brought up and repeating the thing you started with.
Please.
“Having noted that at the very outset of our conversation, I moved on to query and test long-term correlation.”
Your argument has no merit. Here is 59 years of long term correlation:
https://tinyurl.com/mmlp2lu
“…by selecting 15-18 year periods when the long-term temp rates were markedly different…”
They were/are not markedly different. The data lie virtually right on top of each other for 59 years. Your insistence on using an arbitrary curve fitting algorithm for your measure of deterministic “truth” over cherry picked timelines is a bizarre standard.
I have no more time for this silliness.
Here is 59 years of long term correlation:
Of short-term fluctuations.
It doesn’t remotely answer the question of whether CO2 acceleration slowed in response to a slowdown in the rise of global temperature. But it’s clear by now you’re not interested in quantifying your claim, so thanks for the chat.
“Renewables cheaper than fossil fuels”
http://www.echo.net.au/2017/02/renewables-cheaper-fossil-fuels-anu-study-finds/
“Costs versus benefits must also be addressed, including the impact of forcing more expensive energy on the poor through either legislation or EPA regulations. If it was relatively painless to switch to renewable energy sources, sure, do it.
But its not. Ask the countries that have tried.”
Really? How about:
China will plough 2.5 trillion yuan ($493 billion) into renewable power generation by 2020, the country’s energy agency says, as the world’s largest energy market continues to shift away from dirty coal power towards cleaner fuels.
The Indian government has forecast that it will exceed the renewable energy targets set in Paris last year by nearly half and three years ahead of schedule. A draft 10-year energy blueprint published this week predicts that 57% of Indias total electricity capacity will come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2027. The Paris climate accord target was 40% by 2030.
“And renewable energy (or maybe safer nuclear energy) breakthroughs will come from the private sector and market forces, not from legislative fiat.”
Really? This is pure ideology. In Australia, the private sector and market forces have proven disastrous when it comes to gas and electricity supplies:
How the free market failed Australia and priced us out of our own gas supply
“Within the next four years, Australia will overtake Qatar as the world’s biggest supplier of gas. We are sitting on vast gas reserves. In fact, we’re swimming in the stuff.
And yet, we face critical shortages at home which could starve manufacturers of fuel, see power outages across the eastern states and force energy prices through the roof while any profits that are made will be shipped offshore.
This is a public policy fail of epic proportions.
And it’s worth getting a handle on how it all came about and the shenanigans employed by the gas majors that have deliberately created this crisis and the supposed shortage which is a total con.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-20/ian-verrender-how-the-free-market-failed-australia/8368032
Windmills are not resistant to cyclones.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/floaters/13P/imagery/wv-animated.gif
What about meteorites?
I can’t think why Australian domestic gas supply and demand problems would be of any interest to readers of Roy’s blog but just for the record, for what it’s worth, Australias enormous LNG exports (2nd or 3rd in world, the royalties and taxes helping to pay public servants and academic salaries ) come from the far NW and NE of the country via dedicated port terminals where the local demand isn’t and are subject to long-term contracts with mainly Asia.
The local demand is in the SE, it’s a separate market, where the existing reticulated supplies are becoming exhausted and exploration and exploitation of new supplies of LNG and CSG is being hindered by ill-informed landowners egged on by Greens and by government bans.
Chris, pay attention.
Roy claimed that:
“renewable energy (or maybe safer nuclear energy) breakthroughs will come from the private sector and market forces, not from legislative fiat.”
I have responded with an article showing the failure of the free market.
You interpretation is total crap. There is no shortage of supply. This mimics the situation in 3rd world oil economies where despite the huge supplies, the locals always get stuffed by the multi-nationals.
Why resort to abuse, it’s not my interpretation it comes from the federal minister:
‘ Federal Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said the projected gas supply shortfall had the potential to hurt industrial and residential customers. “This report is another reminder why the states and territories, who are locking up gas with moratoria, bans and regulatory restrictions, need to urgently rethink their position,” he said ‘ (The Australian March 9 2017).
Does ice grow in Baffin Bay?
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r08_Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence_ts_4km.png
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00885/8zjg1cz2z67t.png
Yes, especially when the Arctic is cooling into Winter, as it is now. It also melts through Summer. I recommend you find a primer on the subject of regional sea ice in the Arctic. And maybe learn something about that ancient phenomena known as ‘the seasons.’
For anyone who’s interested, you can see the plots of recent ice changes in various regions of the Arctic here:
Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent [MASIE]
These are plots of the latest month. Hopefully it will surprise no one that the charts that do show change tend to be in the upward direction. Summer is well over in the Arctic.
Interestingly, the Kara and Barents Seas show a decline in ice cover in the last month. But that is because there is variability at such short time periods owing to many factors that can swamp the seasonal trend, wind being a major one. These are extent plots – at least 15% sea ice to be included. If the wind compacts sea ice, the extent goes down.
Barry you say:
“If the wind compacts sea ice, the extent goes down.”
Thank you for admitting that wind currents compact sea ice not an increase in atmospheric co2! These major slip ups Barry only lower your intelligence in the climate science community! Don’t let me embarrass you again!
It’s not a slip-up, it’s a well-known fact. There’s nothing embarrassing about it.
Wind-compaction could not possibly be responsible for the long-term decline in Arctic sea ice. Wind-compaction is chaotic (weather), not linear.
Or are you suggesting that for the last 20 years the winds in the Arctic have been more and more Northbound?
Wind direction changes near-daily. You are implying that the winds have been trending in a certain direction over the last 20 years. Do you have some evidence for that?
ClimateChange4realz says:
“Thank you for admitting that wind currents compact sea ice not an increase in atmospheric co2!”
What about the massive decrease in Arctic sea ice volume, over 11,000 km3 during the satellite era?
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
That is from changes in ocean currents.
Also More geomagnetic storms by the sun causing the Ozone hole to get bigger allowing a positive feedback loop to develop by allowing more of the Suns rays to penetrate The polar ice cap increasing melt further
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ProtonOzone/
Arctic sea ice has declined for more than 20 years, whereas your article talks about a solar event that lasted…
From July 14 to 16, 2000
Three days.
that is one example of a geomagnetic storm. I’m sure there have been others. The amount of solar flares which tend to happen several times a day at solar peak also help deplict the ozone layer
http://www.solar-facts-and-advice.com/solar-flares.html
that is one example of a geomagnetic storm. Im sure there have been others.
Then over hundreds of thousands (millions?) of years the sun has been destroying the ozone in the Arctic at a rate of 1% per event?
If you think that these events happen at a rate regular enough to cause sea ice decline, then it must have happened fairly regularly over the last 20 years, right? The time where we see a fairly steady decline of arctic sea ice?
So let’s be conservative and say that there have been four such events in 20 years.
That means, at a 1% attrition rate per event (per the article you linked), 100 of these solar events would have completely destroyed all the ozone in the Arctic. At the rates I’m guessing (being conservative), that would take 500 years from the first instance.
Why is there still ozone in the Arctic? Did these solar events only start happening in the last few hundred years?
You should read the study carefully. You may be surprised by what you find on a second go-through.
And you should read your comments more carefully. Less ozone doesn’t mean no ozone now does it? That is the second silly mistake you made in your responses to me. Don’t make it strike three.
Barry…”Arctic sea ice has declined for more than 20 years”
DURING THE ARCTIC SUMMER ONLY!!!!
The rest of the year it reaches a thickness of 10 metres between the North Pole and the Canadian mainland. That’s largely because there is no solar heating and much colder air descends from the atmosphere.
No amount of CO2 is going to change that.
Poor Barry can’t even understand basic elementary school science that ice doesn’t melt under 32 degrees. The artic doesn’t get above 32 degrees enough for it to cause that much melt.
DA…”What about the massive decrease in Arctic sea ice volume, over 11,000 km3 during the satellite era?”
During two months of summer only!!!
ClimateChange4realz
I did read your post: “Poor Barry cant even understand basic elementary school science that ice doesnt melt under 32 degrees. The artic doesnt get above 32 degrees enough for it to cause that much melt.”
It is not the air temperature that is melting the ice in summer, it is the continuous sunlight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_Arctic
“On the June solstice 36% more solar radiation reaches the top of the atmosphere over the course of the day at the North Pole than at the Equator (Serreze and Barry, 2005).”
The melting ice keeps the air temperature cool but the amount of energy the ice receives from the Sun is what is doing the melting and it is substantial. About 10 million square kilometers every year.
Gordon Robertson
I think barry is very logical scientific mind and he seems to be correct with his assessment.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
Even in the winter the sea ice extent has declined from 20 years ago.
What is the mechanism that has lowered both winter and summer Arctic ice levels from the previous average. The conditions look as if they have stabilized for now but there is a noticeable drop in both summer and winter ice extent.
I do not have a set belief on this issue so I will go where the evidence points to. I like to stay out of the tribal mentality and keep the science alive.
Barry… “Arctic sea ice has declined for more than 20 years”
Gordon, in all caps… “DURING THE ARCTIC SUMMER ONLY!!!!”
Completely wrong.
Arctic sea ice has declined since 1979 (and over the last 20 years) in all months and in all seasons. Largest decline is in September, smallest decline in March.
At the following link you can choose two months (there are two panels), hit REFRESH and see the trend since 1979 for each month.
http://tinyurl.com/khprder
I’ve started you off with December and January, the first two months of Winter. Keep selecting months and you’ll see they all have have declining, long-term trends.
Yes, the ice returns each Winter, but over the long-term even Winter sea ice cover has become smaller in the Arctic.
You confused the long-term evolution of sea ice for the annual cycle.
C4R,
And you should read your comments more carefully. Less ozone doesnt mean no ozone now does it?
You know that the paper says these events destroy 1% of the ozone each time.
Thus, at 4 events every 20 years, in 500 years the ozone would be gone. That’s 100% loss.
But it was a trick to make you read the paper more carefully (ironic, eh?) The ozone loss doesn’t last very long. It is replenished in weeks to months.
So there’s no long-term loss in ozone, just spikes in the record.
Occasional solar flares can’t be responsible for the decline in Arctic Sea ice.
Reading up on the topic was interesting, though.
Oops – forgot what time of year it is. March usually marks the peak of Arctic sea ice extent (or area). March 7 was the peak cover for the whole Arctic region this year.
barry…”March 7 was the peak cover for the whole Arctic region this year”.
Do you mean when the ice thickness from the North Pole to the Canadian mainland is 10 metres thick. If March was the thickest last year it much have been colder in March than normal since January and February tend to be thicker.
Oops! Barry forgot basic elementary school science that ice doesn’t melt under 32 degrees Fahrenheit! Surely the artic couldn’t have been that above 32 degrees in march now wouldn’t it?
Do you guys not know what peak sea ice cover is in the annual cycle? Almost always occurs in March – the point at which sea ice extent is greatest for the year. This year peak cover (more commonly known as ‘sea ice maximum’) occurred on March 7.
C4R, the freezing point of sea water is slightly lower than ordinary water: 28F (or -2C)
Sea ice can melt even if the air temp is below 28F sometimes. If the water beneath the sea ice is warmer than the freezing point.
What your point is I have no idea. I suspect it has nothing to do with long-term (decades) changes in sea ice cover, which is what I’m talking about.
Silly silly Barry. I was referring to air temperatures the whole time not ocean temperatures. Air temperatures in the artic show no significant warming. here’s the real season why the sea ice is melting in the artic:
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/speak-of-the-devil-nature-confirms-the-arctic-sea-ice-atmospheric-circulation-theory/
http://www.ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/mp5/global_warming_impossible_hd.mp4
Fast forward to 44 minutes
Of course the artic ice is going to melt after a 200 year recovery from the dalton Minimum and the peak of a 10,000 year interglacial. It’s all cyclical. We have just repeated a 206 year warming event that just turned cool this year. The weird weather events we’ve seen over the past decade are just the precursor affects that come before every grand solar minimum. The real cooling is here just like it has every 200 years and there is nothing we can do about it. It will be obvious to all when we get to the bottom of the 11 year solar cycle between 2020 and 2023. The artic ice will begin to grow again within the next few years and this whole man causes disasterous global warming mess will be gone. The media will have to come up with some other excuse as to why co2 from mans burning of fossil fuels causes climate change. Questions will be asked and everybody in power will hide because we will be demanding many answers from them Look back in the 1800s to what happens last time. Watch this video and as crazy as it sounds I hope you believe it and do something to prepare for it. Climate change is real and is changing and will affect all of global society within the next 20-30 years. But it has always been caused by changes in the Suns solar energy output not mans burning of fossil fuels releasing more co2 into the atmosphere. Mans contribution to global warming is too tiny too matter.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_I_lsZCAWi4&t=11s
I was referring to air temperatures the whole time not ocean temperatures.
I know you were. You didn’t realize that ocean temperatures are a major cause of sea seasonal sea ice melt and regrowth.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/the-global-warming-debate-spectrum/#comment-241376
The air temperature can be colder than the freezing point of water and sea ice still may not form, it’s not until the top 100 meters of the ocean is at the freezing point that sea ice forms on the surface. The temperature of the water is not only affected by incoming sunlight, but also by horizontal transport of heat content beneath the surface of the waters. Air temps can be below freezing for weeks, but sea ice will not form until the ocean to 100 meters+ depth is also at the freezing temperature, which can itself be delayed if ocean currents bring in warmer water.
Consequently, there is a lag between air temperatures and sea ice melt/formation, and why maximum and and minimum sea ice cover typically occurs in the month following Summer (September) and Winter (March). Sea ice also forms more readily in calm water sea water than choppy.
The processes are much more complicated than those that affect the water of the ice tray in your freezer.
“In contrast to fresh water, the salt in ocean water causes the density of the water to increase as it nears the freezing point, and very cold ocean water tends to sink. As a result, sea ice forms slowly, compared to freshwater ice, because salt water sinks away from the cold surface before it cools enough to freeze. Furthermore, other factors cause the formation of sea ice to be a slow process. The freezing temperature of salt water is lower than fresh water; ocean temperatures must reach -1.8 degrees Celsius (28.8 degrees Fahrenheit) to freeze. Because oceans are so deep, it takes longer to reach the freezing point, and generally, the top 100 to 150 meters (300 to 450 feet) of water must be cooled to the freezing temperature for ice to form.”
National Sea Ice Data Center
The alarmist side of the spectrum doesn’t exist anymore. Maybe after 19 years of significant uninterrupted warming it can make a comeback?
Score a victory for our side:
Speak of the Devil; Nature Confirms the Arctic Sea Ice Atmospheric Circulation Theory
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/speak-of-the-devil-nature-confirms-the-arctic-sea-ice-atmospheric-circulation-theory/
Lord, there’s so much wrong with that article it’s hard to know where to begin. As an exercise, C4, why don’t you play devil’s advocate and debunk it with the full force of true skepticism.
The one good point in the article is the reference to the study, which is worth reading. The author refashions the conclusions arbitrarily (turns 50% into 100%), so bypass the article and go straight to the study.
Barry……”theres so much wrong with that article its hard to know where to begin…”
Here’s an article by NASA that must have snuck past Gavin Schmidt at GISS:
https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/oct/HQ_07216_Sea_Ice.html
“Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters”.
barry…”theres so much wrong with that article its hard to know where to begin…”
Here’s an article by the National Snow and Ice Data Center where it is explained in more detail:
http://*****.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/circulation.html
***** = n.s.i.d.c with no dots
Roy…your censor doesn’t like Had-crut (no hyphen) or n.s.i.d.c (no dots). Is that by design?
It’s a glitch, not on purpose.
Gordon, I already know that. Mentioned it above. There is no long-term trend in winds that cover the 37 years of sea ice data that explains the long-term decline. Your article covers a time span of… 2 years.
You seem to be in a time warp. The article is from 2007. Mann was not the director of GISS at that time.
C’mon, you just madly google for stuff and barely check it, right?
BTW, as a friendly gesture, if you want to post links here that work, convert original link at tinyurl, here:
http://tinyurl.com/
And post the resulting tinyurl here. I’ll do it now with your link that wouldn’t post.
http://tinyurl.com/ld54ven
Takes about 5 seconds, and this site always accepts tinyurls.
Full copy of the article as submitted is here:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Ding_etal_inpress_2017.pdf
That’s the study referred to in the article. I was a little unclear above.
my position is “i don’t know” , and it is not being lukewarmer…
the position of people is not a point it is a segment of warming…
Climate Science on Trial; Give a Climate Alarmist Enough Rope Theyll Hang Themselves
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/climate-science-on-trial-give-a-climate-alarmist-enough-rope-theyll-hang-themselves/
The Nenana Ice Classic in Alaska is coming up. Maybe some of the alarmists posting here would like to put their money where their mouth is? Seeing as there are only a few variables, easy pickings at a cool $300,000.00+. The earliest the ice has gone out is April 20th, 1940. Latest May 20th, 2013. Apparently, 1940 much warmer than 2013…
http://nenanaakiceclassic.com/
Darwin Wyatt…”Maybe some of the alarmists posting here would like to put their money where their mouth is?”
Not likely, Darwin. Alarmists the world over get not further than their armchairs. Most of them have no idea there is ice in the Arctic due to the lack and/or absence of sunlight. They think raising the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will melt all the ice when the sun doesn’t shine up there.
What a lot of rubbish you’ve spouted here, Gordon.
This is a good candidate for a probability distribution assessment.
barry
Hope you don’t mind me bringing your point down here about normal distribution and temperature extremes. The thread was getting too long up there.
Your point from above: “Were talking about record-breakers in the context of 120+ years of records (for the most part). We know what extremes look like and much about their causes. What was being assessed in the article you linked was the mathematical probability of extreme temperatures occurring.
Side note: the first example listed mentioned cool weather not seen for 40 years. So presumably not all-time record-breakers.
The dice is loaded by the shift in the bell curve, which encompasses random weather and extremes (tails of the bell curve). The distribution is shifting warmwards, so it is more likely hot records will be broken than cold.
Im not sure how descriptions of what causes extreme weather responds to this. The bell curves encompass those extremes”
Here are discussions of bell curves and normal distribution.
https://www.thoughtco.com/introduction-to-the-bell-curve-3126337
https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/standard-normal-distribution.html
From the first link: “Even though there are countless applications of bell curves, it is not appropriate to use in all situations. Some statistical data sets, such as equipment failure or income distributions, have different shapes and are not symmetric.”
Or this one:
https://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/normality/tips-recognizing-and-transforming-non-normal-data/
From this link: “Non-normal data may be more common in business processes than many people think. When control charts are used with non-normal data, they can give false signals of special cause variation, leading to inaccurate conclusions and inappropriate business strategies.”
If the data is not randomly distributed it will not fit a normal curve and using this method to determine probability is not accurate.
Weather is essentially random (chaotic). There is some autocorrelation, but this evens out over the course of time. Over 120 years or more, el Nino is well evened out. Autocorrelation is not a factor.
Norman, I think you’re trying too hard here. the math is pretty simple. From billions of measurements across the earth over more than a century, with the global surface warmer now (last couple of decades) that it has ever been in that record, it is entirely reasonable to expect more hot record-breaking temps in the last couple of decades than cold.
What would be incredible was if there was no change in distribution, or if cold record-breakers were more common (globally) than hot.
Here is an article that applies a bell curve to actual temperature data for a given location. It’s a good article, with some useful caveats.
https://patricktbrown.org/2016/01/05/heat-waves-how-much-can-be-blamed-on-global-warming-depends-on-how-you-ask-the-question/
One could also use the global temp data from 1940 to 1970, when there is little to no trend, as a normal distribution, and then compare that with detrended data for the most recent 30 years.
Something like that was done in the following paper for decadal temperatures from 1950. You can see the bell curves if you scroll down, and the evolution of them over time.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/37/E2415.full.pdf
Note: for period when there was a trend in the decadal record, the data was detrended, which yields lower variability. However, the distribution change is evident.
Barry…from your first link: “If the total anomaly with global warming in March 2012 was +6C and the contribution from natural variability was +4.25C, then global warming contributed +1.75C of the +6C anomaly”.
Presumptuous statement.
Why would the author presume +4.25C came from natural variability? And why would he dare to presume that CO2 has any effect at all. It could all be due to long term variability on a scale longer than the scale we have measured.
From the beginning of the article, the author has presumed a lot. For example he presumed that hurricanes should get stronger with global warming due to a warmer SST. He does not seem to understand that the root cause of a hurricane in not only the SST but the cold air at higher altitudes. If that air warms due to global warming, it should reduce the effect of the hurricanes, as claimed by hurricane expert Chris Landsea.
The point of the article is to show Norman that probability distributions (bell curves) work for surface temperature. Global warming is merely the context. CO2 has nothing to do with the point Norman and I are discussing.
barry…”The point of the article is to show Norman that probability distributions (bell curves) work for surface temperature. Global warming is merely the context. CO2 has nothing to do with the point…”
Without increasing CO2 as a source of global warming your probability distributions make no sense. It’s absurd to claim that basic weather is based on statistics.
If weather is constant in a region then you can predict a general outcome of weather over a range but who wants to hear a weather report that claims there is a likelihood of warm weather days this summer?
Without increasing CO2 as a source of global warming your probability distributions make no sense
The world could be warming from donkey farts and the discussion would be the same. We’re talking about probability distribution, not causes.
barry…”Weather is essentially random (chaotic)”.
If weather was random you could not predict it day to day. Meteorolgists are able to predict weather based on measurements of temperature, relative humidity, isobaric pressure contours and other factors.
I went out for a lengthy walk last night and looking at the cloud cover and moisture in the air, I predicted it is likely to rain. Along the first part of the route, I felt it spitting but it was not till an hour later that it let loose with a deluge.
In a small area, you could claim weather is random to a degree but it is clouds that produce rain, not chance. If there’s not a cloud to be seen horizon to horizon I can safely bet a zero chance of rain.
Weathermen don’t predict rain on 41st Avenue and no rain on 35th Avenue. They predict rain for a region. Here in Vancouver, everyone knows the likelihood of rain south of the airport is less than rain up against the south side of the mountains.
They can predict up to two weeks out. And they’re not always right. They cannot predict the weather 2 months from now. That’s why it’s essentially random (within a certain bound) in the context of multi decades.
It might ease the contention to say weather is chaotic (within a bound).
Imagine a pot of water heating to boil.
The precise temperature at any given micro location in the pot is slightly different from the rest, and the evolution of temperature at the point cannot be precisely predicted. But the probability distribution for that point can be. As the whole pot warms, the probability distribution for temps drift warmward.
barry
Thank you for the links. It is helping me to understand the concepts brought out in articles I read about 50 times more likely for the Australian heat wave of this year.
I will continue to think on and research the topic.
You’re welcome. It’s good to talk to you.
barry
A bell curve can be used for normal temperatures and they will shift upwards with an increased background.
Record high temperatures are a different animal and the data is not random. What took place the previous day changes the outcome for the current day. This is not what you need in a normal distribution. Each measured event cannot have an effect on the next measured event.
I asked David Appell about it on another thread. If you have a dice and based upon your role it will change the outcome of the next roll will you then get a normal distribution? Say if you roll a 3 (heat wave developing with the upper high level pressure inhibiting convection, cloud formation and rain) the chance to roll a 4 is much greater than any other number, 2 is greater than 1 but less than 4 and 5 and 6 are less than 4 but greater than a lower number. Once you roll a 4 the 5 or 6 increase in probability but the lower numbers are even less likely. It would not be a normal distribution.
I think extreme temperatures do not follow normal distributions and to determine their outcome is guess work. To compare hot records to cold records has no meaning since both records are created by totally different processes.
I really do not think a bell curve is the best way to determine if record heat will increase (20 F over normal) when the background temperature has increased by just 1 F degree. I think you would have to determine if more high pressure systems will develop and they will last longer over a location.
Not sure if this makes any sense to you. I understand what I am saying but I might be losing it in trying to communicate the concept to you.
I know what you’re saying (now) and think it is a fairly reasonable point. However, as I said above, the autocorrelation you are referring to (one day/month influencing the next) is not a factor with a long-term record. This autocorrelation is fairly steady over time, and would not affect the long-term (decadal or multidecadal) results).
To be clearer, the bell curves I am thinking about (and as discussed in the studies I linked above) are about frequency of hot/cold events. This is well discussed in the first article linked above, and I highly recommend it. Frequency also what is being discussed in the article you linked originally.
Norman…”Not sure if this makes any sense to you. I understand what I am saying but I might be losing it in trying to communicate the concept to you”.
I get your point. The problem with probability and statistics is the realty. In our 6/49 Lotto, the odds of one person winning it are over 13 million to one. Yet, someone wins it almost every week.
There’s an explanation for that, obviously. If 13 million people play each week the likelihood of someone having the right permutation increases. Still, the person who wins had 1 chance in $13 million of winning.
However, with statistical events, projections are often made based on only a few data points. Opinion polls, for example, are often based on a sample of 1000 people out of 5 million. The initial 97% guestimate for the number of scientists agreeing with AGW came from two studies using 1000 and 3000 samples respectively of all scientists.
I play a form of solitaire on my computer and the decks are supposed to be shuffled randomly. It amazes me at times to see 4 aces one behind the other.
I have been hitting the casino lately as well but I play very safely. On certain electronic slot machines, the payout depends on how much you spend. On a 5 cent machine, a maximum bet is around $3.50. If you spend $40 at $3.50 per shot, you get roughly 12 tries.
If hit the right combo, you win big, but the likelihood of winning anything substantial with 12 tries is not good. I did see a guy using that method, with a $40 limit, win over $18,000 one night.
I prefer to go cheapo, mainly for the entertainment value. I run it at 25 cents per try which is 5x minimum bet. That way I get 80 tries for $20 and 160 tries for $40. If I run out I go home. I have seldom run out, in fact, I usually break even or win. If I lose, it’s not usually bad.
The more patient you are with these machines the more likely you are to prosper. That seems to be due to a cyclical nature in the probability of a win, or big payout. I won close to $300 one night playing 5 cent machines at 25 cents a pop.
I cannot explain that cyclical nature. There should be nothing cyclical. The values for the next try on a casino electronic slot machine is determined before you hit the ‘Play’ button. They are not built for cyclical luck but there is a definite trend there in that direction. Suddenly, everything comes up roses. Same in poker.
The other night I ran $40 down to under a dollar, over several hours of entertainment. I was resigned to losing when suddenly I was up to $45 through a streak of ‘luck’. Some call it chance, but what is luck or chance?
I am beginning to think nothing is absolutely random in nature and as I told you before, I think DA’s theory on the probability of temperature increasing based on past temperatures is nonsense.
I can accept that randomness is an overall outcome in certain events in the universe but randomness doesn’t explain significant non-random events within the randomness.
“The more patient you are with these machines the more likely you are to prosper.”
It doesn’t surprise me that you would make such a deluded statement.
All your posts confirm a similar ignorance.
dr no…”It doesnt surprise me that you would make such a deluded statement. All your posts confirm a similar ignorance”.
You’re myopic views of my input only strengthens your positions as a village fool. In casino gambling, the odds are always in favour of the house but the odds spread is not that great. It stands to reason that the longer you are able to play the electronic slots the better your chance of winning.
You have a far better chance of winning with 200 tries than you have with 10. Many people think that betting the maximum gives them a chance of a big payout, and that can be true on some occasions. In the long run, playing with that philosophy will make you broke real quick.
However, dr no, being an expert on everything, reacts with his emotions rather than any intelligence with which he might be in touch should he get his ego out of the way.
Gordon, you are sadly deluded by faulty thinking – as are most gamblers.
For example, to say:
“It stands to reason that the longer you are able to play the electronic slots the better your chance of winning.” is just rubbish as any body with half a brain cell can appreciate.
According to this thinking, all you need to do to ruin the house is to double your bet each time you lose. Go ahead and try!
To help you, your chances of winning a pull of a slot machine is the same irrespective of how many pulls you have made previously. i.e. they are always in the house’s favour.
Have you ever done a course on probability or statistics? Of course not.
There is some autocorrelation in weather events, but as the periods being looked at are long-term, they make virtually nil difference.
Since the 1960s every decadal bell curve of global temp record-breakers is shifted warmward. No need to invoke CO2 or solar or whatever to estimate (and prove) that you’ll get more more warm record-breakers than cold in a warming world the further forward in time you go.
THIS is what Norman and i have been discussing. Weather is essentially random over long time-periods. The evolution of global climate has not been random since the 1960s. It has trended warmwards. So the random distribution of weather shifts in the same direction. It’s maths. Pretty intuitive, too. You can envision it without fancy equations.
The reason for the spectrum is:
1) we don’t know enough
2) too much uncertainty
3) long time scale. climate changes over a long time period with lots of cycles (think geologic time scale)
4) most of us on this message board will be dead before we know with certainty where we should have been on this spectrum.
I think it will be clear in another 30 years if not sooner, and I stand a good chance of being around to see it.
That feels about right. I might also. Close call though. We all will be following this closely for sure.
Live long and prosper.
Will it be the end of the drought in Texas?
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=31.9;-91.1;4&l=rain-ac&t=20170406/00
Will this be the end of the drought in eastern Australia?
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=-25.5;146.7;4&l=rain-ac&t=20170401/00
To David and barry and the other CAGW adherents on this thread I ask one simple question, to which I’m sure you will provide consensus:
What is the “correct” level of CO2 in the earths atmosphere?
I’m not a CAGW adherent. Try less rhetoric and maybe I’ll answer. Got to get off on the right foot.
barry…”Im not a CAGW adherent. Try less rhetoric and maybe Ill answer. Got to get off on the right foot”.
We’re onto you, Barry. You won’t answer anything that has anything to do with real, observable science.
So says a slot machine addict.
I’ve often said that the future may not be “catastrophic.” I put my views upthread and you responded there. What’s your memory like these days?
In the central Arctic ice does not melt despite being March 27.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/latest/4km/masie_all_r00_4km.png
This is due to the shift of the polar vortex towards Eurasia.
This is a trend that causes severe winters in North America.
These two links describe the problem with the Climate Science arena.
There really are two tribes that strongly contradict one another. One is model based, the other is empirical. On this blog it seems a war goes on between the empirical based science and the model based science.
Roy Spencer was correct “And the wheels on the bus go round and round.”
After several years of debating this issue it seems no closer to an answer than when the war began.
First the Modelers view of reality who have several disciples.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242
And the empiricists
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058745/abstract
I always like the empirical science when it is available.
That’s good. There’s tons of it. GCMs are only part of the mix, not the only mode of understanding that people make them out to be.
Here, for example, is an empirically based paper that comes to a different conclusion than the first one you cited. No GCMs, just analysis of historical data.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/014005
barry
I did a quick read of the paper but would like to spend more time going through it.
http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/meteorology/a-warming-arctic-would-not-cause-increased-severe-weather-or-temperature-extremes/
I found this meteorologist that thinks her research is very flawed and wrong. At this time I do not have enough knowledge to make a credible call. One thing that is odd with your paper is that the AA is only a couple of degrees difference. Every season the polar jet goes through much greater temperature gradient and in the summer the polar jet slows and retreats to the far north. Also to go with this the extreme weather events in the United States decrease as the gradient lessens, the most extreme conditions in the US are when the gradient is at its maximum.
http://www.ustornadoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/tornado-average-by-month-united-states.png
graph from this source:
http://www.ustornadoes.com/2016/04/06/annual-and-monthly-tornado-averages-across-the-united-states/
Norman, one of the best overviews of the topic I’ve read was a published opinion piece by the same author you cited upthread that you liked, Elizabeth Barnes.
http://tinyurl.com/m9coxzq
I found the even handedness and lack of attachment to a particular view pretty compelling. Reads like an honest appraisal, and they know their stuff.
I found this meteorologist that thinks her research is very flawed and wrong.
I’ve read a little of Ed Berry’s work and don’t find it neutral. He seems to be attached to a particular point of view and the language he uses betrays that.
Red flag language:
“Critics of the use of this equation will try and argue…
“Now, after publication, FV (2012) has been lapped up by media, touted…
“It is the opposite of what climate hysteria claims…”
“The continued misuse, abuse and general trashing of important principles founded with atmospheric science remains as deplorable as ever by the groups promoting global warming from human CO2 emissions or by these same groups promoting climate hysteria by [1] re-labeling this term ‘climate change’…”
‘Now that the flawed FV (2012) passed peer review, it allows media to blame any severe weather on climate change. FV (2012) allows media to claim a wavier jet stream dips and meanders [2] because the Arctic is supposedly getting warmer…
Never mind that a couple of these points are demonstrably ill-conceived (numbered), this kind of editorial has no place in a neutral review. You made the point that skeptics (“deniers,” you said) react against “fake news.” This rhetoric causes the same response in me. I just don’t have the patience to struggle through the actual content when it is peppered with this crap. Simply, I don’t trust the author. His meta-commentary is quite unscientific – blog standard rant.
Which may be a pity if he has something useful to offer.
I’m happy to parse the language quoted if the rhetorical bias is not clear to you.
Here is an example of more “fake news” in the climate science world.
Here is an article about a warm period in Canada in January 2015.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/28/alberta-warm-weather_n_6564114.html
An actual climate scientist has this to say: “David Phillips of Environment Canada says the jet stream, which normally flows over the middle of North America, is now drooping as far south as Texas.
He says that’s bringing warm air to places that are normally cold and cold air to warm regions and those disruptions are sticking around for days and weeks instead of moving on.
Jim Byrne, a climatologist at the University of Lethbridge, says it’s consistent with a theory that suggests the wandering jet stream is caused by shrinking Arctic sea ice.
Weather records have been shattered across the province over the past two weeks.
On Sunday, the mercury in Calgary was pushing 17 C, breaking the 2007 record of 13.1 C.”
This is why I question Climate Scientists. They form these conclusions but do they spend any time researching the claims? Trying to find some supporting evidence.
I used my record high web site again to check on this and it did not disappoint me but made me really sad about what type of minds are turned out by the sciences these days. Where is the effort, where is the research?
https://tinyurl.com/lqs6wcz
If you put in Canada for the Country and try some different time periods. I saw on another site that 1961 was a warm Canadian winter and I also tried 1958 January.
If the climate scientist Jim Byrne would have done just a wee bit of investigation he would find that weather is chaotic and these things have taken place in the past, though unusual, they do occur. If you look at the entire list of temperatures from 1958 January they were similar to the warmth in 2015, you had some places up to 60 F.
Tabulating the results:
Canada 1958 January: Hot records (total, tied and broken): 528
Cold: 37
Canada 1961 January: Hot records: 471 Cold Records: 182
Canada 2015 January: Hot records: 360 Cold Records: 93
I fail to see how a climatalogist would claim that the cause of the 2015 hot January was a loopy jet stream caused by melted Arctic Ice when the same conditions took place before the Arctic ice had such a melt.
Epic fail on science and proper application of the field. One should look at ALL the evidence before offering an opinion and Dr. No and Nate wonder how I can dare question an expert in the field. These stories are why I do question and will continue to question. illogical conclusions not based upon the empirical information available to them.
Climate change is altering global air currents increasing droughts, heatwaves and floods
Massive loops in the Arctic jetstream that have a major impact on our weather show a ‘clear fingerprint of human activity’
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-air-currents-drought-heatwaves-floods-global-warming-michael-mann-arctic-a7651581.html
So,
Norman, aren’t you scared enough?
Would you argue against Professor Michael Mann?
(Note the uppercase P to emphasize my reverence to His authority)
(/SARCoff)
Massimo, read the article and then try and discredit the arguments therein.
Too hard?
Tropical cyclones are low pressure systems that form over warm tropical waters and have well defined wind circulations of at least gale force strength (sustained winds of 63 km/h or greater with gusts in excess of 90 km/h).
These maps show the average number of tropical cyclones through the Australian region and surrounding waters in El Nio years, La Nia years, neutral years and using all years of data. The data are based on a 36 year period from the 1969/70 to 2005/06 tropical cyclone season.
The maps are useful for identifying the regions where tropical cyclones are more likely to occur during El Nio years, La Nia years and neutral years. They are also useful for comparing the occurrence of tropical cyclones using all years of data, to the occurrence during La Nia years, for example.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/climatology/tropical_cyclones/tc-lan-years.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/averages/tropical-cyclones/
Massimo PORZIO
And then reality enters into the world of Dr. No
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11575.html
And what will he do with reality?
Ah, I see what’s going on here.
Start with year 1. Temperature highs and lows are set.
In year 2 about half the records are broken. Simply because there has been only one iteration of random weather for a given day/month of the year.
See where this is leading…?
Go forward 20 years and the chances of records being broken reduces, because more of the random possibilities have been visited in the intervening years.
If global temperatures happened to stay flat for 120 years (no trend), and variability was fairly constant, you would see fewer records being broken over time. More of the random possibilities have been eaten up in preceding years.
We should expect more record-breakers in the past, because those record-breakers occurred in a much shortened history of temperature variation.
In the case you’ve cited, Norman, the posit on the Jet Stream was empirically based. It had been observed to loop to high latitudes over Canada while the temps were runnng hot, which brings warmer weather north from down South. This was a meteorological fact. The scientist said it was “consistent” with a particular view of low Arctic sea ice bringing a wavier jet stream, which is a reasonable comment. He did not go so far as to say this proved it. That’s not “fake news,” that’s a point of view. It is by no means definitively demonstrated. He did not say it was. (I don’t think it is definitively demonstrated. I have some familiarity with the issue via Francis’s various papers)
The rest of the article is the journalist’s copy. It tends toward sensationalism, but it’s not “fake.” These views are in the public domain. The topic of sea ice/cover/jet stream/blocking is an active area of research. Nothing on it is yet definitive.
Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
barry
I am continuing to compile some Canadian high temperature records for January months. I can let you know the outcome when I get it done. I am starting in 1975.
I’d be curious to know if they were highs for the particular day of the year or the month.
I know it’s laborious having checked the site (a broader array of functions, like being able to select annual and seasonal records in one go would save a bunch of effort). But if you can manage it, compare with low minimum for the same month/period.
It may not be a direct comparison with the article you cited. I believe they were all-time records, and there are far fewer of those than records for a given day/month of the year.
I’m curious about your own interpretation of the article. You start by quoting the article,
“Jim Byrne, a climatologist at the University of Lethbridge, says its consistent with a theory that suggests the wandering jet stream is caused by shrinking Arctic sea ice.”
But then you say,
“This is why I question Climate Scientists. They form these conclusions but do they spend any time researching the claims?”
Question 1) – How does “consistent with” become “conclusion” in your mind?
Obviously Climate Scientists (all scientists) research and test their hypotheses.
Question 2) – Are you saying that Jim Byrne is a Climate scientist, but Elizabeth Barnes (who authored the empirical study on blocking that you prefer) is not a Climate Scientist?
Because Elizabeth Barnes works with GCMs. Does that make her work rejecting trends in NH blocking now suspect to you?
The stream current of 250 hPa lies in the tropopause, where the temperature depends on the ozone distribution.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_250_nh_f00.png
And this distribution depends on the distribution of ozone across the stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_toz_nh_f00.png
Ten rozkład zależy ściśle od siły wiru polarnego.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_JFM_NH_2017.png
These are the anomalies of wind speed in the polar vortex of the stratosphere.
Sorry.
This distribution depends strictly on the strength of the polar vortex.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2017.png
Greater amounts of ozone on the polar circle corresponds to an increase in pressure and temperature below.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JFM_NH_2017.png
This is the current temperature distribution on the polar circle in the lower stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_nh_f00.png
The polar vortex develops in the upper stratosphere due to ozone depletion and temperature difference.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t01_sh_f00.png
I note that your link also covers all-time record breakers. The hot ones are far more prevalent than the cold ones for the last 365 days.
In fact, the count for all-time global record-breakers over the last 365 days is:
Max: 139
Min: 20
This is consonant with the data and link I posted the other day.
The confusion arose, then because you were comparing record-breakers for a given day/month of the year, rather than all-time.
I’m relieved that my source is corroborated by yours.
Norman…”David Phillips of Environment Canada says…”
Environment Canada is a hot bed of uber-climate alarmists. One of the leading climate alarm centres in the world is at the University of Victoria, British Columbia where they use climate models.
One of the professors there, Andres Weaver, is a former editor of the Journal of Climate. He had Michael Mann, of realclimate, and Gavin Schmidt, of realclimate and NASA GISS, as reviewers.
Weaver now sits as a Member of the Legislature as a Green Party representative in the province of British Columbia.
Can anyone imagine trying to get a non-AGW paper onto the Journal of Climate.
Sure can. Just like Roy Spencer has papers in the IPCC. McIntyre’s anti-hockey stick papers are in the IPCC, too. IPCC mentions the global warming slowdown, as you’ve mentioned more times than I’ve ever farted.
Journal of Climate includes work on past climates. such as this.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00690.1
No AGW there.
What did he do?
He looked up subsequent studies.
Including this one published 2 years later, which has your lead author as co-author:
“Less reliable water availability in the 21st century climate projections”
Modeling of future water availability predicts that wet regions become wetter and dry regions become drier, leading to an increasing likelihood of seasonal droughts and floods in regions where such vulnerability is already high.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000159/full
The ball is in your court.
Dr. No.
“Massimo, read the article and then try and discredit the arguments therein.
Too hard?”
No, I would never waste the precious time of my life to discredit such arguments. They are already discredited by the methodology used by the scientist who believes that statistic can be useful to predict (or to project) something in the future, especially when he uses a bunch of models like those that “predict” all different results and no one can tell which is the better.
Lara Croft lives in a computer model, such a beautiful and thin silhouette shaped girl which fight and defeat lots of energumens, in the reality of life doesn’t exists at all.
The “Professor” already demonstrated me who he is indeed. His (in)famous hockey-stick says all, and his climategate emails highlight his real “scientific” mindset. I don’t expect a little of real science from that guy.
If you want impress me with something, change “scientist”.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
As I thought.
Too lazy or ignorant to engage in any meaningful discussion.
Your only tactic is to attack the messenger and repeat discredited accusations.
Typical.
I can see you and Gordon spending time together in the nursing home – he will be playing a slot machine while you will be playing Lara Croft – just like a couple of children.
Amen
BTW.
I never played Lara Croft, I’m too aware of how much is precious my time to spend it on that.
Even if I must recognize that playing a video game is surely much funnier (so useful for the mood than read those silly thing from a theoretical scientists such Mann, who ignore most of the involved physics in the system.
Dr. No
The article I linked to was an assessment of 60 years time frame showing no increase in global drought. Your link is a prediction of the future based upon the output of models. Very different animals.
A future prediction is not the same as a current assessment, at this time global droughts have not increased. Some model outcomes show that they will increase, not a fact a prediction. Similar to weather forecasting. May be correct and then again it could be completely wrong.
Ok, try this recent study:
“Research from the University of Southampton has provided robust evidence that wet regions of the earth are getting wetter and dry regions are getting drier but it is happening at a slower rate than previously thought.”
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2016/11/water-cycle-study.page
Roy uses a remarkably simple diagram that could be well used by many others in the media, and elsewhere, should they wish to actually convey one of the main issues in such a heated debate.
Yet the MSM chooses not to, because most of them are simply not interested in furthering genuine understanding or, god forbid, tolerance of dissenting views.
The spectrum circumscribes the opinion of many participants in the semi-popular climate debate blog world. I don’t think it captures the general public, who are less concerned with the details than we are, where the spectrum is less nuanced.
So Barry has posted repeatedly but still crickets as to my very simple question?
And David Appell, where where art thou?
“What is the correct level of CO2 in the earths atmosphere?”
Let’s see….if the pressure and atm. opacity due CO2 levels were higher such that the oceans would boil, that would be bad, not correct.
If the pressure and atm. opacity due CO2 (and maybe some wv) levels were lower, such that the oceans would freeze, that would be bad, not correct.
So ‘gator’s answer lies in between about whatever T salt water freezes and boils & I’d say that correct temperature is what ever makes the ‘gator comfortable, properly clothed.
Crickets is all you’ll get until you remove the offending rhetoric “CAGW adherent” from your question. Happy to comment once the personal ideology/tribalism is set aside.
Ha, good point barry, no CAGW proponent here responded to the ‘gator but my bar cabinet was (mostly) empty tonight and I am looking for other entertainment.
I have seen very little in the way of people commenting on ‘catastrophic’ global warming here. I don’t think there are many CAGW “adherents.” But I don’t read every post.
Dr. Spencer – I always enjoy and admire your measured, careful, and considerate treatment of these controversial matters. I think the warming effects of CO2 are well known but overestimated by the alarmists. I have repeatedly asked them to identify one historical episode in the last 600 million years when a climate reversal was preceded by a CO2 change. Are you aware of any?
Jim White…”I think the warming effects of CO2 are well known but overestimated…”
I am still waiting for a scientific rebuttal of my claim that the degree to which CO2 can warm the atmosphere is tied exactly to it’s mass. Based on that, ACO2 should have a warming effect of something like 0.01C over a century.
What sort of proof can you provide to a slot machine addict?
Gordon Robertson says:
March 28, 2017 at 3:44 PM
I am still waiting for a scientific rebuttal of my claim that the degree to which CO2 can warm the atmosphere is tied exactly to its mass.
But you don’t need to wait for it. It was written decades ago by Joseph W. Chamberlain.
Somewhat heavy to digest but highly informative.
Chamberlain, J.W., 1978. Elementary, Analytic Models of Climate: I. The Mean Global Heat Balance
http://tinyurl.com/m4x3a8x
and
Chamberlain, J.W., Hunten, D.M., 1987. Theory of Planetary Atmospheres: An Introduction to their Physics and Chemistry.
http://tinyurl.com/m2ad2r3
Having read that stuff, you begin to understand that the world of trace gases is a little bit more complex than you had imagined before.
The essence of Chamberlain’s world put in a nutshell: some trace gases have, even in tiny concentrations, the effect of making the so called atmospheric window more and more opaque, what decreases the efficiency of heat evacuation to outer space.
And CO2 is one of these crazy boyz 🙂
Finally, some good news. Trump has rescinded Obama’s goofy Climate Action Plan.
At least he has done something.
He must be the laziest POTUS ever, spending most of his time playing golf or visiting his obscene mansion in Florida.
Don’t you get the impression Donald is already bored with the job?
I suspect he suffers from attention deficit syndrome (apart from several other afflictions).
dr no…”Dont you get the impression Donald is already bored with the job?”
Things will pick up when he finds a way to deal with traitors in Congress and gets around to consulting with Putin. As far as being lazy, he has signed more bills than I have ever seen a US president sign. He is being opposed at every level including Democrats and sissified judges.
He will likely collapse from the amount of work he is doing. He’s not at the right age to be expending so much energy in his condition.
Wait a bit! That action might run during the next weeks into a blind-alley like did the trial to shutdown Obamacare.
Bindidon…”That action might run during the next weeks into a blind-alley like did the trial to shutdown Obamacare”.
Don’t hold your breath, most Republicans in Congress agree with him on the bogus science of AGW.
As you very well know, CO2 is by far only one of the many problems created by fossile fuel burning, even if all these strange alarmists might think different.
Their useless blah blah make us forget all the rest.
Indeed. Trump is part of the drag on political action, and why I think it’s clear that little will be done to mitigate CO2. Lots of meetings, no real political will.
So critics of mitigation initiatives should be quite happy. I’m surprised they haven’t recognized the sloth-like movement of action on mitigation and calm down.
barry, the founders set up the three way balanced USA system not to work, intentionally. It is amazing it has done so well, a tribute to their reading of history.
If they had set up a system to work fast by one person, well look at systems that ARE set up that way. Make your own judgement of world history. Better for a system as the founders set up in my view.
An analysis using engineering science demonstrates why CO2 has no significant effect on climate and identifies the three factors which do (98% match with measured 1895-2016). http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Carefully reading all comments in this thread
http://tinyurl.com/lvwz522
was really helpful…
Unfortunately, that thread is misleading. Look at Figure 1. It shows TSI, a power measure on the same graph as temperature, an energy measure. Such a plot is egregiously misleading. Its like plotting your speedometer reading on the same graph as your odometer reading and then saying “See, they are different. Therefore they are not related”. The odometer reading is the time integral of the speedometer reading. Likewise, to be relevant, the temperature should be compared to the time-integral of TSI (minus an appropriate constant). Of course a scale factor is involved; the effective thermal capacitance. My blog shows it done correctly.
Dan Pangburn…from your link…”Non-ghg gases must transfer energy to ghg gases (or liquid or solid bodies) for this energy to be radiated”.
All gases can radiate energy, they just don’t do it in the IR range of surface emissions. The statement above expresses a lack of understanding of why atoms and molecules radiate energy.
Climate science of the alarmist variety have done science a great disservice by generalizing radiation as the only mechanism of heat transfer in the atmosphere.
Gordon, despite your claim – meteorology knows winds (sensible) and evap./rain (latent) transfer energy in the atm. in addition to atm. radiation.
Gordon Robertson
It does seem that radiant energy transfer it the only mechanism that transfers heat to the surface (via solar or downwelling IR). The other mechanisms, convection and evaporation cool the surface and I am not aware of any other mechanism that acts to warm the surface other than radiant energy (maybe some geothermal but on a global scale it is very small amount).
The climate scientists are spot on with the TOA approach. The only way energy leaves the Earth’s system is by radiation and that is why they are so actively measuring the incoming and outgoing radiant energy.
“The other mechanisms, convection and evaporation cool the surface..”
Norman, think about where convection and evaporation up from surface dump their energy. If they dumped it say on the backside of the moon, then yes, they would cool earth surface. And the backside of the moon would have turned out lusher than we found it. Think also about why they call it the water “cycle”.
Ball4
Sorry I have to disagree with you. If they did not cool the surface the part of the planet we live on would be much hotter.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1280px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
If the 105.4 W/m^2 removed from the surface by convection and evaporation did not exist the surface would rise to 33.8 C to reach an equilibrium radiant energy temperature.
Some of the energy of the surface cooling would return to the surface via radiation in downwelling IR but it is still only radiant energy of some type warming the surface. If you think it through I think you will agree with my point.
Norman…”If the 105.4 W/m^2 removed from the surface by convection and evaporation did not exist the surface would rise to 33.8 C…”
Lindzen claimed it would be closer to 70C.
“If they did not cool the surface the part of the planet we live on would be much hotter.”
They cycle Norman, their cooling effect is equal to their warming effect.
Hi Ball4.
AFIK Norman should be right, shouldn’t be the energy radiated from above through GHGs that make the convective loop a heat pump because it cools the air below the localized adiabatic lapse rate temperature as the parcels raise?
IMHO under a convective loop the air returning back to ground should be cooler, don’t you agree?
If your statement instead was thought without GHGs then I agree with you.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Massimo, Norman is correct for the up energy subtracting component; what one finds in the maybe ~100 published energy balances in the earth/atm system is an equal down adding energy component for near surface air layer from latent and sensible cycling of energy. Thus no net T change globally over 4-10 annual periods or more from those 2 processes
Norman…”It does seem that radiant energy transfer it the only mechanism that transfers heat to the surface (via solar or downwelling IR)”.
I am referring purely to the GHE and AGW theories. Both theories suggest strongly that radiative heat transfer is the main mechanism for heat transfer in the atmosphere.
Lindzen wrote a good paper on that in which he claims convective transfer is at least as important. I think he was being kind.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
You and I disagree on the GHE and AGW. I think heat transfer through down-dwelling radiation from GHGs is pseudo-science. You cannot transfer heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, especially a surface that generated the IR to warm the GHGs. Remember perpetual motion?
I am really tired of alarmists playing around with the 2nd law.
Gordon, you have confused yourself miss-using the term heat, only energy exists in nature. Try rewriting that comment without using the unphysical term “heat”.
Gordon Robertson
Your post sounds like something from Joe Postma blog. His misunderstanding of the 2nd Law is amazing.
I could go on trying to convince you but that has already been done. At least read a textbook on it that would help. I consider the textbook the most reliable source in science, it can be wrong but I would demand proof of error via valid experiment.
What you could try (and I have already done with a hot plate and heat lamp) is an actual experiment.
In your world-vies a cooler environment will have no effect on a hotter surface based upon your faulty understanding of the 2nd Law.
I would hope you would do an experiment to test your belief and see if it is correct. I could do it but you may not believe my results. Only your own research will convince you.
Take a normal filament light bulb maybe 100 Watt or greater. Attach a reliable thermometer to its surface and at room temperature wait until the temperature no longer changes. It is at equilibrium with its surroundings at this point (surface temperature of the light bulb).
Now put your system in a refrigerator or freezer and wait until the temperature no longer changes and record the value.
Now put the apparatus in a 120 F oven (any temperature lower than the bulb surface temperature) and then wait and measure the bulb surface equilibrium temperature. If your view is correct there will be no change in bulb equilibrium temperature. The surroundings are cooler than the bulb surface and cannot possibly affect the temperature as that would then violate your view of what the 2nd Law explains.
If the temperatures vary based upon the environment they are in, your view is faulty and needs to be changed.
Here is what the real 2nd Law is about (not Joe Postma’s twisted wrong version that non scientists accept as valid).
A violation of the 2nd Law would mean that the surrounding temperature cooled and the bulb temperature went up. It would not mean that the surrounding environments cannot raise the equilibrium temperature of the bulb surface depending upon the surrounding conditions.
The atmosphere does not get cooler while heating up the surface (that would violate the 2nd Law). The surface can absorb the IR and become warmer than if the IR was not there.
It is like the light bulb. In the oven the surface of the light bulb can get warmer than if it is in a freezer. It radiates away energy the same but it has more energy getting absorbed at the surface so its equilibrium temperature goes up.
The experiment is very simple and will not take much of your time. It will do great things in your understanding of physics and the 2nd Law and you will see why PSI is considered “crackpot science” after you do this experiment.
Happy testing!
Norman says, March 28, 2017 at 9:01 PM:
Say what!?
“Downwelling IR” from the cooler atmosphere TRANSFERS HEAT to the warmer surface!!!??? To do what? Raise its temperature?
Norman, tell me you’re joking. Tell me you’ve picked up an introductory course textbook on thermodynamics since last time …
You need to start getting what a “heat transfer” is and where it can go and where it CAN’T go in nature.
The sun transfers heat to earth’s surface, Norman. The atmosphere does NOT!!!! Not through ANY mechanism.
How can you tell? The sun is warmer than earth’s surface. The atmosphere isn’t.
Thermodynamics 101.
Kristian
YOU:”“Downwelling IR” from the cooler atmosphere TRANSFERS HEAT to the warmer surface!!!??? To do what? Raise its temperature?”
I see my mistake, I put the word “or” instead of “and” in my statement. It is the combination of both energy sources that allows for a higher equilibrium temperature to be achieved than if the input was only solar.
No the IR from the cooler atmosphere alone will not raise the temperature of the surface. Just as in the Arctic night the surface cools. I think I have explained this to you dozens of times, maybe go back and read some old threads. The IR from the cooler atmosphere and the incoming solar energy will lead to a higher equilibrium surface temperature than in a case with only solar input (Moon average temperature is a very good example for you).
Pointless for me to try and explain it to you so do the experiment I suggested to Gordon Robertson and let me know the results.
Norman says, March 29, 2017 at 2:03 PM:
No. Your mistake is implying that the cooler atmosphere transfers HEAT to the warmer surface, a process that is impossible in nature, by the 2nd Law.
What “allows for a higher equilibrium temperature” with an atmosphere in place is the fact that the surface LOSES LESS HEAT at any given temperature than if the atmosphere weren’t there.
The atmosphere is NOT an “energy source” for the surface. It is an “energy SINK”. The SUN is an “energy source” for the surface. However, the atmosphere, acting as an INSULATING LAYER on top of the solar-heated (!) surface, forces its equilibrium temperature to be higher than if it weren’t there by letting less heat ESCAPE it at any given temperature. This doesn’t just include net LW, but conduction and evaporation (and convection) as well.
The DWLWIR is not a separate macroscopic (thermodynamic) flux of energy (W/m^2). It is one of two conceptual (mathematically deduced) COMPONENTS of the actual (observed/detected) macroscopic energy flux between sfc and atm: the net LW (the radiant heat flux). The other one being the UWLWIR.
In the real world, the observed net flux is made up of not just two, but a gazillion individual “photon fluxes” (none of which can possibly be separately detected). Each photon flux contains a direction in 3D space and an intensity/frequency. You need statistics to find a macroscipic (probabilistic) distribution of net movement through the radiation field from all of them.
The idea of a mere two-way transfer is just a mathematical concept. A simplified model.
*Sigh*
I’ve asked you before to read up on heat transfers, Norman. You obviously haven’t. Because you apparently still think it’s ok to add together an actual heat flux (the solar flux) and a NON-heat flux (the DWLWIR) and somehow call it “heat” (total heat input?). I’m not the only one pointing this glaring error out for you. I specifically remember Tim Folkerts doing the very same thing. You still didn’t get it.
Insulation works. Even when it’s cooler than the insulated object. However, it doesn’t work by adding more energy to the warmer object. It works by letting less energy ESCAPE the warmer object at a certain temperature than without.
As long as you stick to this (physically coherent) explanation, we’re fine. Just stop it with the (nonsensical, un-physical) “heating by back radiation” story. It makes you come off as a fool.
Kristian
I already know your thought process. Have you done the experiment I suggested?
All thermodynamics texts look at radiation as a two way transfer of energy. Only you don’t. Your conception is the odd man out and it is not based on anything but your own opinion of how you believe things work.
These thoughts of yours: “The DWLWIR is not a separate macroscopic (thermodynamic) flux of energy (W/m^2). It is one of two conceptual (mathematically deduced) COMPONENTS of the actual (observed/detected) macroscopic energy flux between sfc and atm: the net LW (the radiant heat flux). The other one being the UWLWIR.”
They are just an opinion. What are they based upon? What textbook thermodynamics 101 thinks in this fashion. None. You will find no textbook advocating your opinion.
I think you are wrong but there is no words I can come up with to change your opinion.
If you do the experiment with the light bulb it will demonstrate my point. The ambient surroundings insulating properties are not changing with air in the freezer or oven. The energy loss by insulation effect would be close to the same since the insulating properties of the air are similar. The only reason there could be a difference is if the surrounding cooler air and objects is actually adding some energy to the hot bulb surface or else there would be no change of bulb surface temperature in either case.
If you do the experiment and the bulb surface stays the same temperature in the three cases described. Room temperature ambient, freezer and oven at 120 F I will accept I am wrong on this issue. Until then I will continue to accept what textbooks say on the issue and consider your view a mistaken one. I can be swayed by experimental evidence.
“Just stop it with the (nonsensical, un-physical) “heating by back radiation” story.”
No need for Norman to do so, testing shows higher temperature by back radiation is physical:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
“It doesn’t matter whether you call it “reduced rate of cooling”, or “warming”, the result is the same: a higher temperature.”
Kristian should also do or cite a test supporting his opinion: “The DWLWIR is not a separate macroscopic (thermodynamic) flux of energy…”
Ball4
YOU: “Kristian should also do or cite a test supporting his opinion: The DWLWIR is not a separate macroscopic (thermodynamic) flux of energy”
I totally agree with you on this. I actually changed my view based upon my own experimentation. For a short period I was swayed by the arguments of likes like Postma and PSI.
I took a hot plate, measured its surface temperature and measured the surface temperature of a heat lamp, which had a cooler temperature, but with the heat lamp on the hotter heating plate, its temperature went up.
Norman says, March 30, 2017 at 5:03 AM:
It’s blindingly obvious you don’t. Because you go on with the same banality as always:
It seems you seriously think that such an experiment would all of a sudden convince me that your way of seeing this somehow has to be correct. As if I have never seen such things happen before. As if I disagreed with the notion that if you put something cooler next to something hot, then if that something hot is heated at a constant rate and the something cooler at the same time is warmer than the original surroundings of the something hot, then the temperature of the something hot would be observed to go up. It would go up. This is “heat transfer 101”, Norman. Note: HEAT transfer. I don’t know how many times I’ve pointed out to you what I pointed out to you in my previous comment: “Insulation works. Even when it’s cooler than the insulated object. However, it doesn’t work by adding more energy to the warmer object. It works by letting less energy ESCAPE the warmer object at a certain temperature than without.”
To reiterate and stress: If you insulate something hot that’s already being constantly heated, that hot, constantly heated thing will warm, Norman. Again, heat transfer 101.
You do NOT understand my ‘thought process’ on this. You simply don’t WANT to. In fact, you absolutely REFUSE to.
I do too. Of course I do. MATHEMATICALLY. Heard of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation? I use it too. But I have also provided links to several textbooks in the past that expound other, more nuanced and realistic views on what radiation REALLY is. You SHOULD be aware of this. I have even quoted from them on multiple occasions.
Even in those textbooks (on actual thermodynamics, not on “climate science”, that is) that keep to the mathematically convenient “bidirectional” model, though, what you will NEVER find, is someone pretending that these two mathematically derived “component fluxes” are somehow physically distinct entities, thermodynamically independent from one another. Meaning that you will NEVER EVER find someone splitting them and putting them on either side of the equation mark, turning the one into INCOMING HEAT and the other into OUTGOING HEAT, somehow caused by the first one, in order to explain temperatures at either side of a radiant heat transfer.
That’s something they do in “climate science”, not in real physics. That’s something YOU do. And I don’t.
Nope. It is completely in line with what science tells us about the nature of radiation.
Of course it is. Links provided plenty of times. Again, my “opinion” about how these things work are completely in line with what science tells us about the fundamental nature of radiation.
You’re totally stuck on the mathematical “bidirectional” concept and cannot get past it. You are simply incapable of seeing the forest for the trees on this subject. THAT’S the issue here, Norman, not my “unwillingness” to do your experiments.
They are not an opinion, Norman. That’s what you absolutely fail to see. They are based on ALL OBSERVATIONS EVER MADE on radiation. We can and do only ever observe the net flux in a radiant heat transfer. That’s a FACT! It’s not an opinion. It’s not even a theory. It’s a fact. And the UNIdirectional net flux (net movement of radiant energy) through the three-dimensional radiation field is the probabilistic average of ALL individual photon directions and intensities through ALL points making up the three-dimensional radiation field. It is NOT the net of two opposing macroscopic fluxes.
This is STILL what you don’t get: The fundamental distinction between the MICROscopic and the MACROscopic realms, the quantum world and the world where we live and thermodynamic principles rule. Individual photons fly around everywhere. Macroscopic fluxes don’t. They move down potential gradients and that’s it.
No, it will not. It will just be your interpretation of it versus mine. As always. But you do not understand radiation, and you do not understand thermodynamics. So there is no way of getting the message through to you on this. As always …
So, again you’re claiming that the cooler surroundings actually add energy to the warmer object that makes it warmer still. Directly and all by itself. That’s a HEAT TRANSFER by definition, Norman. And your explanation of the insulating effect (which itself is real enough, but must be explained differently) has once more violated the 2nd Law. Congrats!
!! Sorry. A slip of the pen. I meant of course to say “… the equal sign …”
Kristian
Experiments will prove you wrong and I do not know of any thermodynamics textbook that does not deal with two distinct macroscopic flows of energy.
I was walking around work and looking at the many lights which prove your view is wrong. Each individual light is a macroscopic flow of energy. There is not a unidirectional flow of light that exists. Each individual light has its own flow and direction and the light adds together on a surface to make things brighter.
You won’t experiment but you tell me I am wrong.
Here is another experiment that will prove you completely wrong but you won’t even attempt it. But I will try.
Take a hot plate (hopefully you have one) get it warmed up.
Now take an IR source with a variable control output. Set up a thermometer on the plate, now try various increments of the IR source directed on the plate and see how it affects the plate surface temperature and then tell me that this cooler source will not add energy to the hotter surface.
It is not an insulating effect here.
Kristian
Your point: “So, again youre claiming that the cooler surroundings actually add energy to the warmer object that makes it warmer still. Directly and all by itself. Thats a HEAT TRANSFER by definition, Norman. And your explanation of the insulating effect (which itself is real enough, but must be explained differently) has once more violated the 2nd Law. Congrats!”
You really are confused here. Yes the cooler surroundings will add energy to the warmer one, but it will not add heat.
Thermodynamics definition of heat is the NET flow of energy when you add all the unique flows of energy together. The direction of heat will be from hot to cold. I am not stating anything different.
Listen please. Turn off your internal screech machine and hear what I am claiming.
You have two surroundings. One object. The object has an internal supply of energy.
Both surroundings are adding energy (NOT HEAT!!) to the object. So in the equation that is quite established and known you have the temperature of your object and you subtract the temperature of the surroundings to get the HEAT FLOW. The hotter surrounding will add more energy to the object than the cold one (NOTE again it is not adding HEAT!! They both add energy!!). The hotter object in both cases emits more energy than it receives from the surroundings!! Do you get this??? Heat is moving from Hot to Colder!!
But since the hotter surrounding are adding more energy to the object than the cooler surrounding the object will end up being hotter in the warmer environment than the colder one.
Do the light bulb experiment or talk no more, you will see I am right and your fanatic rants are pointless only designed to reinforce your opinion but not to find out reality.
Give me one credible textbook source on radiant energy that does not believe IR fluxes are individual macroscopic fluxes emitted by each surface. Find me one that believes it is merely a mathematical construct.
Way to go Norman! Wow.
IMO what Kristian is trying to express is the bidirectional photon/energy flows between 2 or more emitting/absorbing bodies are inseparable. When JC Maxwell published on them (also Prof.s Clausius previously, Planck afterwards), he was quickly confronted with the proposal to separate the flows and warm up some water.
He knew & expressed that couldn’t be done, tried but never could prove it. That formal proof was complex, several attempts tried and failed – bullet proof analysis was finally formally completed in the early 1950s iirc from a second law approach. Given how long it took to do that, I can see why Kristian persists in his own way.
Norman says, March 30, 2017 at 12:37 PM:
No, they won’t. Because you don’t even know what I’m saying and what I don’t. You have an inherent straw man notion about what I think and don’t think. You’re not even trying to see beyond it. You’re completely stuck inside your little bubble.
Again, you evidently do not understand simple thermodynamic principles and you do not understand how science actually sees and describes the REAL nature of radiation. And so it is utterly hopeless for me to discuss this particular subject with you. You simply make no effort whatsoever to see where I’m coming from.
How exactly do they prove my view wrong? You don’t even know what “my view” is. I could just as easily walk around my working place looking at the many lights proving my view right.
Of course they do! If we had two suns rather than one, earth would be a much hotter place! But this example has absolutely no bearing on what I’m trying to tell you, Norman.
OK. Let’s hear it.
I guess not. But there IS a heat transfer. You still don’t get it, do you? This is not what I’m talking about. But you simply won’t listen. Won’t read what I write.
If the plate is hotter than the variable IR source, then the plate LOSES energy to it, it doesn’t gain anything. MACROSCOPICALLY. THERMODYNAMICALLY. But it loses LESS energy to the IR source than to the ambient and so will have a slightly restricted total heat loss.
AGAIN, for the hundredandfourtyseventh or so time: You need to distinguish between the MICRO and the MACRO realm, Norman. Individual photons vs. detectable (macroscopic) fluxes (W/m^2). The hot plate will NEVER detect an INCOMING energy flux from the IR source. It will ONLY detect an energy LOSS. Yes, it will indeed absorb individual photons from the IR source (as it will from the ambient), but that does NOT constitute a thermodynamic input of radiant energy.
I know all this sounds Greek to you, and very much internally inconsistent. But that is only because you haven’t bothered to actually take in the things I’m pointing out. It is only because you cannot get your head to distinguish between individual photons flying everywhere and the probabilistic average of ALL those individual photons within the radiation field in question turned into a NET (macroscopic) MOVEMENT of radiant energ through the field. To you, the individual photons ARE seemingly the macroscopic flux. But they cannot be. Because they fly in ALL directions, not just two. And so you just HAVE TO take the statistical approach to their individual movements and frequencies in order to see any THERMODYNAMIC effects at all. Just like with the individual gas molecules in air, and with the individual electrons in an electric current. There’s no fundamental difference.
Norman says, March 30, 2017 at 12:48 PM:
Noooooo!!!!! Ask Tim Folkerts about this, Norman. He has told you before, just like I have. Heat is NOT all “unique flows of energy” added together. Some flows are addable, some are not. The solar flux + the DWLWIR does NOT make the incoming heat to the surface, Norman. If you seriously believe this, then I have no hope for you. Then you simply shouldn’t discuss matters on thermodynamics at all. First educate yourself!
You show just how little you understand of thermodynamic concepts. You suggest that we add the solar flux and the “back radiation flux” together so as to make a larger flux to warm the earth surface some more. As if the solar and the DWLWIR now constituted ONE unified flux. Well, then you have in effect made the incoming HEAT flux larger. The original heat flux being the solar one …
They are not equal, Norman, and do not belong on the same side of the surface energy budget. The solar flux is incoming heat, the DWLWIR is part of the surface outgoing heat.
Because, if you were versed in just a tiny bit of basic thermodynamic principles, you would know that only HEAT [Q] and work [W] can affect temperatures in any way; not DWLWIR or UWLWIR individually.
With this, I can’t be bothered more with this pointless “discussion”. Bye.
Norman, this whole debacle started off with you stating in plain English that downwelling IR transfers HEAT (not energy, HEAT) to the surface:
So DWLWIR is somehow “net energy” from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface?
Norman, it is nearby demonstrated that you need not turn on the screech machine if you learn to drop the never needed “heat” term from your comments and correctly use instead energy. If you had written as below, the deafening thing might have stayed silent:
“It does seem that radiant energy transfer is the only mechanism that transfers energy to the surface (via solar or downwelling IR).”
Dropping outdated “heat” term from your comments is good practice anyway, will be in the right direction to modestly reduce the bandwidth in the top post cartoon.
Gordon Robertson
I would agree with Lindzen: “Lindzen claimed it would be closer to 70C.
My calculation did not take into account that the atmosphere itself would warm up and emit even more IR to the surface and the 70 C would probably be the new equilibrium temperature.
Thanks.
Gor – Your statement above demonstrates a skill at taking things out of context. My statement is correct in the context of terrestrial radiation. The complete paragraph is: “The only way that energy can significantly leave earth is by thermal radiation. Only solid or liquid bodies and greenhouse gases (ghg) can absorb/emit in the wavelength range of terrestrial radiation. Non-ghg gases must transfer energy to ghg gases (or liquid or solid bodies) for this energy to be radiated.”
Dan: “Only solid or liquid bodies and greenhouse gases (ghg) can absorb/emit in the wavelength range of terrestrial radiation.”
Not according to measurements which show ALL solid, liquid, gas absorb/emit in the wavelength range of terrestrial radiation. Those measurements from which the Planck formula is derived nonzero at all wavelengths (including terrestrial), at all temperatures. ALL means all including N2, O2 gas. No exceptions.
Ball4
If you look at Hitran data you will see that N2 emits IR about a trillion times less than CO2. So basically it is insignificant contribution.
“If you look at Hitran data you will see that N2 emits IR..”
Yes, per Planck formula at terrestrial temperatures, which is my point, Dan had written: “only ghg can aborb/emit”.
Pretty amazing someone measured 1 trillionth of something is it not?
Ball4
I measure impurities to the part per billion range, I know microchip manufacturing has instruments that go down to the part per trillion range. The water they use to wash the chips is not just ultrapure they run ultrapure water through more demineralizing systems to bring it down to that low level.
This argument goes all the way back to 1200 BC.
Climate Changed Caused the Pre-Industrial Bronze Age Collapse
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/29/climate-changed-caused-the-pre-industrial-bronze-age-collapse/
Are you agreeing that climate change can have negative effects on civilizations?
barry…”Are you agreeing that climate change can have negative effects on civilizations?”
Better no be…climate is an effect, not a cause. Climate is nothing more than an average of weather and other forces cause weather.
In other words, other forces cause the weather to change and if that persists in the long term, the climate changes. You people claiming climate change is a driver are all wet.
in the meantime we must be the only civilization in history to substitute an energy system that works twenty four seven,for wind and solar that doesent,bit like selling your car,and buying a new one that only starts four days out of seven
Wind, solar, geothermal, wave power, hydroelectric, nuclear. lot more renewable energy sources than two. And I don’t see a rapid transition happening, just a slow one.
Storage is the key limiting factor for intermittent energy supply. If that can be solved, solar and wind may have a major part to play one day.
Norway’s electricity is generated almost entirely from hydropower.
No doubt they are suffering continuous blackouts, devastated GDP, and the quality of life is is one of the worst in the world.
That’s what comes from eschewing fossil fuel based power generation, right?
barry, good point. The big electric utility in Iowa is generating something like 35% of its load from wind at several lower /kwh than surrounding states. Investment plans are in place to get to something like 80%. Wind is working, the local hospitals are not complaining about lack of electricity afaik.
cents/kwh
Only mentioned two because in the UK they are the most unreliable.lots of cloud in the UK.in winter during cold periods we can have as many 10 consecutive days when their is no wind.i drive past a wind farm most days and can see for myself when their is no generation . no wind to much wind spoke to lady a few weeks ago who summed it up .I asked for her thoughts she replied I like them they look lovely.just about sums up energy policies
Ball4
Maybe look at this webpage regularly to see how wind works. Highly unreliable and no conceivable energy storage system is remotely available to supply days of energy when the wind is not blowing in the summer.
https://www.misoenergy.org/Pages/Home.aspx
Click on Real-Time Data in the box on right.
In the selections brought up click on Day Ahead wind forecast
Also click on LMP Contour map. In the Contour Map you can see the large area covered my MISO.
If you click on resources tab in the upper right corner it will bring up how much energy is supplied by what source.
In the summer the wind in the entire are gets as low as 200 MW and the load is 125,000 MW. You need to store and incredible amount of energy to cover the load when wind is low. And in the summer months in MISO area the wind can be low for several days at a time. Monitor it and then tell me what you really know about wind energy.
Despite all that Norman, wind is demonstrably working in the real world, managed to reliably power Iowan residences and businesses at lower costs than those in surrounding states, regions. With major plans in place to invest real money to further lower consumer costs.
Ball4
So you are saying you will offer your opinion but refuse to study the issue at depth?
Fact is it does not work in the real world. In the summer the Iowa power plants run at full capacity for the entire summer except for the passing storms which then generate the wind.
MISO area would go dark if wind was their major source of power.
Since you do not care to investigate I will link to the resource page so others maybe can look. Not sure the link will work.
https://www.misoenergy.org/LMPContourMap/MISO_All.html
At this time wind is fairly high, the highest I have seen it is about 15,000 MW and in the Spring the load is lower so it makes a more significant contribution. Look in the summer on a calm day.
Norman, there are lots of things more interesting and profitable demand my time, digging out into the details of a big Iowa electrical utility powerplant management is not my interest, I do appreciate your interest in digging into such.
How many degrees below normal temperature is now in the Antarctic?
https://www.yr.no/sted/Antarktika/
https://www.yr.no/place/Antarctica/Other/Scott_Base/statistics.html
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_SH_2017.png
Sorry.
https://www.yr.no/sted/Antarktika/Annet/Scott/
barry
I did complete putting all the record high daily hot and cold temperatures for Canada in January from 1975-2017.
I don’t think I can evaluate the results.
The number of recording stations dropped from 33,000+ in 1975 down to 7000 some in 2017.
If you just take total raw hot records (actual number) you have an increase over time but if you take the ratio (high records divided into number of recording stations) the increase is much steeper. What I can’t evaluate is if more stations would have produced a linear increase in hot records or not (since the records tend to clump in regions) meaning if 2017 had 33000 recording stations would the 195 records broken in 2017 equaled 879 broken records with the 30,000 recording stations in 1970’s? Since I can’t answer this I do not know the validity of my compilation of data.
I appreciate you going to the trouble, and for your comments. I get what you’re saying.
I guess the way to do it is to use only long-term station records that cover the whole period you’re interested in.
I think it is suggestive that although the number of stations decrease over time, the number of hot record breakers increases.
Suggestive… if you take any large object that slowly warms, particularly a turbulent system, it is intuitive to think that the distribution of temperatures (including record-breakers) will shift warmwards. Local ait temp record-breakers are only a subset of a general trend that would see minimum and maximum temperatures shifting warmwards, as well as minimum and maximum cool temperatures. (Minimums and maximums represent the diurnal range)
As long as the variability remains constant, if the background changes temperature, then the subset temps (max/min and record-breakers) will follow in line with that.
barry
Raw Hot records from 1975 to 2017
316
510
179
219
286
204
595
113
315
600
220
911
488
449
608
680
189
600
563
248
672
816
361
390
491
482
440
726
746
198
726
833
850
644
230
352
298
421
536
358
360
263
195
Cold records from the same time period
165
432
142
94
254
65
480
640
38
346
85
70
112
182
285
75
510
115
472
928
95
776
415
171
263
74
62
71
206
689
491
3
59
206
353
25
89
177
61
295
93
20
23
barry
If you show up on this dying thread I did find this view.
It is locked but it is a direct challenge to the Arctic Amplification causing a wavier jet stream hypothesis.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL070309/full
Still here.
That’s fine, Norman. I don’t have a horse in this race. My own view remains that nothing is certain yet on a those links. I have read a number of papers supporting and rebutting.
In case you missed it above, I think this is the best and most current short overview of the topic.
http://tinyurl.com/m9coxzq
Dear Dr Roy,
I was curious…here in Australia, we just had a rather large tropical cyclone, in terms of rainfall dropped, it was a monster, whilst I have no qualifications whatsoever, I have embedded myself into the “non alarmist” camp based on lots of reading and casual observations… so…being as solar radiation and especially trapped solar radiation ( from whatever mechanism) is heat energy, and tropical cyclones are the result of warm water and evaporation,
would not the cyclone itself – and especially the rainfall event not be acting as sort of a “control rod” to excess heat energy in the system.
I wonder this as I speculated at the staggering amount of water, lifted into the atmosphere, and the energy required ( and used) to do that, who knows how much rainfall was generated, but looking at the wide spread flooding it must be in the millions of tons of water – perhaps even billions,,
Brad..
Stop press….. a million tons of water is only a Gigalitre, silly me , so more like 10’s or even 100’s of billions of tons came from this event, an even more staggering amount of energy used, I presume I’m not violating a thermodynamics law here 🙂
I’ll be curious to see if global sea level dips for a few months, as it did when Queensland flooded 6 years ago.
Kristain
No matter how much I try to explain something you fail to understand it.
YOU: “Noooooo!!!!! Ask Tim Folkerts about this, Norman. He has told you before, just like I have. Heat is NOT all unique flows of energy added together. Some flows are addable, some are not.”
Do you have a link to this. I have found Tim Folkerts mostly agreed with my posts unless I made some error that I was able to correct.
You lack the knowledge to grasp. All radiant energy fluxes are added to a surface. Some are negative.
For the heat transfer equation Heat=(emissivity)(Stefan-Boltzmann constant)(T(surface)^4 – T(surroundings)^4)
The radiant flux of the surroundings is a negative to the overall heat flow. It is energy the surface is gaining. the higher the temperature of the surroundings the more energy the surface gains from its surroundings and the less HEAT (net flow of energy) is lost.
Does anyone in the Universe know what you are saying? Did you come up with any textbook explanation of radiant heat transfer that supports your position?
You say I am wrong. Prove this to be true with evidence. I do not accept your opinion on radiant energy. I think it is highly illogical to think that a surface that is emitting a measurable macroscopic IR flux in one instant will stop doing so when another surface is added. I know that the vast majority of scientists in the field will understand that each surface emits a macroscopic directional IR flow away from its surface based only upon the surface temperature and the emissivity of the surface. Other radiant fields in the region will not change or affect this independent flow of energy. Only a change in the temperature of the surface will then change the surface IR flux. Prove this statement wrong with some actual evidence and not your endless repletion of your opinion.
You say I am wrong, now prove it with some evidence and not your own opinion.
Norman 11:50am, you risk turning on the screech machine yet again. Near 100%. Give or take.
“Heat is NOT all unique flows of energy added together.”
Clausius 1st memoir, p.18: “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
Better: For the energy transfer equation energy=
Better: The radiant flux of the surroundings is a negative to the overall energy flow.
“less HEAT (net flow of energy) is lost.”
This is ok, but remember the screech machine will find it, who knows if it will agree, what you really mean here is: less kinetic energy (net flow of energy from a body) is lost.
Better: textbook explanation of radiant energy transfer. Heat is KE which is not radiant as photons possess no mass (so far as has been measured – to the trillionths or more).
Norman 11:02am not my original 11:50am, see next.
Kristain
The reason your post sound Greek is because it is not based upon what scientists think or anything I have ever read or studied on the subject.
YOU: “I know all this sounds Greek to you, and very much internally inconsistent. But that is only because you havent bothered to actually take in the things Im pointing out. It is only because you cannot get your head to distinguish between individual photons flying everywhere and the probabilistic average of ALL those individual photons within the radiation field in question turned into a NET (macroscopic) MOVEMENT of radiant energ through the field. To you, the individual photons ARE seemingly the macroscopic flux. But they cannot be. Because they fly in ALL directions, not just two. And so you just HAVE TO take the statistical approach to their individual movements and frequencies in order to see any THERMODYNAMIC effects at all. Just like with the individual gas molecules in air, and with the individual electrons in an electric current. Theres no fundamental difference.”
Photons follow a straight line away from the source that emitted them. They do not fly around in all directions as gas molecules do. That is why a radiant flux exists, the mass of photons is moving in only one direction away from the surface, the many angles may confuse you but they all move away from the surface and form a detectable flux at a distance that can be measured.
The atmosphere (anything would do it) interferes with the direction of the energy flow (which is one way and only one way away from the surface). The GHG molecules absorb the energy and then emit on their own in any direction but always away from the emitting source creating a directional flux. Even though there are infinite angles, the atmosphere flux is only away from the atmosphere, either out to space or back to the surface and the photons in the middle are reabsorbed and reemitted having no directional effect.
The downwelling energy is real energy and directional and it is not at all based upon the surface flux. The surface flux changes independent of the atmosphere flux, the surface flux changes based only upon its temperature and it can be quite a bit different than the atmosphere flux at any given time of day. During the day the surface flux UP increases at a greater rate than the downwelling IR indicating strongly a unique and separate flux only dependent upon the surface temperature. IR fluxes are separate independent mass flows of energy. Comparing the situation to air and wind or electrons in a wire is not comparable.
Nothing you have claimed supports you understanding. No physics book supports it, it is not logical. It really is Greek to a non-Greek speaker. I am glad if you are done with me, your posts are really not educational but will confuse anyone trying to learn real or correct science. You have very little to contribute and you will not perform any tests that will clearly show your view is wrong and incorrect and has no basis in reality except in the opinion of your own mind.
Norman 11:50am: Ding! Well done.
You got thru that whole comment without using the term heat. At. All. Keep it up, not really that hard but takes some discipline. Might get a little quieter around here to the extent you can do so.
Kristain
Here is what actual scientists think. It is a short video lecture (highly simplified).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otdK1x-WCsk
If you do not want to watch the whole thing the important parts start at about 4 minutes.
In this video they explain the radiative heat transfer equation between surface and surrounding…in this video they have the surroundings all around the surface of the object so the view factor is one. With multiple surfaces you have to determine the view factor each contributes to the surface you are interested in.
Q (heat transfer) = (emissivity)(Stefan-Boltzmann constant)(Temperature of one surface in Kelvin)^4 – (temperature of surroundings)^4
If the surroundings are hotter than the surface Q is negative, in this equation it means it is gaining energy and warming. A positive heat transfer means the object is losing energy and cooling.
Note this video totally supports what I am posting. It does not in any way support your opinions. The surface in the video (the heat transfer) is a product of how much the surface is emitting minus how much energy it is absorbing from the surroundings. The reason they do not include absorbitivity in the equation is because it factors out, it is the same as the emissivity. But the video shows this fact that you do not want to accept.
The surface both emits and absorbs radiant energy at the same time. If if absorbs more than it emits it warms up, if it emits more than it absorbs it cools.
If you have the same solar flux hitting the surface in the Earth system, if you either increase the GHG concentration or warm the atmosphere you will increase the energy the surface absrobs from the surroundings (as the amount of energy produced has increased),
Since the surface is absorbing more energy from the surroundings (which the video supports) it will lose less heat and with the same input of solar energy the surface temperature will rise until the new surface temperature emits to balance the increased amount it is absorbing from the atmosphere. You just can’t see that the incoming solar and the downwelling IR are two distinct sources of energy to the surface. If either goes up the surface warms.
The video is by a Prof. of Mechanical Engineering, imagine that. If you can begin to see the good Prof. really means radiative energy transfer, that he doesn’t really mean the radiation is KE, then if you learn & if write it that way more clearly, you can begin to reduce confusion in the atm. energy balances and reduce bandwidth in the top post cartoon.
This is the kind of inexact writing that led to whole websites being created in the atm. area due to past teachers that simply weren’t exact in their writing. If you eliminate heat term from your comments, commenters won’t talk about each other, they won’t criticize each other, they will ENCOURAGE each other to use the exact term: energy.
Better (since the units are all energy): Q (energy transfer) =
Better: A positive energy transfer
Better: (the energy transfer)
Better: it will lose less energy
Research and find an instance where heat CANNOT be replaced by energy then let me know, I haven’t found one, been looking for years.
Ball4
I think your advice is good and valid and hopefully, with encouragement, I will become adept at doing it that way and preventing terrible confusion and hostile reactions based upon word choices.
Ball4 says, March 31, 2017 at 5:12 PM:
*Yawn*
It is YOU that’s being inexact, when you write for instance:
So when you read the 1st Law of Thermodynamics:
ΔU = Q – W
… you just say: The change in energy equals energy transfer minus energy transfer. Because it’s all in energy units (J).
That’s not very precise, is it? It doesn’t tell you ANYTHING about what’s actually going on.
In modern standard textbooks on thermodynamics, this equation is described like this:
The change in a system’s “internal energy” [U] equals the “heat” [Q] transferred to it from its surroundings minus the “work” [W] performed by it on its surroundings.
Precise, straighforward, and easy to grasp.
It can’t possibly have escaped you, the thousands of modern textbooks on thermodynamics out there that authoritatively and consistently utilise the terms “internal energy”, “heat” and “work” to precisely describe and analyse natural thermodynamic processes.
As long as you know what the terms mean, there is absolutely no confusion in using them, Ball4. It makes it all much CLEARER, in fact. It is much easier to distinguish between discrete energy states and mechanisms moving the energy about if you apply specific terms to them.
But you clearly don’t understand, which confuses you and – apparently – frustrates and angers you. And so you want to rid yourself of the terms confusing you.
However, that’s YOUR problem, troll Ball4. Not ours.
Sorry about that …
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
Kristian quotes:Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess heat;…”
From an author that is just as confused as Kristian, something not possessed by an object can not transfer from that object.
Just as the clip goes on to correct itself: the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. Thus the inappropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is heat, which when discussed as transferring from an object is inappropriate in physics.
Since internal energy is possessed in various forms within an object, internal energy can transfer from that object.
Once Kristian learns & uses appropriate physics, he can start to move on to possess an understanding of more advanced work such as F2015.
Ball4 says, April 1, 2017 at 5:30 AM:
Hahaha! Ah, the hubris! Yeah, so EVERY physicist on this planet doing thermodynamic research and writing textbooks on this matter is as confused as me. Only troll Ball4 isn’t. Priceless!
It doesn’t go on to correct itself. It goes on to correct (and direct) confused people like YOU.
Exactly. That’s U.
Exactly. Which is something only YOU obsess about.
No. Because when the energy (EVERYONE agrees that it’s all energy, troll) is stored inside the object, it is termed “internal energy” [U], and when it’s transferred out of or into the object as a result of a temperature difference between the object and its surroundings, it is termed “heat” [Q]. It’s just a term, troll. No one believes it isn’t still energy. If that’s what you’re so afraid of. We simply use different terms to distinguish process from state. Why would such a basic concept baffle you so? U is a state variable/function/quantity of a thermodynamic system. Q and W aren’t. They’re process variables/quantities or path functions. Moreover, you need to distinguish between the energy transferred through a thermal process (called “heat”) and that which is transferred through a mechanical (or chemical, or electrical) process (called “work”), because, as physicist and author of books on thermodynamics and heat transfer Mark Zemansky points out:
“(…) if you are presented with a high temperature gas, you cannot tell whether it reached that high temperature by being heated, or by having work done on it, or a combination of the two.
To describe the energy that a high temperature object has, it is not a correct use of the word heat to say that the object “possesses heat” – it is better to say that it possesses internal energy as a result of its molecular motion. The word heat is better reserved to describe the process of transfer of energy from a high temperature object to a lower temperature one. Surely you can take an object at low internal energy and raise it to higher internal energy by heating it. But you can also increase its internal energy by doing work on it, and since the internal energy of a high temperature object resides in random motion of the molecules, you can’t tell which mechanism was used to give it that energy.” (Emphasis added.)
Point being, you need the different (and clearly, unambiguously defined) terms in order to distinguish between the various processes and states that energy can be part of. Otherwise – if you let everything flow and call it just “energy” – you will end up being lost in your own narrative. Then everything can cause everything else and be the effect of everything else. And your explanatory power has effectively gone up in smoke. You can’t explain a thing. Because you can’t distinguish between anything. Anything goes.
But I guess Zemansky is also as confused as I am. And only you know the Truth.
Kristian, Zemansky is accomplished enough to always use the heat term correctly as did Clausius, Planck, Maxwell in their day. For one so unaccomplished as Kristian mis-use of heat term is so obvious that it is best avoided.
Ball4 says, April 1, 2017 at 9:37 AM:
Exactly. And you’re not. You do not know how to use it. Which apparently frustrates you. Hence, you want the term itself abolished. Which says more about you, really, than about the term in question.
Only I use it EXACTLY the way Zemansky does. Which has been pointed out to you perhaps a hundred times. So if he “always use[s] the heat term correctly”, to use your words, then I am too. Funny, isn’t it …?
“Only I use it EXACTLY the way Zemansky does.”
Incorrect Kristian, you wouldn’t want me to point out all your errors that differ with Zemansky as Norman is correctly doing, I’ve only discussed your more glaring errors.
I find no use for the antiquated term heat in thermo, the confusion it causes is not worth the trouble. There is no need to use heat, a vague, metaphysical, paranormal, mythical substance which I find no need to invoke. Witness this thread. If you find a single use for heat instead of energy or measurable temperature increase (as Dr. Spencer pointed out in vain to Kristian), let me know.
Ball4 says, April 2, 2017 at 5:35 PM:
Yes, I would very much want that, troll. Point out all my errors that differ with Zemansky. Or just ONE. Please quote (with full context) and link and then compare it to what Zemansky is saying.
Go ahead. I do indeed use the term exactly as Zemansky does. You claim I don’t. Then show me where and how.
Norman has extensively correctly (in detail) pointed out Kristian’s errors, I’ve already pointed out a couple of Kristian’s most basic errors. For just one, if Kristian can find what he wrote “The solar flux + the DWLWIR does NOT make the incoming heat to the surface” which was shown false by the atm. test of Dr. Spencer result in “a higher temperature & a cite by Norman anywhere in Zemansky publications kindly provide a cite.
Ball4
I thank you for your advice but I think you also face the same problems with Kristain. He does not care what you say unless you totally agree with him. He is not interested in finding the truth, I think he just posts to puff up his ego. He is no scientist. He is an egoist. I listen to your points and will research them. I may not agree with you at the end of the day but I will consider your points. I also listen to David Appell, barry and Nate and consider their points. I like to research what they say. I may agree or not, it depends on what evidence I find. I really have no solid postion, my stake in the game is trying to find the truth, what is the reality of climate change. Many views, many opinions, but what is the reality. It is best to keep an open mind and keep looking.
Norman says, March 31, 2017 at 11:02 AM:
Yes. That’s because you are.
But you’re ONLY wrong about ONE thing, and that’s thinking that you can separate the DWLWIR from the UWLWIR in a heat transfer. Treating them as distinct macroscopic fluxes, with individual and independent thermodyncamic powers.
You see, this wole thing about whether radiative heat transfer is unidirectional, bidirectional or super-multidirectional is a non-issue. It doesn’t really matter if you think this or that, the end result will ALWAYS be the same anyway. AS LONG AS you’re aware of what constitutes an actual heat transfer and what doesn’t. It is the “heat transfer” [Q] that changes the “internal energy” [U] of the systems involved. The net. Whatever the “net” is in your mind. Not the DWLWIR or UWLWIR individually.
A heat transfer is not just some energy being emitted and/or absorbed. It is a very specific thing.
This is Thermodynamics 101. 1st Law.
You have a system. Let’s say earth’s surface. It GAINS heat from its heat source, the sun. An object’s heat source has to be a system hotter than the object. Its “hot reservoir”. That’s 2nd Law. And so only the sun fits the bill.
But the system also LOSES heat. It loses it to its heat SINK(S). An object’s heat sink will always be a place (system) colder than the object. Its “cold reservoir”.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Carnot_heat_engine_2.svg/840px-Carnot_heat_engine_2.svg.png
Note how the central system here is involved in TWO separate heat transfers at the same time. This is a VERY important point to bear in mind. The hot reservoir [T_H] => object is ONE distinct heat transfer [Q_H], the heat GAIN of the object. And the object => cold reservoir [T_C] is a SECOND distinct heat transfer [Q_C], the heat LOSS of the object. The two do not mix! If you want to understand what’s going on thermodynamically, you keep the two apart in your analysis! If you don’t, you will fundamentally confuse yourself with regards to cause and effect. This is one of the most basic thermodynamic principles. You SHOULD know it.
I hope you’re with me so far?
Well, for the system in question to reach and remain in relative dynamic thermal equilibrium, what’s called a “steady state”, where its T doesn’t change appreciably over a certain period of time (for earth’s surface such a period would be the diurnal or the annual cycle), then the total heat INPUT [Q_in] must be balanced (equal to) the total heat OUTPUT [Q_out]. It’s very basic, really.
OK. So what have we?
What is the “hot reservoir” (the heat source) of earth’s surface? We’ve already pointed out that this could only be the sun (disregarding geothermal heat). Simply because this is hotter than the earth’s surface. The atmosphere isn’t. And space isn’t. So they can NOT be heat sources to the surface.
So the Q_in for earth’s surface is the solar flux, that is, the ASR_sfc, which is the “net SW” (actual incoming minus albedo (reflected SW)):
Q_in = 165 W/m^2 (the global annual average of the solar flux).
This is the flux that needs to be balanced by the total outgoing heat from the surface.
The surface ONLY gains heat via radiation from the sun (again disregarding the minute geothermal contribution). But it LOSES heat via several mechanisms and to more than one (cold) reservoir.
It loses heat through: 1) radiation, 2) conduction, and 3) evaporation.*
It loses heat to: 1) the atmosphere, and 2) space.
*(Note that “convection/advection” is not included here. It is essential, but it is not strictly an inter-system heat transfer, it cannot transfer heat across system boundaries like the other ones. It can and does, however, greatly accelerate (or retard) the ones that can, by controlling what happens to the energy once it has crossed the boundary.)
OK. So Q_in = 165 W/m^2 is the target.
What have we?
Q_out:
1) Radiative heat loss, “net LW”: [398-345=] 53 W/m^2
2) Conductive heat loss: 24 W/m^2
3) Evaporative heat loss: 88 W/m^2
All in all: 53+24+88 = 165 W/m^2. Balance!
(Flux values from Stephens et al., 2012.)
But the surface doesn’t lose all its heat to the atmosphere. Some of the radiative heat loss (net LW) goes directly to space:
1) Sfc => space: 20 W/m^2
2) Sfc => atm: [165-20=] 145 W/m^2
So the radiative heat loss of earth’s surface is partitioned like this (according to Stephens et al., 2012):
33 W/m^2 (=> atm) + 20 W/m^2 (=> space) = 53 W/m^2
* * *
That’s the surface budget. But 240 W/m^2 enter and leave the earth as a whole, at the top of the atmosphere (ToA), which is much more than the 165 W/m^2.
Yes, so the atmosphere absorbs part of the incoming flux from the sun before it can ever reach the surface, about 75 W/m^2 (~22%) on average. It (mostly the clouds, really) also reflects quite a bit of it directly back out to space before it can ever be absorbed; about 77 W/m^2 (~23%). Its presence actually significantly increases earth’s global albedo.
Which means that, without the atmosphere, the global surface of the earth would absorb an average heat flux from the sun as large as [340-23=] 317 W/m^2 rather than the [340-75-100=] 165 W/m^2 with our atmosphere in between.
We already know that the global surface of the moon, at the exact same distance from the sun as earth, absorbs an average solar heat flux of 295-300 W/m^2, with a global albedo of 0.12-0.13.
That is 180 % (!) of the solar heat absorbed by earth’s global surface on average.
However, the lunar surface also LOSES that much more heat. And via radiation only. And all of it straight to space.
* * *
So the energy budget of earth’s surface looks like this (if you want to do it correctly, according to thermodynamic principles):
Q_in = Q_out
165 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2
Q_sw = Q_lw + Q_cond + Q_evap
165 = 53 + 24 + 88
The 53 W/m^2 Q_lw term includes the DWLWIR and UWLWIR components, meaning, they are BOTH on the heat LOSS side of the equal sign. THEY CANNOT BE SPLIT! If you remove the one from the other, then you’re left with nothing. They only work thermodynamically as ONE unit. They are physically integrated into ONE flux, the net lw.
Now, let’s see how the IPCC and you want to do this, with total disregard of common thermodynamic principles. And you only do it because you don’t like the fact that the above budget cannot directly explain the surface T according to a blackbody approach (Stefan-Boltzmann equation). But this is altogether confused. Why should it …? That’s a different matter entirely.
E_in = E_out
398 W/m^2 = 398 W/m^2
Q_sw + DWLWIR – Q_cond – Q_evap = UWLWIR
165 + 345 – 24 – 88 = 398
This is completely ridiculous. You split an actual heat flux (Q_lw) into two component non-heats, and mix the two together with other actual heat fluxes into one big jumble of … nothing.
You also have to put obvious heat LOSSES (Q_cond, Q_evap) on the GAIN side of the equal sign to make it come out right.
Because ALL you want from this is to be able to say that you have “explained” the average surface temperature of earth:
UWLWIR, 398 W/m^2 => 289 K (via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation)
But at the same time, you have effectively stated that the cool atmospheric DWLWIR helps CAUSE the warm surface UWLWIR:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
Which is total BS.
If you can’t see this, Norman, then you will just have to continue roaming about in darkness on this particular issue.
* * *
So what’s REALLY going on?
If we were to compare an earth surface with an atmosphere on top with one without, then what would the differences be?
Well, the average global solar input would be much higher on the surface facing space only (Sfc_sp) than on the surface facing both space and an atmosphere (Sfc_atm):
Q_in: ~300 W/m^2 vs. 165 W/m^2
However, the total output would be equally larger:
Q_out: ~300 W/m^2 vs. 165 W/m^2
Another difference is that non-radiative heat losses would be non-existent on the Sfc_sp, and so its radiative heat loss would be much, much larger than on Sfc_atm:
Q_lw: ~300 W/m^2 vs. 53 W/m^2
IOW, there are TWO reasons why the radiative heat loss on a Sfc_sp would be larger (more effective) than on a Sfc_atm:
1) There is no atmospheric radiative interference with the outgoing surface radiation flux, and
2) there are no other heat loss mechanisms present.
So which surface would be colder?
Clearly the Sfc_sp. The global lunar surface is at least 90 K (!) colder on average than earth’s global surface, and that’s even with an average solar input 80 % more intense than on earth.
So there is most DEFINITELY an average thermal effect on a global planetary surface to having a massive atmosphere on top, one that’s considerably warmer than space, heated by the surface itself.
Its temperature (and weight) simply restricts the surface heat loss at a certain temperature. And so in order for the heat loss to balance the heat gain, its equilibrium temperature needs to be higher.
The insulation effect …
Kristian says, April 1, 2017 at 1:45 AM:
Actually, there are THREE reasons why the radiative heat loss on a Sfc_sp would be larger (more effective) than on a Sfc_atm:
1) There is much more heat coming IN to the surface, and so alo more to get rid of,
2) there are no other heat loss mechanisms present to help the radiative one out, and
3) there is no atmospheric interference with the outgoing surface radiation flux.
Kristain
Please (I hope) you will spend some time and look at these links. I spent time finding them for you so I hope you will investigate them.
YOU: “Yes. Thats because you are.
But youre ONLY wrong about ONE thing, and thats thinking that you can separate the DWLWIR from the UWLWIR in a heat transfer. Treating them as distinct macroscopic fluxes, with individual and independent thermodyncamic powers.”
It is not my thinking Kristain, it is the entire thinking of people in thermodynamics. Only you think that two distinct fluxes do not exist. The people who actually write textbooks and teach it are all saying what I am. NOT one indicates your thinking is the correct one. If you can find anyone out there that agrees with you please share. I will stick to the experts on this one.
Here is a link to a heat transfer textbook. If you go to page 266 of the link you will see they state exactly what I do.
http://dl1.ponato.com/eb1/1149__64dd22f.pdf
Here is another:
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/Webcourse-contents/IISc-BANG/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/pdf/M9/Student_Slides_M9.pdf
Here is yet another one that directly states what I am saying.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
So I have given you links to different radiation heat transfer sites and all of them say exactly what I am saying and zero agree with your view. You know why my view is correct? That is because I read these sites and learned what they had to say. I did not make up my own understanding and then tell people they are wrong because they do not accept my faulty understanding of radiation physics.
Norman, yes, you point out some of Kristian’s many errors introduced from his using the heat term incorrectly, this source shows your view is the correct one. P. 267: “Since all of the radiation leaving one plate will get to the second plate…”. Dr. Spencer proved this in an outdoor test last summer.
Kristian confused over heat term writes not all of the radiation leaving one plate will reach the second plate to affect surface energy balance 10:002am: “The solar flux + the DWLWIR does NOT make the incoming heat to the surface, Norman. If you seriously believe this, then I have no hope for you.”
Actually there appears to be no hope for Kristian, since he has been writing this error for years, Dr. Spencer even invented, constructed and published data from that test in the wild to show Kristian that he was wrong. Sadly, Kristian can not even learn from test, if he could, he would invent, construct and publish data from his own testing. Instead he self cites.
Dr. Spencer’s test showed added DWLIR does indeed add energy to surface water in its view just as your cite to p. 267 is written.
Kristain
Some of your twisted and faulty thought process:
YOU: “E_in = E_out
398 W/m^2 = 398 W/m^2
Q_sw + DWLWIR Q_cond Q_evap = UWLWIR
165 + 345 24 88 = 398
This is completely ridiculous. You split an actual heat flux (Q_lw) into two component non-heats, and mix the two together with other actual heat fluxes into one big jumble of nothing.
You also have to put obvious heat LOSSES (Q_cond, Q_evap) on the GAIN side of the equal sign to make it come out right.”
That is not the case of E_in = E_out
The correct writing of this would be
E_in to surface= 165 + 345 = 510
E_out from surface = 398 + 24 + 88 = 510
510 W/m^2 is the energy into the Earth Surface
and 510 W/m^2 is the energy out of the Earth’s surface
510=510
What is the problem?
Also your logical thought process of having to (for no real reason) combine IR fluxes (and you do not explain why this is correct, logical or reasonable to do so and you lose information in the process)
Your final equation for Earth balance is:”So the energy budget of earths surface looks like this (if you want to do it correctly, according to thermodynamic principles):
Q_in = Q_out
165 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2
Q_sw = Q_lw + Q_cond + Q_evap
165 = 53 + 24 + 88″
So what does the 53 Net longwave tell you about the Earth’s surface temperature? Not a whole lot you can balance the incoming 165 with indeterminate amount of possible values.
With a upwelling IR of 398 you get a specific temperature of the Earth’s surface and with the 345 downwelling you have a specific temperature of the atmosphere. Your combining gives you NO useful information to evaluate the conditions people live in.
Example. If all you consider as important is the net IR flux you can have an upwelling flux of 700 W/m^2 (which gives you a surface temperature of around 140 F!) and and downwelling flux of 647 W/m^2. Both 398 up and 345 down and 700 up and 647 down add up to a net of 53 W/m^2 Net surface loss but I think you would find the
conditions in both cases much different for your survival!
Kristain
The atmosphere is an IR emitter and according to ALL textbooks I can find, a surface does not care the source of the incoming energy. It will absorb the energy according to its absorbitivity and for grey bodies this is equal to its emissivity.
All textbooks (based upon rational logic) treat each emitting surface as a unique flux. It is directional in that it is moving away from the emitting surface.
If you removed the Earth’s surface (or insulated it so almost no radiation from the surface interacted with the atmosphere) the atmosphere would emit the same amount of radiation with or without the Earth’s surface.
IR radiation can operate with two distinct fluxes because one flux can freely move through another flux without interference. Therefore surface A can add energy to Surface B and visa versa. The amount of energy a surface adds to another depends upon the view factor and the temperature. If the energy added is less than the energy the surface is emitting the heat flow is positive (meaning heat is leaving the object and it is cooling). It the Surface is absorbing more energy than it is emitting the heat flow is negative and the object heats up.
Kristain
You also realize even with your way of analyzing energy budget of the Earth (with your combined IR flux) that if you add GHG or remove them the downwelling component of your equation changes. If the upwelling remains the same but the downwelling increases
(398 up – 350 down) you now have a NET LW flux of 48
This will now imbalance your equation:
165 = 53 + 24 + 88 to
165 = 48 + 24 + 88
In order to balance to 165 again and match the incoming solar the Surface of the Earth would have to warm until it equal net 53 so with an increase in Downwelling to 350 (from more GHG additions) you need to 403. This will still increase the Earth’s surface temperature by a degree C. You really do not get away from an enhanced GHE regardless of how you believe it should be calculated. The end results are exactly the same.
Kristain
Also by treating IR fluxes separate and not one NET flux is you can evaluate reality better.
At night with no incoming solar flux you notice the temperature is not changing. If you don’t consider that there is real energy adding to the Earth surface, that is constantly losing energy via radiation, you really cannot explain why the temperature does not drop at night.
Here are a few examples. Not the best without a meteorological analysis of the regions but it is to demonstrate some points to you.
This is on a cloudy spring day in Sioux Falls South Dakota.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_58e042200ea90.png
Note the Downwelling and Upwelling IR are about the same and the air temperature a few feet above the surface does not change at night.
Here a few days earlier with clear conditions for part of the night.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_58e042200ea90.png
The temperature shows a normal rate of dropping and the downwelling IR is considerably lower than the upwelling and also considerably less than the cloudy night.
Downwelling IR on clear night was around 290 W/m^2 and on the cloudy night it was up to 325 W/m^2.
The atmospheric IR emission was adding energy to the Earth’s surface at a higher rate on the cloudy night than the clear night so it kept the Earth’s surface emission from cooling it.
Kristain
Here is empirical evidence that your view of reality is wrong and in need of correction.
Look at this graph:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_58e0431476c61.png
The graph directly disproves your notion of a combined NET IR flux.
When the Sun is out and shining on the surface it heats up much faster and starts to radiate a lot of energy, the atmosphere downwelling IR responds much more slowly.
Your view cannot explain it. Distinct and separate fluxes of IR can easily explain it. Most the solar energy hits the surface and is absorbed warming the ground and increasing its IR emission which is based upon its temperature. The atmosphere is slow to warm and does not change much so its emissions are not coupled with the surface, its emission is based upon its temperature as a unique and separate radiator of energy.
You are just plain wrong and can’t seem to accept it. I hope the textbook knowledge gets you back into reality here.
Kristain
Sorry, I messed up on the copy function for my second link to Sioux Falls South Dakota.
Here it is if you wish to view it and see what I stated in the post above.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_58e041f1c52fe.png
*Eyeroll*
Goodbye, Norman. You think the cooler atmosphere warms the warmer surface by adding extra energy to it (that is, increasing it incoming HEAT). You just go on believing that. You live in a democravy, after all …
Here Kristian is proven wrong by test, confused by miss-using “heat”, Norman is correct in his views (as is Norman’s cite), “the cooler atm. warms the warmer surface by adding extra energy to it” as shown in the testing by Dr. Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
Note Dr. Spencer’s then reply to Kristian: “It doesn’t matter whether you call it “reduced rate of cooling”, or “warming”, the result is the same: a higher temperature.”
It very much matters. In fact, it’s the crux of the matter. Because the former is an effect of INSULATION, the latter an effect of direct HEATING. Two opposite thermodynamic processes.
This is what I’m trying to tell Norman. The atmosphere doesn’t make the surface warmer by way of direct heating. The SUN makes the surface warmer by direct heating. The atmosphere makes the surface warmer by way of insulation.
Talking about “heating (or “warming”, if you will) by back radiation” confuses this all-important distinction.
Kristian, there was no insulation added to or subtracted from either water container during the atm. experiment conducted by Dr. Spencer. Norman is trying to get across to you DWLWIR energy from a cooler atm. source was added to the warmer surface water in view of that IR resulting in a higher temperature than the control water not in view of the IR, in the data as measured by thermometer.
This is termed radiative energy transfer; Q in 1LOT. The experiment was fully in accord with the text book link Norman provided and the simple verifying calculation provided by Dr. Spencer.
No heat was harmed in this comment.
Ball4 says, April 2, 2017 at 8:42 AM:
Positively wrong. Here’s what Spencer himself says about the experiment:
“My FLIR i7 IR imager said that the sky “effective temperature” directly overhead was about 7 deg F, and the temperature of the aluminum sheet (viewed from below) was close to 80 deg. F, indicating that the presence of the sheet should reduce the radiative energy loss from the water, thus keeping the water warmer than if the sheet was not there (which is what the greenhouse effect does to the Earth’s surface).”
Thermal insulation simply defined:
“Thermal insulation is the reduction of heat transfer (the transfer of thermal energy between objects of differing temperature) between objects in thermal contact or in range of radiative influence.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
Are you seriously suggesting that earth’s atmosphere isn’t insulating> the surface? Are you implying that Spencer’s description of the “greenhouse effect” is incorrect? Is he as confused as the rest of us?
Nope. It is called “Radiation Heat Transfer”. As per Norman’s link:
“q = σ T^4 A (1)
where
q = heat transfer per unit time (W)”
Sorry about that.
“Are you seriously suggesting that earth’s atmosphere isn’t insulating the surface?”
No. I’ll leave inexact analogies to the MSM and unaccomplished commenters like Kristian who benefit from them.
“Thermal insulation is the reduction of heat transfer…”
There was no relevant reduction of energy transfer in Dr. Spencer’s experiment, no insulation change around the waters, relevant energy transfer was actually increased to the warmer water.
“Are you implying that (Dr.) Spencer’s description of the “greenhouse effect” is incorrect?”
No. His experiment demonstrated GHE so Kristian could learn.
“As per Norman’s link:”
Wherein the authors are more accomplished than Kristian, they prove to use heat term correctly unlike Kristian. Good, Kristian did read some of it; to become more accomplished in this field, my advice: keep reading. Until then drop the heat term, you can’t then possibly be wrong in its use.
Hehe, I see Ball4 has given up the act at long last, just fooling around now with prototypical little troll antics and nothing else really, finally just being the little troll that he is and, I guess, he always wanted to be.
Good for you. Have fun. We’ll be over here discussing real scientific matters …
Real scientific matters will involve proper testing which Kristian completely avoids.
test
Kristain
You can “eyeroll” all you want but would it not be better to get my statements correct. You butcher what I say and then eyeroll at your pile of chopped up concepts.
I did not think this at all and I have explained it to you already but the screech in your brain drowns out anything but what you want to believe.
YOU: “You think the cooler atmosphere warms the warmer surface by adding extra energy to it (that is, increasing it incoming HEAT). You just go on believing that.”
No Sir that is not what I think or believe or have stated. If you would look at the graphs of Sioux Falls South Dakota, you will clearly see that you are making up a point and then destroying it. This is a classic example of a “strawman attack”. You make a claim that no one made but attribute it to them then you attack it.
Norman says, April 1, 2017 at 9:25 PM:
LOL! Do you even read what you write before posting it? I do wonder, because the very next thing you say is the following:
So if the SOLAR input stays unchanged (constant), but the downwelling IR increases slightly, and the surface in turn warms to a higher equilibrium temperature, then IN WHAT UNIVERSE is it NOT the slight increase in downwelling IR alone that directly causes the surface to warm to a higher equilibirum temperature!?
And how is this NOT an increase in the direct HEATING of (the total HEAT flux to) the surface? How is this in ANY way a reduction in energy OUTPUT from the surface (“reduced cooling” -> insulation)?
Norman, you can’t have it both ways.
Kristain
The flaw is in your thinking not mine. I have already given you three links to actual thermodynamics articles and textbooks. I am following exactly what they state.
You cannot possibly seem to think in multiple processes taking place at the same time. That is why you must make one flux out of two because you cannot handle a simultaneous process.
If you could handle the dual process I can explain it to you but since you cannot, you will always misunderstand anything I post on the topic regardless that is is completely correct.
If you separate the downwelling from the upwelling you have 398 UP and 345 Down. The Down is less than the UP right?
If you add more GHG in the atmosphere the Down goes up some so instead of 345 it will increase to 350. It is still less than the 398. But now the surface is receiving 350 plus 165 instead of 345 plus 165. It has more energy added to it. If you remove the 165 the 350 new increase cannot warm the surface and it will continue to cool. It is the combination that creates a new higher equilibrium temperature.
In the real world of calculation based upon all thermodynamics textbooks (not your faulty opinion or notion of how you believe it should work).
The Earth’s surface does not care what the source of IR is coming from. It does not measure the atmopshere and say “You are colder than me so I reject your IR”. All the IR fluxes just add to the surface energy, the 15 micron IR from the atmosphere is identical to the 15 micron IR from the Sun.
So you do the E_in = E_out
IN: 165 + 350 = ? + 24 + 88
If evaporation and convection do not change then the surface radiant flux will increase until it is the same as the input. In reality the other two will change so the surface temperature will vary in its increase as well
But for simplification the new surface IR away will have to go up to 403 to balance.
You will note that the 350 is less than 403 so the 350 can’t warm the surface by itself as you believe I am saying it is. It is always in combination.
The Earth system is unique to many systems is that it allows two radiant fluxes. One solar and one Downwelling IR. Both contribute to the energy absorbed by the surface. Give any physics that would determine that atmospheric IR would NOT be absorbed by the Earth’s surface. All the links I provided for you say it will and you have not linked to one source that says it will not. Why?
Good comment Norman, no use of the term heat was needed, I spot no errors worth commenting further. Well maybe except in your spelling of Kristian.
The Sioux Falls graphs show less downwelling than upwelling so the cooler atmosphere DOES NOT warm the warmer surface by adding energy to it.
The cooler atmosphere does add energy to the surface but this energy does not warm the surface. It is the combination of a slight increase in the downwelling IR and the same constant solar input that causes the surface to warm to a higher equilibrium temperature.
Kristain
https://tinyurl.com/2aqpk9u
Kristain
In the link above:
Look at the Equation again and understand its implications:
Equation 2 and 3 on the link.
This equation is for the loss of heat by a surface when nothing surrounds it. It is the maximum heat loss for a surface at a given temperature with a given area and emissivity. Such a surface cannot lose heat at any greater rate than this.
Now add any other radiating surfaces and what happens to the heat flow?
Norman says, April 1, 2017 at 9:35 PM:
It’s quite ironic how YOU are trying to explain ME what “heat” is. When it’s pretty obvious that it’s YOU that struggle with the concept. You think the solar flux and the atmospheric DWLWIR added together somehow equals the total heat to the surface. If you don’t, then how come you proclaim it’s ok to add them together to make a larger total flux to warm the surface some more …!?
I’ve told you before. That’s insulation. Insulation works, but it does NOT work the same way as direct HEATING does, by ADDING extra energy to produce warming. It works the OPPOSITE way, by letting LESS energy ESCAPE. Per unit of time. At a certain temperature.
Yes, and the energy in and energy out is – in thermodynamics – ALWAYS either “heat” [Q] or “work” [W]. Nothing else.
This seemingly confuses you. The confusion arises from all the implied talk about DWLWIR and UWLWIR acting as distinct thermodynamic (macroscopic) fluxes (W/m^2), only NOT as heat fluxes. THIS is where the confusion lies. And it is created by “climate science” and promoted by the IPCC. It is NOT to be found anywhere in the field of thermodynamics, including radiative heat transfer. The DWLWIR and UWLWIR only constitute the radiant heat (the thermodynamic (macroscopic) transfer of energy) when seen as a single entity. And they always are. In thermodynamics. In radiative heat transfer. They are considered as integrated into one single flux, the radiant heat, the net LW [Q_rad]:
P/A = Q_rad = εσ[T_h^4 – T_c^4]
You can’t split the two. They’re inseparable.
That’s all you need to know, Norman. And you’ll be fine …
Kristian: “energy in and energy out is in thermodynamics ALWAYS either “heat” [Q]”
No, this is wrong Kristian, as the experiment by Dr. Spencer showed Kristian quite awhile ago.
Q is always energy. The experiment by Dr. Spencer shows Q is not always “heat” which causes Kristian great error in comments and much angst. Kristian’s “heat” term errors would go away completely if he simply stopped using heat in comments, it is never needed. No kidding.
Nope.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/the-global-warming-debate-spectrum/#comment-241973
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/the-global-warming-debate-spectrum/#comment-242002
Link points to a confused author.
Kristian
I am so sorry that you do not understand thermodynamics and will not look at any textbook explanation to correct your faulty thinking.
The equation you posted splits the two fluxes, how do you not see is?
P/A = Q_rad = εσ[T_h^4 T_c^4]
What the equation is dealing with is just one surface and what is going on with that surface.
The longer version is Q= (emissivity)(constant)(T^4) of the surface
It emits based on its temperature. That is one part of the equation.
The second part is separate from the first and is how much energy the surface is absorbing. Q=(absorbitivity)(constant)(T^4 of the surrounding).
The equation is for one surface and what it is doing. It is emitting the same rate if there were no surroundings. You don’t get this and no science text can convince you. It seems nothing will ever let you see this reality.
Add surrounding IR flux and now you have to add an absorbitivity factor to the surface. The surface will absorb this energy regardless of the amount. Now you have to consider the energy emitted out (which is only dependent upon the surface temperature) and the energy absorbed by the surface to get a NET outgoing energy that is called Heat in this case.
Kristian
Take the first equation.
With no surroundings the surface emits energy at its highest rate possible.
Q=(Area of surface)(emissivity)(Stefan-Boltzmann Constant)(Temperature of surface in Kelvin to the forth power)
If you add any surrounding at any positive temperature the Q (heat loss goes down). Now the why is where you are stuck in the false physics that no one can free you from. You think it is insulation and I do not know why. The rate energy is emitted from the surface is not slowing down or changing based upon your own equation!!
It is the first temperature term in your equation.
P/A = Q_rad = εσ[T_h^4 – T_c^4]
The T_h^4 determines how much the surface emits. It is only a product of the surface temperature. It is the same as if no surroundings were present. The surroundings do not change the rate of emission. They change the NET energy loss because the surface is emitting at the same rate but it is now also absorbing the surrounding flux which makes its NET loss of energy go down from a condition with no surroundings.
The concept is not hard to grasp. It is exactly as all thermodynamics textbooks describe it.
Kristian
YOU: “Ive told you before. Thats insulation. Insulation works, but it does NOT work the same way as direct HEATING does, by ADDING extra energy to produce warming. It works the OPPOSITE way, by letting LESS energy ESCAPE. Per unit of time. At a certain temperature.”
In the case of radiant heat transfer, the effect is not like insulation (slowing down the loss of energy). The emission from the surface is not slowing down with a downwelling flux, it is the same (until it changes temperature, the only thing that will change its rate). The temperature of the surface does not drop as rapidly with the downwelling flux but it is not because the downwelling flux is somehow magically slowing the surface emission rate (which it does not), the temperature is not dropping because the surface emission is the same but the surface is now absorbing a new source of energy so its temperature drops at a slower rate. The rate of energy loss is not changed (via your own equation), the loss part stays the same, the absorbing part is what changes. The higher temperature of the surroundings and the more energy the surface absorbs. It emits at the same rate regardless. The two are separate!
Kristian
I think I finally have a way to explain what is going on with radiative heat transfer in a way you can understand it and all show you how it actually works.
There is a large tank filled with water. The level in the tank is an analogy of surface temperature. The tank has an open drain that only varies based upon tank level due to pressure differences. The more water in the tank the more water flows out the drain.
With no surroundings let us say the tank is losing 398 gallons a minute, the tank level will drop and the flow will go down.
Now you have another input, the surrounding flux. It is adding energy to the tank. Say it is adding at 345 gallons a minute. The tank is still losing water but at a slower rate.
The 345 gallons a minute are not connected to the drain line and going in at the same time the water is coming out. They are separate entities that both affect the tank level.
In the Earth system you would have 165 gallons from one source adding water, you would have another source adding 345 gallons. You would have three drains on the tank. One draining 398 gallons and the other ones draining 24 and 88 gallons and the tank level is not dropping. If you increase the 345 to 350 the tank level will go up until the pressure increase is enough to get rid of the increase at 403 gallons.
Kristain
From the Zemansky textbook page 101
“It should be noticed that the word “heat” has not appeared as yet. If there is a temperature difference between a body and its surroundings, then in a given interval of time the body loses an amount of internal energy equal to the energy radiated minus the energy absorbed, whereas the surroundings gain an amount of internal energy equal to the energy absorbed minus the energy radiated. The gain of one equals the loss of the other. The gain or loss of internal energy, equal to the difference between the energy of the thermal radiation which is absorbed and that which is radiated, is called heat.”
https://ia601700.us.archive.org/10/items/HeatAndThermodynamics/Zemansky-HeatAndThermodynamics_text.pdf
Hopefully this will end your incorrect physics and you can spend more time on developing real ideas rather than preaching your religious view, you waste a lot of time defending your misunderstanding of radiant heat transfer.
Clearly the surface is both radiating energy away from its surface and simultaneously absorbing incoming energy from its surroundings.
If the energy exchange is equal no heat transfers but energy is constantly being exchanged. The surfaces do not stop radiating energy just because they are at equal temperatures. There is no known mechanism to support your conjecture, you would be saying that somehow radiant energy from one surface now stops the other surface from radiating if the temperatures are equal. What is this mechanism and how is it supposed to work? IR is emitted when molecular vibration moves to a lower energy state. This occurs all the time in a surface regardless of anything else around it.
Zemansky explains it exactly in that fashion. There is no insulating property in radiant exchange, there is no slow down of emission rate. It is fairly clear in the writing of the experts if you opened your mind to what they are saying.
Bidirectional radiant flows are a reality. Energy will flow away or into a surface. The only unidirectional energy flow is when an emitting surface is isolated by itself, then radiant energy will only flow away from the surface, in all other cases radiant energy flows both away and toward the surface from some other radiating surface.
Norman, yes, Zemansky use of heat term is entirely consistent with the much earlier use and definition of Clausius. The gain or loss of heat in your Zemansky clip can be measured by thermometer.
Norman says, April 2, 2017 at 9:00 PM:
Er, yes. Which is exactly what I’ve been saying all along.
Stefan-Boltzmann equation: Q/A = εσ(T_h^4 – T_c^4)
“The gain or loss of internal energy, equal to the difference between the energy of the thermal radiation which is absorbed and that which is radiated [εσ(T_h^4 – T_c^4)], is called heat [Q/A].”
Please read my comment below:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/the-global-warming-debate-spectrum/#comment-242265
Zemansky: “equal to the difference between the energy of thermal radiation”
Kristian: “we need to account for is the HEAT transferred to/from the system”.
So Zemansky is NOT writing what Kristian is saying all along, proving Kristian wrong in writing: “Which is exactly what I’ve been saying all along.”
If Kristian had dropped heat and used energy then Kristian would avoid error and come into accord with Zemansky.
Roy, thought you’d like a heads up on this new PSI post concerning yours:
http://principia-scientific.org/no-roy-carbon-dioxide-climate-sensitivity-falling-zero/
John O’Sullivan
Oh no the alien invasion! So question for you. I read your post and your claim is that Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere would actually cause cooling effect? Why do you think this would be the case using the well established formula presented by Kristian.
Q/A = εσ(T_h^4 T_c^4)
Where any radiant energy absorbed by the surface will result in a lower amount of internal energy loss, how exactly is CO2 above the surface supposed to cool it??
Really have some bad physics on your site, wonder who visits you these days.
So Carbon Dioxide in atmosphere will radiate based upon its temperature. This radiant energy will go in all directions equally meaning a significant portion back to the surface which will lower the internal energy lost by the surface, how will it cool the surface?
If no GHG where present in the atmosphere the radiant energy loss by the surface would be at maximum or
Q/A = εσT_h^4
If you can do simple math (which I am wondering after reading your post on your PSI blog) you should be able to see that for a given surface temperature the heat loss will be greater with no surrounding emissions. Maybe you don’t know how the equation works or have never took a physics or math class in your life. Not sure how you come up with your anti-science ideas. What thought process must you have to make the claims you do.
On your blog you state this: “Experts are beginning to say that carbon dioxide will cause cooling especially experts trained in the hard sciences such as chemistry and physics. At Principia Scientific International they argue that CO2 sensitivity is in fact a negative number. It is certainly an arguable hypothesis.”
Which experts are those? I would like to see how they arrived at that conclusion.
Norman,
You seem obsessed with this bidirectional vs. unidirectional thing.
Let it go. It is NOT (!!) the issue. It matters not. The NET result will always be the same, whether the energy transfer is seen as unidirectional, bidirectional or super-multidirectional.
The ONLY thing you need to focus your attention on is this:
The two “component fluxes” in the bidirectional model of radiation heat transfer, the UWLWIR and DWLWIR in the exchange between sfc and atm, can NOT – under ANY circumstances – be separated and as such treated as distinct macroscopic fluxes of radiation, each with its own independent effect on a system’s THERMODYNAMIC properties, like temperature.
The easiest way for you to come to this realisation is to learn and come to terms with what a THERMODYNAMIC “energy transfer” really is.
It is only ONE of TWO things: Either it’s “HEAT” [Q]. Or it’s “WORK” [W]. That’s it. There is no other place for a thermodynamic (macrocopic) “energy transfer” to go. No other category for it to fit into.
Because a thermodynamic energy transfer is fundamentally something that will, directly and all by itself, have the ability to CHANGE one or more of a system’s thermodynamic properties (of state), as it enters or exits the system:
1st Law: ΔU = Q – W
In a macroscopic analysis (mathematical or otherwise) of the change in a system’s thermodynamic properties after some macroscopic (thermodynamic) process has run its course, what we need to account for is the HEAT transferred to/from the system from/to its surroundings and the WORK performed on/by the system by/on its surroundings. The state variable/function under consideration could be “internal energy” [U], but it could also be, say, “entropy” [S], “enthalpy” [H], “temperature” [T], “volume” [V], or “pressure” [P]. The energy transfers to/from the system (the process variables/path functions), however, can ONLY EVER be either “heat” [Q] or “work” [W] (“thermodynamic work” including both mechanical work, chemical reactions and electrical work).
So where to put the UWLWIR and DWLWIR “energy transfers” in all this?
We both agree they are NOT individual “heat” transfers [Q] and likewise NOT individual “work” transfers [W] either. And so by deinition cannot directly and independently change the thermodynamic properties of a system upon entering or exiting.
They only fit in one place: TOGETHER, INTEGRATED INTO ONE PHYSICAL UNIT, THE NET OF THE TWO. They constitute a radiant heat flux. When inextricably combined. And that’s all they can ever be.
They are simply only thermodynamically functional as PART of a single physical quantity, that is the NET flux, the radiant HEAT, the Q, the spontaneous macroscopic transfer of radiative energy from hotter to colder:
Q = A ε σ [T_h^4 – T_c^4]
Whenever you start messing with this equation, like “climate science” does, splitting the two radiative temperature expressions on the righthand side and placing them on either side of the equal sign, you have effectively detached your math from the physical world. You are then left with something that no longer has any physical meaning.
This is my only real message to you, Norman:
You have to stop considering the DWLWIR a thermodynamic energy INPUT to the surface and the UWLWIR a thermodynamic energy OUTPUT from the surface. This is un-physical. Because such a thermal input or output has no meaning if it’s not a HEAT transfer within the field of thermodynamics. They are BOTH part of, merely two sides of, the UNIdirectional thermodynamic radiant energy loss (which is always equal to its radiant HEAT loss, the “net LW”), the former simply subtracts from the latter. I say it does so mathematically only, you say it does so for real. It doesn’t really matter. There is ONLY less energy loss, not more energy gain. Thermodynamically. Macroscopically. That we can possibly physically detect.
As long as you remember this, we have no quarrel.
I really do think this will be the last I’ll say about this to you. But you never know, of course …
“You have to stop considering the DWLWIR a thermodynamic energy INPUT to the surface…”
Continuing mistake by Kristian, Dr. Spencer did a test showing DWLWIR is indeed a thermodynamic energy input to the surface Kristian, when his result was: a higher temperature.
Kristian
This might be direct proof of what Ball4 is trying to tell you but all you do is call him a troll without considering his points.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_58e2cdf59906c.png
I was looking through some cloudy nights at Sioux Falls and I found this graph. The Sun is set, no solar input, the downwelling IR is greater than the upwelling IR (temperature inversion) but you can see that even with no solar input there are periods when the air actually warms up during this time. The atmosphere may be warming the surface at this point. What do you think?
Kristian
I think isolating just night time temperatures shows it even more clearly. Ball4 may also be interested in the graph.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_58e2d0aaba326.png
Notice that around 12 AM the air temperature actually rises, gets warmer. How do you explain this phenomena Kristian?
https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KFSD/2017/3/24/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Sioux+Falls&req_state=SD&req_statename=South+Dakota&reqdb.zip=57101&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999
The winds look light at this time, around 3 mph and they are from the north so I do not think that would explain the little jump in warming. It could strongly suggest that the atmosphere IR is a separate flux from the surface flux and atmosphere may be warmer than the surface at this time having a higher IR flux down than up and causing warming of the surface. It may not be the case but it is something you should at least consider and think about.
Kristian
I can start seeing the flaws in your thinking that Ball4 is trying to help you see.
I think you are getting some terms scrambled and that is why you do not understand the content in the links I sent you from textbooks.
YOU: “You have to stop considering the DWLWIR a thermodynamic energy INPUT to the surface and the UWLWIR a thermodynamic energy OUTPUT from the surface. This is un-physical. Because such a thermal input or output has no meaning if its not a HEAT transfer within the field of thermodynamics. They are BOTH part of, merely two sides of, the UNIdirectional thermodynamic radiant energy loss (which is always equal to its radiant HEAT loss, the net LW), the former simply subtracts from the latter.”
You are very wrong to suggest thermal radiant output has no meaning. I tried to explain it to you above but I guess that was a wasted effort.
You must consider the fluxes as separate as the upwelling flux tells you the temperature of an object’s surface. The NET LW will tell you NOTHING about the surface temperature. If you were just measuring a net flux between two surfaces at 300 C there would be zero IR transfer. Now would you touch one of the surfaces? Your ideas are so poorly formed and illogical and anti-science I really can no longer help you learn your errors, they are too great and too ingrained. Sorry, I was hoping textbooks might help you.
I hope my example of two 300 C plates can explain why your ideas are really not very intelligent or meaningful and why you probably should no longer respond to my posts. I will stick to the physics books for my learning. You will stick to your own web blog for your learning.
The other side doesnt need commercials-They have the mainstream media as a far more viewed source for advertising.