A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.
Reader Interactions
2040 Responses to "The Bore Hole"
Dan H.says
Hank,
You really should heed your own advice.
Your quote was for a small segment of the experiment, which focused on those trees which suffered from a N deficiency. If you read further, you will find, “An unanswered question has been why the negative feedback through the N cycle developed in ORNL-FACE and not in other forested FACE experiments.” Just who are you trying to mislead here?
If you had read further, you would have found othe increases mentioned previously. Reading only the abstract reveals the following: “Free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments have provided novel insights into the ecological mechanisms controlling the cycling and storage of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems and contribute to our ability to project how ecosystems respond to increasing CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. Important lessons emerge by evaluating a set of hypotheses that initially guided the design and longevity of forested FACE experiments. Net primary productivity is increased by elevated CO2, but the response can diminish over time. Carbon accumulation is driven by the distribution of carbon among plant and soil components with differing turnover rates and by interactions between the carbon and nitrogen cycles. Plant community structure may change, but elevated CO2 has only minor effects on microbial community structure. FACE results provide a strong foundation for next-generation experiments in unexplored ecosystems and inform coupled climate-biogeochemical models of the ecological mechanisms controlling ecosystem response to the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
This entire study was performed without using a single one of your cherry trees.
Isotopioussays
I wonder if giss-temp for 2011 will be 0.53 or more. If it isn’t, there will have been negligible cooling for the last decade.
Come on liberty bell !
R Jamessays
Pete Dunkleberg – Firstly you state as a fact that sea level is rising. In fact, sea level hasn’t risen for a number of years. You then give only two reasons for sea level change – thermal expansion and melting ice (perhaps no-one told you that Antarctic ice has been growing for the past 30 years).
You left out one big one – movement of the tectonic plates. Sea level has been generally increasing for the past 20,000 years – it’s nothing new.
Michael Dolinersays
I believe climate science is going about convincing the public in the wrong way.
Greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere every year. Therefore, all things being equal, heat trapped by the atmosphere should increase every year. Of course all things are not equal, but what is not equal is also quantifiable.
Particulate matter might prevent sunlight from reaching the earth leaving less heat to trap.
Changes in the solar output might produce more or less heat to reach the earth.
Is there anything else that might affect the amount of heat reaching earth? Not that I know of.
Then in addition, not all heat increases temperature. Most important, I think, is wholesale melting of ice which absorbs the heat of fusion without raising the temperature.
Perhaps some chemical reactions in the ocean take up heat. I don’t know if this is significant.
If these are the only factors in the heat accounting it should be possible to find an equation whose solution would reveal that an ever larger percent of the heat entering the earth’s atmosphere is being trapped. That should be true every year, right?
This number, I think, would be more persuasive. But can we measure these things accurately. That, I think would be a scientific achievement the public would be more likely to understand. A steadily increasing number is more persuasive than a trend computed from numbers that go up and down.
Big Alsays
Interesting that the Global Sea Ice Area anomaly as of Jan 2012…..wait for it… Zero – its a travesty!
Add this to the list of climate disruption/ worst case accidents:
Laboratory experiments carried out in Australia have proven that bubbles can, indeed, sink a scale model ship by decreasing the density of the water; any wreckage consequently rising to the surface would be rapidly dispersed by the Gulf Stream. It has been hypothesized that periodic methane eruptions (sometimes called “mud volcanoes”) may produce regions of frothy water that are no longer capable of providing adequate buoyancy for ships. If this were the case, such an area forming around a ship could cause it to sink very rapidly and without warning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Triangle#Methane_hydrates
[Response:How much time do you think I have to wade through your posts and figure out what you’re trying to say–even one time? Make a coherent argument based on some definite study of the literature, don’t just shotgun up a bunch of copy/paste and links and expect people to follow your arguments, much less buy into them–Jim]
Gavin could responded to my argument in post #106, just fine. In the following i have presented studies which are related or point on. Maybe i missed your point, though i have to say it is not easy to guess what your initial motive was about. If you can’t tie precipitation or SLR to methanogenesis and Nitrous Oxide and carbon uptake, then maybe ask more specific what you did not understand. There is nothing wrong with my general assumption. Yes, there is no conclusive study yet to quantify the impact yet. But SLR will cause more erosion + flooding and following are more anoxic regions, where MG and Dentrification processes act as a positive feedback. And thus i try to quantify, but is an active field of research.
SM,
It appears that Jim’s long winded answer was yes to all, his water and temperature response is exemplified by greenhouse, where temperature is controlled, water is ample, and CO2 is pumped in up to 1000 ppm (This is also mentioned in RIck’s link). In short, whenever plant growth is CO2-limited, increases in CO2 will promote growth. This is supported repeatedly in scientific papers, referred to by Hank as the scientific process.
Some of the negative effects mentioned are presumed to occur in a warmer, drier world, regardless of the cause of the warming. This also assumes no adaptation.
Isotopioussays
Is there a trend in 15 year trends?
According to greenhouse theory, the warming should become more robust as the signal rises out of the noise. If you look at gistemp, there is a significant trend in r squared values for 15 year periods, as shown here at real climate. https://www.realclimate.org/images/giss-15yr.jpg
Note that they do not show the data before 1975. Indeed, over this recent period there is a trend towards more ‘robust trends’, with the 15 year moment correlation steadily increasing with a trend of 0.47 since 1975.
But if you include all the data, the 15 year moment correlation statistic has absolutely no significance with a linear trend of 0.04 since 1880.
So, is the trend in ‘15 year trends’ becoming more robust?
No.
Is the signal becoming more robust?
No.
Kevsays
So while the rest of the world is investigating the science of the real world you are reduced to pratting about with ‘models’. These are nothing more than computer games for people with basic math. Sorry but this site is rubbish now.
Dan H.says
John,
Corn is probably the crop of least concerning with rising temperatures; planting is restricted until springtime temperatures warm, and corn can tolerate higher summer temperatures than other crops. Water is the larger factor when growing corn, hence significant irrigation is required in low rainfall areas. The U.S. cornbelt has experienced a combination of higher precipiation, temperatures, and atmospheric CO2 during the past half century (although some individual years have witness poor yields due to the weather). Add the increase in fertilization, and it is no wonder than crop production has increased. Corn is also the crop of choice in many African countries, which has resulted in large-scale famine when the rains fail.
The most important observation in the above data is that the upper GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT peaks, the lower GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT valleys, and these lines are parallel. Also, the line that bisects the vertical space between the two GMT boundary lines is nearly identical to the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade for the whole data. This result indicates that, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position.
In the above data, the GMT touched its upper boundary line only 3-times, about every 60-years, but has never crossed it for long in the last 130 years?
In the GMT data, a shift in climate to an accelerated global warming would have been indicated if the upper GMT boundary line had been a curve with an increasing positive slope with increasing years, or the upper and lower GMT boundary lines had been diverging with increasing years.
Fortunately, the upper GMT boundary line is a straight line having, interestingly, the same global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade as the global warming trend line for the whole data. Also, the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel, showing no change in the magnitude of the GMT swing with increasing years. As a result, the vertical cooling or warming swing of 0.5 deg C between the two GMT boundary lines is cyclic and is therefore natural.
However, there is evidence of a persistent but natural global warming of 0.06 deg C per decade. Not 0.2 deg C per decade as claimed by the IPCC.
Mike Msays
I look forward to the possibility of a huge burp of methane because it will help to either confirm your theoretical expectations of increased forcing – or yield a result so inconsistent with them that you will be left with no wiggle room for excuses of why yet another modeled prediction failed to materialize. The latter is what I expect, the sooner the better.
Girmasays
The global mean temperature data shows GLOBAL WARMING has STOPPED as shown below:
It seems a pity that the question (at 121) of whether the combined additional warming from the ongoing acceleration of multiple interactive feedbacks,
in combination over the next >75yrs with that from past and future anthropogenic GHG outputs,
in combination with that from the loss of the sulphate parasol,
actually poses a far more cogent threat than that of a possible massive ESAS CH4 eruption,
seems to be of no particular interest on this blog.
Is it just inconvenient to discuss a well-indicated scenario whose resolution demands more than merely ending anthro-GHG outputs ? I’d hope that no scientist here would let the dislike of a remedy deflect their inquiry into the reasons it may be required.
It seems a pity as it tends to confirm Chris R’s conclusion that this ‘discussion’ may be a waste of time.
Regards,
Lewis
Genesays
This “dog is weather” analogy only holds just so far, and that’s not very. It’s highly simplistic, of course. A man (or woman) taking a dog for a walk usually does so with a purpose or plan in mind. (Of course, there are those who think they are taking the dog for a walk, when in fact it is the other way around but I digress.) A key problem I have with the analogy is that it implies that climate has a discernible path (from point “a” to point “b”). Given the historical record, climate is not a straight path anywhere, it has a certain degree of apparent randomness with warm, relatively unchanging (flat or plateaued), and cool periods that — to apply the analogy — would be much like walking the dog to my favorite pub, only to end up at the train station instead. Those were driven by natural forces, apparently, yet I see little substance to define what the those natural forces may have been, and if or when those forces may again come into play.
Also, the analogy assumes something about the dog and handler/human relationship, but it’s not clear what. I’ve walked dogs that were well trained (think a Guide Dog for the blind, for instance) and they walk alongside with nearly imperceptible variation both on and off leash, even when other dogs might run or hide because of a perceived threat. As West notes, there are other factors in play.
Now, a small child walking a hungry Scottish Deerhound or German Shepherd might be a bit more like it. Or, better yet, anyone trying to walk a cat on a leash. Yet these too have a high degree of simplicity and significant limitations, among which are the limited dimensions that may be applied.
Robsays
Hank
But there is no broad scientific consensus about the rate of any warming (unless you include such a wide margin of error to make the estimate meaningless) and there is no scientific consensus regarding what will happen to any specific region as a result of warming. Virtually all of the papers published on the impacts of potential warming are unsupportable due to their being based on GCM outputs that have huge margins of error.
Steve Osays
Ya know – you guys really suck as writers. I’ve been trying to gauge the strength of different arguments on global warming by contrasting your site with denier sites and you sure don’t write clearly. Can’t you put your main point in the opening paragraph and/or the closing paragraph and clearly state it and then show clearly what supports it? This is not a criticism on your science, but your writing. Many denier sites clearly state problems with AGW theory like ‘the troposphere hot-spot is missing’ or ‘CO2 lags temperature’. I read your site on those topics and you get into the scientific nuances and asides and caveats without ever stating clearly what your point is and why you’re right. Go read your post on CO2 lagging temperature in ice core samples and see how long it takes you to get to the important part of the post. YOUR WRITING STYLE SEEMS EVASIVE AND GIVES THE READER THE IMPRESSION YOU ARE HIDING SOMETHING. State your point and the reasons to believe it simply first and directly – then delve into the complexity, please.
The post you are responding to was written on Chinese New Year after quite a bit of rice wine. I posted a follow up a few minutes later where I apologised for various errors and attempted to clarify the whole thing.
William allowed the post with the acknowledged mistakes to appear, but silently deleted the correction.
Among other posts he deleted included a follow up to his earlier comments that presented the actual Lindzen papers I was referring to from the 80s and 90s. That would have gone some way to addressing your accusation that Lindzen’s research is “fraudulent” – and also showed that William was wrong in his response at #14 (perhaps explaining why it was deleted).
Then I also clarified this “CO2 is well mixed” business he made up, and he deleted that too.
So I have moved the discussion here and thank the moderators in advance for their patience.
I have to say that nothing could be more damaging to the image of science than this sort of behaviour from William Connolley.
—
If I can now make the various points I wanted to make :-
– Martin Vermeer, after making rude and incorrect assumptions about my motivations, asserted, “…I’m not so sure that the ice age temperature argument [that global average temperatures don’t actually change a lot in glacial-interglacial transitions, per Lindzen 1993 and references therein] isn’t an ‘easy’ one [to refute]. I’ve been using it (admittedly to a Finnish audience, which may be relevant), saying, ‘if five degrees [at the LGM] produced an entirely different planet (visualizing with both hands how many copies of the landmark Pasila link tower on top of each other the ice was thick here over Helsinki), then what do you think even two degrees would do [today]?”
This appeals to a popular confusion about what actually causes the deglaciation at the end of each ice age. Perhaps Martin Vermeer is not aware. Put simply, it isn’t a change in global average temperature that causes the ice to melt, and indeed it had little to do with CO2 – the ice changes that is. I have been told this on good authority. Let me explain.
In a post at Lubos Motl’s blog recently, it was brought to my attention that Gerard Roe (2006, In defence of Milankovitch, GRL) actually solved the problem of the ice age glacial cycles and showed that when orbital variations in northern summer insolation are properly related to the RATE OF CHANGE of ice volume, the deglaciation is largely accounted for.
I dug a bit deeper and found that R. Toggweiler has shown similarly that CO2 is only a minor player in the southern hemisphere deglaciation too (2008, Origin of the 100,000-year timescale in Antarctic temperatures
and atmospheric CO2, Paleoceanography).
I then contacted Dr. Roe and he confirmed this (see his response that I posted with permission at Motl’s blog). I was a little disappointed that Lubos wasn’t willing to discuss my objections – but at least he didn’t just delete the inconvenient posts.
So it is important to stress that none of these scientists are claiming that CO2 didn’t cause a large part of the GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE change. Roe wrote, “This certainly does not rule out CO2 as a primary cause of tropical or other climate variations…”. His email to me confirms the same understanding.
Anyhow, whatever the global cooling of the LGM – whether 5 C or 2 C – these degrees of warming were apparently not the main cause of the melting ice.
It is not obvious to me that this point is widely known.
– Your opinion that Richard Lindzen is a “fraud” because he has “carefully avoided answering questions like ‘How is such a strong negative feedback compatible with the Pleistocene glacial cycles?'” could hardly be further off the mark. Lindzen devoted an enormous amount of his research to the argument that the Pleistocene glacial cycles suggest strong negative feedbacks in the tropics. In fact, as I’ll show, his ideas are evidently inspired by the paleoclimate observations.
As I said in the post that William deleted, the earliest reference to this idea I have found is in Lindzen and Farrell 1977 (Some realistic modifications of simple climate models. J. Atmos. Sci., 34, 1487-1501). He wrote a later paper that he frequently cites – Lindzen 1993 (Climate dynamics and global change. Ann. Rev. Fl. Mech., 26, 353-378).
And this is why it is so ludicrous to claim Lindzen carefully refuses discussion of the paleoclimate. It appears rather that he saw these strong negative feedbacks in the tropics as soon as he saw the early CLIMAP reconstruction of 1976. In Lindzen and Farrell 1977:
In a recent reconstruction of the ice-age earth of 18,000 years ago (CLIMAP, 1976), it was found that the ice line advanced from ~72 degrees to ~60 degrees, but that zonally averaged tropical temperatures changed very little from present values.
He goes on to point out that the simple models at the time didn’t reproduce this feature – and it seems he has felt that no models since have managed to reproduce this feature either.
By 1993 he was citing the same result in Budyko & Izrael 1991:
Budyko & Izrael (1991) in reviewing past climates notably different from the present observed that these climates differed from the present not only in mean temperature but in temperature distribution with latitude. … This distribution is characterised by very small changes near the equator, and major changes in the equator-to-pole temperature difference.
He has continued to study the problem of the equator-to-pole gradient with I think perhaps the most present iteration of his view being contained in Zurita-Gotor, P., and R.S. Lindzen (2007) Theories of baroclinic adjustment and eddy equilibration. In Recent Results in General Circulation Theory. T. Schneider and A. Sobel, Editors. Princeton University Press.
Even right now there is an interesting discussion taking place in the literature about negative tropical feedbacks and the Faint Young Sun Paradox (Rondanelli and Lindzen 2010).
Note, I am not saying Lindzen is right about anything in particular – but it does decrease my confidence in the consensus – and I think it should decrease everyone’s confidence – if I see the situation is so badly misrepresented. If the people attacking Lindzen don’t understand what he’s actually saying, why should we believe that any of these points are settled?
– now to my own speculation and the clarification of the point I made that William deleted. If we look at the Pleistocene glacial cycles we see the climate oscillate between an ice covered and an ice free state. If we assume that climate sensitivity in an interglacial after the earth has shed most of its ice is the same as climate sensitivity at a glacial maximum state, it seems to me that we must be assuming that the ice-albedo feedback is also the same now as it was at the LGM. I can’t see how this can be right. It seems obvious that if the earth is covered in ice it will be white in colour, and thus will reflect a lot more sunlight than it does now. And, because there is so much ice available to melt by surface area, it seems obvious to this layperson that the ice-albedo feedback will be much more positive at a glacial maximum than it is now at a glacial minimum. Now, sure, I am NOT saying there is no more ice to melt, or that melting the remaining ice will not be bad. Nonetheless, I can’t see how my point could be wrong.
– Regarding your questions I don’t know the answers but I’d be interested if you explained what you are thinking.
mikesays
Back on topic. Do you really think that any self respecting scientist worth his salt is going to answer a simplistic and biased multiple choice fiasco like this?. There are so many unknowns and known unknowns to be sorted and researched, maybe never to be fully quantified. So many doubts and perfectly feasible alternative theories answers and outcomes. I cannot believe that such a pole will even graze the surface of the majority ( of interested) scientific opinion out there that is confused and fully realizes that the issue is not yet sorted out.
Hank,
I assume you are not implying that 1 degree is not huge, even though you comments implies such. Your last paragraphs tells me much about your politcal agenda.
Girmasays
Let us look at the data to access the climate risk due to human emission of CO2.
a) Global Mean temperature (GMT) => http://bit.ly/zISeEo
For the period from 1880 to 1940, GMT increased by about 0.35 deg C.
For the period from 1940 to 2000, GMT increased by about nearly the same 0.35 deg C.
b) Human CO2 emission => http://bit.ly/wD1SZj
For the period from 1880 to 1940, CO2 emission increased by about 150 G-ton.
For the period from 1940 to 2000, CO2 emission increased by about 840 G-ton.
This data shows an increase in CO2 emission by 460% has not changed the increase in the GMT.
As a result, the climate risk due to human emission of CO2 is zero.
Dan H.says
John,
Basically, yes.
Natural variation likely led to a higher measured rate of warming during the 1980s and 1990s. Speculation has that natural variation will continue to lead to lowered observed rates in the next decade or two. Over the long haul, these average out. Hence, the underlying linear rate since 1880 is the best guess going forward.
Since temperature responds linearly to an exponential increase in CO2, the linear temperature rise may begin to taper off as the atmospheric CO2 changes approach linearity (this is occurring today without any major CO2-limiting legislation).
Natural variation can be divided into two components: short-term changes such as ENSO events, volcanic eruptions, and solar magnetic cycle (the dog analogy), and long-term changes involving the longer solar cycles and PDO/NAO changes (the pseudo-sinusoidal effects).
Dan H.says
627.John,
Basically, yes.
Natural variation likely led to a higher measured rate of warming during the 1980s and 1990s. Speculation has that natural variation will continue to lead to lowered observed rates in the next decade or two. Over the long haul, these average out. Hence, the underlying linear rate since 1880 is the best guess going forward.
Since temperature responds linearly to an exponential increase in CO2, the linear temperature rise may begin to taper off as the atmospheric CO2 changes approach linearity (this is occurring today without any major CO2-limiting legislation).
Natural variation can be divided into two components: short-term changes such as ENSO events, volcanic eruptions, and solar magnetic cycle (the dog analogy), and long-term changes involving the longer solar cycles and PDO/NAO changes (the pseudo-sinusoidal effects).
Dan H.says
Since the physics lesson was appparently lost on many here, let’s try this mathematically. For any three dimnensional object, its volume is a product of its base area and depth. If its base shrinks, then its volume will shrink proportionally. The same is true if its depth shrinks. However, it both its depths and base shrink, then its volume will shrink as a product of both the base and depth.
This is what we are seeing in the sea ice calculations; both a decrease in area and depth, resulting in a volume decrease which significantly exceeds either. This does not mean that the volume will go to zero before either the base area or depth. That is a mathematical impossibility. The volumetric decrease will slow, even as the base area and depth keep shrinking. For example, if both the base and depth shrink by 33%, the volume will decrease 56%. A subsequent 33% loss (of its original value) will result in a 33% loss in volume. The last 33% will result in a volumetric loss of only 11%.
Hence, volume is not a valid representaion of sea ice area decline.
Dan H.says
Craig,
My answer is still no. That is if you mean, “is Arctic sea ice declining today faster than a decade ago?” If you mean longer term, then yes, becasue the measurements show Arctic sea did not becline to decline until ~1990.
Dan H.says
Since the physics lesson was appparently lost on many here, let’s try this mathematically. For any three dimnensional object, its volume is a product of its base area and depth. If its base shrinks, then its volume will shrink proportionally. The same is true if its depth shrinks. However, it both its depths and base shrink, then its volume will shrink as a product of both the base and depth.
This is what we are seeing in the sea ice calculations; both a decrease in area and depth, resulting in a volume decrease which significantly exceeds either. This does not mean that the volume will go to zero before either the base area or depth. That is a mathematical impossibility. The volumetric decrease will slow, even as the base area and depth keep shrinking. For example, if both the base and depth shrink by 33%, the volume will decrease 56%. A subsequent 33% loss (of its original value) will result in a 33% loss in volume. The last 33% will result in a volumetric loss of only 11%.
Hence, volume is not a valid representaion of sea ice area decline.
isotopioussays
“So while it is conceivable be that there is a bias, it is currently undetectable, which implies it can’t be that large.”
Does the system have a memory? Yes
Can it generate internal variability? Yes
Is the system likely to be perfect? No
Can very small insignificant changes in an imperfect stationary system with a memory be responsible for warming /cooling trends? Yes
Is it possible, that global warming is a consequence of such behaviour (are all the ingredients present)? Yes
Does this prove that “it can’t be that large.” Gee, I don’t know!
Does it prove that the IPCC have left the egg out of the cake? Gee, I don’t know! Does the Cake give you a stomach ache?
isotopioussays
Can a stationary series like ENSO cause global warming?
Could it be that the ENSO series for the last few hundred years is slightly above a hypothetical thousand year average? Even better, is there any evidence that it is not? It’s perfectly reasonable for an imperfect system to ‘wobble’ around a bit, leading to periods where it is slightly above average (or slightly below). While such changes to a stationary system are insignificant (for the human eye for example), the impact of such changes on global temperature trends can indeed be significant and therefore detectable in a system which can remember past changes.
The robust relationship between a stationary system such as ENSO and global temperature is well known, and the suggestion that recent trends could be due to stationary processes has been strongly challenged in spite of the ENSO ‘fingerprint’ on temperature (such arrogance is primarily due to AGW dogma, with some even having the nerve to suggest the opposite has occurred!), yet such challenges are weak, and are no different to saying there is no evidence that today at ‘x’ location the temperature is anomalously cool because there is no data at that location, therefore it must be anomalously warm because there is melt water.
An ‘absence of proof’ is not the same as ‘proof of absence’, however, even more frightening for the AGW crowd is their own evidence that shows that ENSO is always changing in both frequency and amplitude over long time frames. The AGW crowd will always argue that the changes must then be restricted to thousands of years, ignoring that no statistical significant change in a stationary series is required to cause warming or cooling. Insignificant for the stationary series, yet, significant for humans who have to put up with cyclical global temperature change over time (such an ugly thought, gaia doesn’t care about us!). Insignificant changes in a stationary system can add up in a system with a memory leading to temperature trends.
So ENSO can’t explain global warming if it remains exactly the same and doesn’t wobble an inch. Such a suggestion is physically impossible in a system like earth, especially over long time frames, and is even wrong on a decadal basis (1976 climate shift?).
(1)Is this uncertainty reason for inaction on climate change? No.
(2)Taking this added uncertainty into account, have the governments ‘done enough’? No.
(3)Is this uncertainty well represented in the IPCC report? Unequivocally no.
(4)What’s the most likely reason for (3)? (2).
Kevsays
Yes and since 1997 there has been no warming. So the REALITY seems to have blown a rather large hole in all your beautiful models.
Not that reality is likely to bother you…
Leland Palmersays
Hi Anonymous Coward:
You aren’t speaking for Isaksen or anyone else. Let us know about current research but please don’t attribute your own inferences to them.
Oh, thank you for your opinion on how I should behave.
I have my own opinions, of course.
About ExxonMobil and it’s ongoing and heavily documented program to influence or subvert climate scientists, all of that is in the public record. There was a link in the deleted post to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists on those ongoing and effective efforts, but apparently that is verboten on this site.
It’s far from obvious who is involved in this effort. The core financial system of this country was built on fossil fuel wealth, and those links run very wide and deep, in my opinion.
So, my advice to you on how you should behave is that you should be skeptical of all sources and of all experts on this matter.
Leland Palmersays
Hi again, Anonymous Coward-
Let me ask you what I asked other methane alarmists before: what practical action do you think is justified by methane-realted risk that isn’t already justified without reference to methane? I got no answers so far but it seems some methane alarmists are interested in banning beef or something. Do you have more serious proposals in mind? Can you provide some kind of quantitative risk analysis? If not, please work this stuff out before pointing fingers.
Yes, giving up fossil fuels is justified by CO2 alone, IMO. But people of different opinions, in government and finance, may have other opinions, if CO2 is considered alone. Understanding the real risks of methane to the future of the planet is highly motivational, in my opinion.
Since strong action to avert this crisis is justified many times over, the real risks of methane should make you an even stronger advocate of drastic action, right?
What matters is who is applying correct physics, mathematics or whatever, Nothing else matters.
It is incorrect physics to treat the Earth’s surface as if it were radiating as a blackbody in space would do. The surface is not insulated from its surrounds, namely the atmosphere and sub-surface crust, deep ocean waters etc.
Hence it is incorrect physics to apply Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to the surface as is done in the development of the AGW hypothesis.
Hence the AGW hypothesis is not grounded in correct physics. Need I make the final statement?
Dan H.says
Richard,
I agree. A scientific fact requires a much higher standard of proof. Just because we think something “should” happen, does not necessary mean that it necessarily will.
I’ve checked David Whitehouse’s numbers and they seem accurate to me. Using the CRU version of Hadcrut3 the trend since 1997 to 2011 is 0.015 deg which is much less than the noise, so he is correct. The rest of his figures are accurate as well. As far as the 5 year averages he uses, James Hansen uses the same time period and notes similar results.
Wisely, David Whitehouse just presents the figures with no comments on their implications, though he does make some cutting comments about using decadal averages alone in the UK Met Offices press release which, he rightly, gives only one side of the picture. The Met Office press release should have had the knowledge to realise that the graph in the Mail on Sunday was the very same data presented a different way.
There doesn’t seem any argument that since 1997 in the CRU Hadcrut3 that there has been no statistically significant rise. What it means on the other hand.
In 1981 NASA’s Dr Hansen made a huge mistake in assuming the Earth’s surface radiates like a blackbody. A further assumption was made that radiation from a colder atmosphere can be converted to thermal energy by a significantly warmer surface. It cannot be, and so it cannot warm or slow the rate of cooling. See http://climate-change-theory.com for more detail.
In 1981 NASA’s Dr Hansen made a huge mistake in assuming the Earth’s surface radiates like a blackbody. A further assumption was made that radiation from a colder atmosphere can be converted to thermal energy by a significantly warmer surface. It cannot be, and so it cannot warm or slow the rate of cooling. See http://climate-change-theory.com for more detail.
There is enlightenment coming, it will be a cleansing wind throughout academia. This is just the tip of an iceberg that will sink the titanic of AGW, and all those on board. They are of the dark ages.
Ask Dr David Evans, see his expose at Jo Nova science blog (au). Go to Tallbloke (uk). Go to Judith Curry (com).
The greatest fear I have is polluted minds around me. What have we become, men, who give their minds to others for safekeeping. We should pity ourselves, as well as them.
My countrymen are in danger, we have never had such wide divides between us, it is threatening division and insurrection. It must stop. We are close to solving the mystery of climate, we have most of the pieces now, and great minds will complete the puzzle soon. The Greens are deluded, we will prove it.
I am but a troubadour, with a spatha of iron will. By His grace.
Yours sincerely,
Markus Fitzhenry
———————————————————————–
Thus far, the science of atmosphere has rested on the paradigm of Greenhouse.
It is a misinterpretation of the observations of the French scientist Baron Fourier by Arrhenius in 1896. It is that misconception, of previous known physical laws, that has polluted our perceptions of the Earths’ atmosphere into the modern ages.
To shift that invalid principal, one has to offer a different perception born of observations and proved in the universal application of it, within a symbolic syntax (maths).
This is the crux of the matter:
The current paradigm demands our atmosphere is gas in an enclosed house.
The correct principle is that the enclosure itself is the whole of the atmosphere. Consider the greenhouse roof to start at the Earths’ surface and end at the top of our atmosphere.
The invalid greenhouse principle is false when subjected to the principle of conservation of energy. They cannot explain why it is so except for the introduction of a new invalid principle.
As we have always done, when our knowledge of the universe of physics reaches the end of our ability to predicate, we fear the unknown. We naturally conserve our existence and fear is a mechanism of this conservation.
It must be so, that earth, water, air, are different forms of the manifestation of energy in mass. The perception of a greenhouse allows a supposition that the energy equation of the equilibrium of mass can be different in its different forms of manifestation.
Baron Fourier would be aghast.
——————————————————————————
The presiding Justice in this case is the reasoning of man.
It is a fundamental practice of man that we fail. We once conceived a Sun around a flat Earth. Each generation enters the revolving door of ignorance.
What man on Earth has never been mistaken? Not I, not you. Yet each generation of man, believes anew. It is a bias, of the overarching preservation of dignity, that we can omit no wrong.
Our planet, a moon of the Sun, exists in a bath of space, its atmosphere and oceans are the gifts that gave us life.
Why do men around me, fear the Earth that created them? Is it the fundamental fragility of man and our inability to control the Universe that leads to thoughts, so fearful, we close our minds and hide in caves?
The first law of science related the energy in mass. Our ancestors told us it was so, by observational reasoning. Like a rebellious teenager we have rejected this fundamental nature of our universe. It is so, we cannot add more energy to Earth, a script, derived before the evolution of man.
Greenhouse, were used in cold Europe for the enhancement of biological life. Why wouldn’t a man, think an analogy, could correlate to the creation of life on Earth, with the atmosphere as its vessel? It is a belief without truth.
The enclosure of Earth is its atmosphere. The whole of the atmosphere is a window of safety it protects us from the damaging rays of the Sun.
Radiation cannot enter the mass of Earth, radiation cannot enter the mass of Oceans, and radiation cannot enter the mass of Atmosphere. It is the enhancement under pressure of the kinetic energy of the Sun that gives us warmth.
Our Atmosphere cannot create radiation, it cannot create kinetic energy, it cannot add extra heat to itself. We are bathed in the temperature of space it attracts our destiny, Cold.
The truth of this reasoning cannot be judged. But they, the gods in white coats claim deity and cannot be wrong.
It is the inconvenient truth, of the certainty of man to err.
————————————————————————————–
(Re•duc•tion•ism)
noun
1. The practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon, esp. a mental, social, or biological phenomenon, in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, esp. when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation
Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.
Reducto, some simplifications do lead to greater understanding, imagine trying to teach kids the mystics that has been created by Science of Atmosphere, without relating it to their understandings.
I have previously posted a little ditty, hopefully something like that can be taught to kids, so they understand more. And frankly some of those lyrics that have been deposited by me have also helped some of the greatest minds in the field to understand the wrongness of the greenhouse paradigm.
The article, Roger posted on Baron Fourier nailed it for me. When I thought about the N&K principle, it clicked immediately. He did not distinguish the manner of mass, between its different compositions, in the crust of the Earth.
Casting off greenhouse, I quickly saw the relationship of refrigeration when Roger posted that graph about the temperature throughout the atmosphere as stratified. Then, looking back on Fouriers’ observations, it was obvious carbon meant very little to heat distribution in a straight line within the Earth.
I then imagined the greenhouse, as the glass only and hence a new perspective. But what mechanism drove our system. Clearly not a greenhouse, as its hotter at TOA. Then it struck, refrigeration heat pump, thermostats, condensers and evaporators, when logically applied to the natural systems of atmosphere, it gelled, like a bolt from Heaven.
To to be sure, I’m not sure it wasn’t. Roger Tattersall, was the reason for my limited understandings, enough to conceive an idea, and Hans Jelbrings’ comments to me were enlightening. Willis Eschenbachs’ perpetual motion machine made me think real hard. He is admirable.
Of course, AGW didn’t make it, it’s DOA. It is deceased for this very reason:
They added a new invalid principle to greenhouse, Co2 forcing, but,
They could not, even with that, explain how physics, models greenhouses, when it’s hotter on the outside.
You cannot match the Science of Physics, to an incorrect philosophical perception of greenhouse.
We are back where we started;
“Why wouldn’t a man, think and analogy, could correlate to the creation of life on Earth, it’s vessel, the atmosphere?”
The inconvenient truth, of the certainty of man to err.
Markus Fitzhenry
————————————————————————————————————
The troposphere is the condenser, the tropopause is the separation device and the stratosphere is the fridge cabinet of outgoing heat, cooling incoming rays, as they warm to the gravitational pressure of the atmosphere, after preceding through the thermostat of the mesospause, and then onto the thermostat of the tropopause, before again heating closer as pressure increases at the Earths’ surface, until the force of pressure on the thermodynamics of the enhanced potential energy completes the system back to the separation device of the tropopause.
I predict no warming by greenhouse, but certainty of cooling by refrigeration.
“Markus, you are but a troubadour, why do you think you can relate Philosophy to the Science of Physics?”
I can’t, but it seems, neither can they.
Markus Fitzhenry.
—————————————————————————————————————
Richard Betts| January 28, 2012 at 5:34 am | Reply
Hi Judith
Thanks for highlighting the Huffington Post article – I agree it’s a good article.
You ask “Can someone remind me why we need the IPCC AR5?”
Later in the article you have the answer:
“the uncertainties need to be spelled out, if not resolved, and especially those elusive feedback effects which account for the wide range in estimated warming this century.”
The IAC noted that AR4 could have done a better job in spelling out the uncertainties, at least in WG2. There is a real effort going in to this in AR5 – and indeed you can already see early evidence of this in the recent SREX report, which had more nuanced messages on droughts and hurricanes than AR5, including a more careful application of likelihood estimates (only using them when confidence was high enough, hence the downgrade of the drought statement).
At the WG2 lead authors’ meeting last month, one of the TSU members gave us a great talk on care in assessment writing – basically being very precise about what the literature is actually saying, what the evidence actually is and how well it agrees, and being careful on reflecting the scope of literature sources accurately (region, timescale, etc etc). I can see the WG2 leadership making a real concerted effort to avoid the problems of AR4.
markus | January 28, 2012 at 6:01 am | Reply
Dear Richard,
I’m hope I’m not being rude by addressing you directly but, I’ve noticed a rather large Mammuthus has entered the room. Do you think AR5 should possibly address some of the science that has unexpectedly created it, before the stampede arrives.
Markus Fitzhenry.
What is truly astonishing is the admittances they haven’t got it right for a decade. And we are destroying ourselves over it?
They should have left their bias at the door, of the scientific hall.
They cannot predict, no more than a biased wit.
Do you know volcano eruptions, warm Earth?
Markus Fitzhenry
——————————————————————————————————
They should not call themselves a scientist, if they are so biased, that it completely blinds them to truth of fact. There is nothing to proselytise in science, nothing at all. They really are a disgrace to their profession. And right now I really don’t care if they end up being lampooned.
They kept pushing crap into the face of my fellows, they will be held up to ridicule in front of their peers.
There has been enough destruction in our society, over the rubbish the greens have been trying to push down our throats, and it is going to stop. They are delusional; they have harmed my countrymen greatly.
You tell me what peace has been over our lands during the last 3 – 4 years. One lesson that will be learned from all of this is the disgusting manner in which climate scientists appealed to authority as their reasoning. Academics my bum. Idiots that cause disquiet amongst men.
I do not want children being taught incorrect paths of reasoning. Lefto academia, have infiltrated learning and they are the greatest pollution facing us. I want my brothers’ children, free of rhetoric.
I want them taught to think for themselves, so they can solve the great mysteries of the universe, and have freedom of thought, to love mankind.
Damn them, and their entitlement.
————————————————————————————————
By the knowing that I know, a proclamation is made.
Arrhenioushansenous has been slain, by the hand of a man.
Rejoice, for the fear of climate is no more.
The most powerful force in the universe is the reasoning of a man.
Markus Fitzhenry.
In the land of the free, they coward and scorned, with a big red dragon, to ward off the horns.
Markus Fitzhenry.
——————————————————————————————
Look beyond the oceans, for there you will see, your brother, for they are yee.
Dear Moderators,
My recent post met all of your comment policies but appears to have been rejected and not even put in “the bore hole”
If you are going to do this, it would be nice to send a short explanatory email.
It is easy to forget that the original ‘gate’, Watergate, was not about the crime but about the cover up. I sometimes feel that a few climate scientists are trying to do a ‘Nixon’ and present facts every which way to disguise that fact that warming is not continuing at its predicted rate. This has two consequences. Firstly the anti-AGW crowd can ‘prove’ that the temperature trend has been flat (I’ve shown how to cheat and ‘prove’ just that on my web site at http://www.climatedata.info/Discussions/Discussions/opinions.php . Secondly when climate scientists, as I’m sure they will, find the explanation for the stasis and include it in their models the doubters will say “How can you correct a problem which you said did not exist?”
In his talk he was refreshingly open about discrepancies between model projections and observed data and areas where climate science was not yet up to speed. Yet, he still gave a convincing talk. Thinking about this I realised that if a climate scientist gives a presentation with cherry-picked data to a group of lay people they won’t notice the omission and will believe the presenter. On the other hand if another scientist presents all the data, warts and all (as Sir Brian Hoskins did), but explains how this does not falsify the overall picture that scientist will also be believed. The difference is that anti-AGW bloggers will find it easy to attack the first presenter and less easy to attack the second one.
vukcevicsays
UK’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology published report Climate Variability and Weather February 2012 http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/POST-PN-400.pdf
with this statement: Natural forms of climate variability are likely to be the main influence on the UK’s climate over the next few decades.
For some months now, a graphical representation of numerical analysis was available here
a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to reconsider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture; and as being a man that neither affects what is new, nor admires what is old, and hates every kind of imposture.
Will our children actually be taught to think critically based on these foundational principles of science? Or will undeclared presuppositions and censorship be silently imposed on our children in the name of “science” education?
Should students be allowed to consider “Evidence-Based Climate Science”? Will they be allowed to review and evaluate the full range of scientific information including evidence presented by the NIPCC (but ignored by the IPCC)? Should they be allowed to consider the benefits of higher CO2?
Eugenie Scott starts by perpetuating the politically correct equivocation of “climate change” for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.” Rather than allow examination of the full uncertainties involved in climate science, NCSE uses the pejorative “climate denier” for anyone skeptical of its dogmatic interpretation. (Subliminally inferring Holocaust deniers).
Would Scott allow students to learn that the long term average global temperatures are declining from the Holocene climatic optimum (interglacial maximum) towards the next ice age? Will NCSE highlight the very large uncertainties on the impact of clouds? Can I then trust Scott to encourage exposing students to the full range of evidence on natural variation and to evaluate the corresponding full range of implications?
NCSE makes the rhetorical ploy of defining its dogmatic interpretation as the only view of “science” and imposes hidden presupposition (naturalism) in a circular argument to justify that argument – implying Carl Sagan’s assertion
“The cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be.”
NCSE a priori rejects evaluation of objective data to examine whether or not the observed universe and biochemical life could have arisen from stochastic processes.
Lets uphold full sweep of objective skeptical science that is willing to “kick the tires” and examine all the evidence, and not be swept along by unexamined presuppositions and authoritative assertions.
a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to reconsider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture; and as being a man that neither affects what is new, nor admires what is old, and hates every kind of imposture.
Will our children actually be taught to think critically based on these foundational principles of science?
isotopioussays
Hey, I’m like one of those annoying students!
Here’s my question: Why should we take any notice of climate scientists if they cannot even explain why the New York City is not covered in a kilometre of ice?
You can’t even explain why the earth is currently much warmer than the pleistocene average, so why should we believe anything you say about the cause of a degree of warming, when you can’t explain ten times that amount.
Just because there is evidence of anthropogenic radiative forcing, doesn’t mean that it is dominating the climate changes we see today, all it means is that it is operating (big woop).
If you keep teaching us this ‘science is settled’ crap, my Dad’s a marine and he’s going to woop your arse come parent teacher night.
Hank,
You really should heed your own advice.
Your quote was for a small segment of the experiment, which focused on those trees which suffered from a N deficiency. If you read further, you will find, “An unanswered question has been why the negative feedback through the N cycle developed in ORNL-FACE and not in other forested FACE experiments.” Just who are you trying to mislead here?
If you had read further, you would have found othe increases mentioned previously. Reading only the abstract reveals the following: “Free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments have provided novel insights into the ecological mechanisms controlling the cycling and storage of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems and contribute to our ability to project how ecosystems respond to increasing CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. Important lessons emerge by evaluating a set of hypotheses that initially guided the design and longevity of forested FACE experiments. Net primary productivity is increased by elevated CO2, but the response can diminish over time. Carbon accumulation is driven by the distribution of carbon among plant and soil components with differing turnover rates and by interactions between the carbon and nitrogen cycles. Plant community structure may change, but elevated CO2 has only minor effects on microbial community structure. FACE results provide a strong foundation for next-generation experiments in unexplored ecosystems and inform coupled climate-biogeochemical models of the ecological mechanisms controlling ecosystem response to the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
This entire study was performed without using a single one of your cherry trees.
I wonder if giss-temp for 2011 will be 0.53 or more. If it isn’t, there will have been negligible cooling for the last decade.
Come on liberty bell !
Pete Dunkleberg – Firstly you state as a fact that sea level is rising. In fact, sea level hasn’t risen for a number of years. You then give only two reasons for sea level change – thermal expansion and melting ice (perhaps no-one told you that Antarctic ice has been growing for the past 30 years).
You left out one big one – movement of the tectonic plates. Sea level has been generally increasing for the past 20,000 years – it’s nothing new.
I believe climate science is going about convincing the public in the wrong way.
Greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere every year. Therefore, all things being equal, heat trapped by the atmosphere should increase every year. Of course all things are not equal, but what is not equal is also quantifiable.
Particulate matter might prevent sunlight from reaching the earth leaving less heat to trap.
Changes in the solar output might produce more or less heat to reach the earth.
Is there anything else that might affect the amount of heat reaching earth? Not that I know of.
Then in addition, not all heat increases temperature. Most important, I think, is wholesale melting of ice which absorbs the heat of fusion without raising the temperature.
Perhaps some chemical reactions in the ocean take up heat. I don’t know if this is significant.
If these are the only factors in the heat accounting it should be possible to find an equation whose solution would reveal that an ever larger percent of the heat entering the earth’s atmosphere is being trapped. That should be true every year, right?
This number, I think, would be more persuasive. But can we measure these things accurately. That, I think would be a scientific achievement the public would be more likely to understand. A steadily increasing number is more persuasive than a trend computed from numbers that go up and down.
Interesting that the Global Sea Ice Area anomaly as of Jan 2012…..wait for it… Zero – its a travesty!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Add this to the list of climate disruption/ worst case accidents:
Laboratory experiments carried out in Australia have proven that bubbles can, indeed, sink a scale model ship by decreasing the density of the water; any wreckage consequently rising to the surface would be rapidly dispersed by the Gulf Stream. It has been hypothesized that periodic methane eruptions (sometimes called “mud volcanoes”) may produce regions of frothy water that are no longer capable of providing adequate buoyancy for ships. If this were the case, such an area forming around a ship could cause it to sink very rapidly and without warning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Triangle#Methane_hydrates
[Response:How much time do you think I have to wade through your posts and figure out what you’re trying to say–even one time? Make a coherent argument based on some definite study of the literature, don’t just shotgun up a bunch of copy/paste and links and expect people to follow your arguments, much less buy into them–Jim]
Gavin could responded to my argument in post #106, just fine. In the following i have presented studies which are related or point on. Maybe i missed your point, though i have to say it is not easy to guess what your initial motive was about. If you can’t tie precipitation or SLR to methanogenesis and Nitrous Oxide and carbon uptake, then maybe ask more specific what you did not understand. There is nothing wrong with my general assumption. Yes, there is no conclusive study yet to quantify the impact yet. But SLR will cause more erosion + flooding and following are more anoxic regions, where MG and Dentrification processes act as a positive feedback. And thus i try to quantify, but is an active field of research.
Here again is the link to an article about flooded soils, with briefly touching on current research http://climateforce.net/2012/01/10/flooded-soils/
SM,
It appears that Jim’s long winded answer was yes to all, his water and temperature response is exemplified by greenhouse, where temperature is controlled, water is ample, and CO2 is pumped in up to 1000 ppm (This is also mentioned in RIck’s link). In short, whenever plant growth is CO2-limited, increases in CO2 will promote growth. This is supported repeatedly in scientific papers, referred to by Hank as the scientific process.
Some of the negative effects mentioned are presumed to occur in a warmer, drier world, regardless of the cause of the warming. This also assumes no adaptation.
Is there a trend in 15 year trends?
According to greenhouse theory, the warming should become more robust as the signal rises out of the noise. If you look at gistemp, there is a significant trend in r squared values for 15 year periods, as shown here at real climate.
https://www.realclimate.org/images/giss-15yr.jpg
Note that they do not show the data before 1975. Indeed, over this recent period there is a trend towards more ‘robust trends’, with the 15 year moment correlation steadily increasing with a trend of 0.47 since 1975.
But if you include all the data, the 15 year moment correlation statistic has absolutely no significance with a linear trend of 0.04 since 1880.
So, is the trend in ‘15 year trends’ becoming more robust?
No.
Is the signal becoming more robust?
No.
So while the rest of the world is investigating the science of the real world you are reduced to pratting about with ‘models’. These are nothing more than computer games for people with basic math. Sorry but this site is rubbish now.
John,
Corn is probably the crop of least concerning with rising temperatures; planting is restricted until springtime temperatures warm, and corn can tolerate higher summer temperatures than other crops. Water is the larger factor when growing corn, hence significant irrigation is required in low rainfall areas. The U.S. cornbelt has experienced a combination of higher precipiation, temperatures, and atmospheric CO2 during the past half century (although some individual years have witness poor yields due to the weather). Add the increase in fertilization, and it is no wonder than crop production has increased. Corn is also the crop of choice in many African countries, which has resulted in large-scale famine when the rains fail.
Global Mean Temperature (GMT) data => http://bit.ly/pxXK4j
The most important observation in the above data is that the upper GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT peaks, the lower GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT valleys, and these lines are parallel. Also, the line that bisects the vertical space between the two GMT boundary lines is nearly identical to the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade for the whole data. This result indicates that, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position.
In the above data, the GMT touched its upper boundary line only 3-times, about every 60-years, but has never crossed it for long in the last 130 years?
In the GMT data, a shift in climate to an accelerated global warming would have been indicated if the upper GMT boundary line had been a curve with an increasing positive slope with increasing years, or the upper and lower GMT boundary lines had been diverging with increasing years.
Fortunately, the upper GMT boundary line is a straight line having, interestingly, the same global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade as the global warming trend line for the whole data. Also, the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel, showing no change in the magnitude of the GMT swing with increasing years. As a result, the vertical cooling or warming swing of 0.5 deg C between the two GMT boundary lines is cyclic and is therefore natural.
However, there is evidence of a persistent but natural global warming of 0.06 deg C per decade. Not 0.2 deg C per decade as claimed by the IPCC.
I look forward to the possibility of a huge burp of methane because it will help to either confirm your theoretical expectations of increased forcing – or yield a result so inconsistent with them that you will be left with no wiggle room for excuses of why yet another modeled prediction failed to materialize. The latter is what I expect, the sooner the better.
The global mean temperature data shows GLOBAL WARMING has STOPPED as shown below:
http://bit.ly/y6GWC1
Is this a course that pushes the CO2 theory of AGW?
Jim >[Response:It’s called “attribution”,
Yeah, I just attributed it to the weather…..again, there is no evidence that I am wrong.
(note, I have no evidence that you are wrong, but thats not the point).
It’s called “science”
It seems a pity that the question (at 121) of whether the combined additional warming from the ongoing acceleration of multiple interactive feedbacks,
in combination over the next >75yrs with that from past and future anthropogenic GHG outputs,
in combination with that from the loss of the sulphate parasol,
actually poses a far more cogent threat than that of a possible massive ESAS CH4 eruption,
seems to be of no particular interest on this blog.
Is it just inconvenient to discuss a well-indicated scenario whose resolution demands more than merely ending anthro-GHG outputs ? I’d hope that no scientist here would let the dislike of a remedy deflect their inquiry into the reasons it may be required.
It seems a pity as it tends to confirm Chris R’s conclusion that this ‘discussion’ may be a waste of time.
Regards,
Lewis
This “dog is weather” analogy only holds just so far, and that’s not very. It’s highly simplistic, of course. A man (or woman) taking a dog for a walk usually does so with a purpose or plan in mind. (Of course, there are those who think they are taking the dog for a walk, when in fact it is the other way around but I digress.) A key problem I have with the analogy is that it implies that climate has a discernible path (from point “a” to point “b”). Given the historical record, climate is not a straight path anywhere, it has a certain degree of apparent randomness with warm, relatively unchanging (flat or plateaued), and cool periods that — to apply the analogy — would be much like walking the dog to my favorite pub, only to end up at the train station instead. Those were driven by natural forces, apparently, yet I see little substance to define what the those natural forces may have been, and if or when those forces may again come into play.
Also, the analogy assumes something about the dog and handler/human relationship, but it’s not clear what. I’ve walked dogs that were well trained (think a Guide Dog for the blind, for instance) and they walk alongside with nearly imperceptible variation both on and off leash, even when other dogs might run or hide because of a perceived threat. As West notes, there are other factors in play.
Now, a small child walking a hungry Scottish Deerhound or German Shepherd might be a bit more like it. Or, better yet, anyone trying to walk a cat on a leash. Yet these too have a high degree of simplicity and significant limitations, among which are the limited dimensions that may be applied.
Hank
But there is no broad scientific consensus about the rate of any warming (unless you include such a wide margin of error to make the estimate meaningless) and there is no scientific consensus regarding what will happen to any specific region as a result of warming. Virtually all of the papers published on the impacts of potential warming are unsupportable due to their being based on GCM outputs that have huge margins of error.
Ya know – you guys really suck as writers. I’ve been trying to gauge the strength of different arguments on global warming by contrasting your site with denier sites and you sure don’t write clearly. Can’t you put your main point in the opening paragraph and/or the closing paragraph and clearly state it and then show clearly what supports it? This is not a criticism on your science, but your writing. Many denier sites clearly state problems with AGW theory like ‘the troposphere hot-spot is missing’ or ‘CO2 lags temperature’. I read your site on those topics and you get into the scientific nuances and asides and caveats without ever stating clearly what your point is and why you’re right. Go read your post on CO2 lagging temperature in ice core samples and see how long it takes you to get to the important part of the post. YOUR WRITING STYLE SEEMS EVASIVE AND GIVES THE READER THE IMPRESSION YOU ARE HIDING SOMETHING. State your point and the reasons to believe it simply first and directly – then delve into the complexity, please.
Steve Bloom, in response to your #32 on January 22, 2012 2:02 PM: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/01/aiiee_the_stupid_it_burns.php#comment-6215831
The post you are responding to was written on Chinese New Year after quite a bit of rice wine. I posted a follow up a few minutes later where I apologised for various errors and attempted to clarify the whole thing.
William allowed the post with the acknowledged mistakes to appear, but silently deleted the correction.
Among other posts he deleted included a follow up to his earlier comments that presented the actual Lindzen papers I was referring to from the 80s and 90s. That would have gone some way to addressing your accusation that Lindzen’s research is “fraudulent” – and also showed that William was wrong in his response at #14 (perhaps explaining why it was deleted).
Then I also clarified this “CO2 is well mixed” business he made up, and he deleted that too.
So I have moved the discussion here and thank the moderators in advance for their patience.
I have to say that nothing could be more damaging to the image of science than this sort of behaviour from William Connolley.
—
If I can now make the various points I wanted to make :-
– Martin Vermeer, after making rude and incorrect assumptions about my motivations, asserted, “…I’m not so sure that the ice age temperature argument [that global average temperatures don’t actually change a lot in glacial-interglacial transitions, per Lindzen 1993 and references therein] isn’t an ‘easy’ one [to refute]. I’ve been using it (admittedly to a Finnish audience, which may be relevant), saying, ‘if five degrees [at the LGM] produced an entirely different planet (visualizing with both hands how many copies of the landmark Pasila link tower on top of each other the ice was thick here over Helsinki), then what do you think even two degrees would do [today]?”
This appeals to a popular confusion about what actually causes the deglaciation at the end of each ice age. Perhaps Martin Vermeer is not aware. Put simply, it isn’t a change in global average temperature that causes the ice to melt, and indeed it had little to do with CO2 – the ice changes that is. I have been told this on good authority. Let me explain.
In a post at Lubos Motl’s blog recently, it was brought to my attention that Gerard Roe (2006, In defence of Milankovitch, GRL) actually solved the problem of the ice age glacial cycles and showed that when orbital variations in northern summer insolation are properly related to the RATE OF CHANGE of ice volume, the deglaciation is largely accounted for.
I dug a bit deeper and found that R. Toggweiler has shown similarly that CO2 is only a minor player in the southern hemisphere deglaciation too (2008, Origin of the 100,000-year timescale in Antarctic temperatures
and atmospheric CO2, Paleoceanography).
I then contacted Dr. Roe and he confirmed this (see his response that I posted with permission at Motl’s blog). I was a little disappointed that Lubos wasn’t willing to discuss my objections – but at least he didn’t just delete the inconvenient posts.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/01/will-co2-save-us-from-next-ice-age.html
So it is important to stress that none of these scientists are claiming that CO2 didn’t cause a large part of the GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE change. Roe wrote, “This certainly does not rule out CO2 as a primary cause of tropical or other climate variations…”. His email to me confirms the same understanding.
Anyhow, whatever the global cooling of the LGM – whether 5 C or 2 C – these degrees of warming were apparently not the main cause of the melting ice.
It is not obvious to me that this point is widely known.
– Your opinion that Richard Lindzen is a “fraud” because he has “carefully avoided answering questions like ‘How is such a strong negative feedback compatible with the Pleistocene glacial cycles?'” could hardly be further off the mark. Lindzen devoted an enormous amount of his research to the argument that the Pleistocene glacial cycles suggest strong negative feedbacks in the tropics. In fact, as I’ll show, his ideas are evidently inspired by the paleoclimate observations.
As I said in the post that William deleted, the earliest reference to this idea I have found is in Lindzen and Farrell 1977 (Some realistic modifications of simple climate models. J. Atmos. Sci., 34, 1487-1501). He wrote a later paper that he frequently cites – Lindzen 1993 (Climate dynamics and global change. Ann. Rev. Fl. Mech., 26, 353-378).
And this is why it is so ludicrous to claim Lindzen carefully refuses discussion of the paleoclimate. It appears rather that he saw these strong negative feedbacks in the tropics as soon as he saw the early CLIMAP reconstruction of 1976. In Lindzen and Farrell 1977:
He goes on to point out that the simple models at the time didn’t reproduce this feature – and it seems he has felt that no models since have managed to reproduce this feature either.
By 1993 he was citing the same result in Budyko & Izrael 1991:
He has continued to study the problem of the equator-to-pole gradient with I think perhaps the most present iteration of his view being contained in Zurita-Gotor, P., and R.S. Lindzen (2007) Theories of baroclinic adjustment and eddy equilibration. In Recent Results in General Circulation Theory. T. Schneider and A. Sobel, Editors. Princeton University Press.
Even right now there is an interesting discussion taking place in the literature about negative tropical feedbacks and the Faint Young Sun Paradox (Rondanelli and Lindzen 2010).
Note, I am not saying Lindzen is right about anything in particular – but it does decrease my confidence in the consensus – and I think it should decrease everyone’s confidence – if I see the situation is so badly misrepresented. If the people attacking Lindzen don’t understand what he’s actually saying, why should we believe that any of these points are settled?
– now to my own speculation and the clarification of the point I made that William deleted. If we look at the Pleistocene glacial cycles we see the climate oscillate between an ice covered and an ice free state. If we assume that climate sensitivity in an interglacial after the earth has shed most of its ice is the same as climate sensitivity at a glacial maximum state, it seems to me that we must be assuming that the ice-albedo feedback is also the same now as it was at the LGM. I can’t see how this can be right. It seems obvious that if the earth is covered in ice it will be white in colour, and thus will reflect a lot more sunlight than it does now. And, because there is so much ice available to melt by surface area, it seems obvious to this layperson that the ice-albedo feedback will be much more positive at a glacial maximum than it is now at a glacial minimum. Now, sure, I am NOT saying there is no more ice to melt, or that melting the remaining ice will not be bad. Nonetheless, I can’t see how my point could be wrong.
– Regarding your questions I don’t know the answers but I’d be interested if you explained what you are thinking.
Back on topic. Do you really think that any self respecting scientist worth his salt is going to answer a simplistic and biased multiple choice fiasco like this?. There are so many unknowns and known unknowns to be sorted and researched, maybe never to be fully quantified. So many doubts and perfectly feasible alternative theories answers and outcomes. I cannot believe that such a pole will even graze the surface of the majority ( of interested) scientific opinion out there that is confused and fully realizes that the issue is not yet sorted out.
JCH,
Climate etc. has a nice discussion on the paper.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/24/missing-heat-isnt-missing-after-all/
Hank,
I assume you are not implying that 1 degree is not huge, even though you comments implies such. Your last paragraphs tells me much about your politcal agenda.
Let us look at the data to access the climate risk due to human emission of CO2.
a) Global Mean temperature (GMT) => http://bit.ly/zISeEo
For the period from 1880 to 1940, GMT increased by about 0.35 deg C.
For the period from 1940 to 2000, GMT increased by about nearly the same 0.35 deg C.
b) Human CO2 emission => http://bit.ly/wD1SZj
For the period from 1880 to 1940, CO2 emission increased by about 150 G-ton.
For the period from 1940 to 2000, CO2 emission increased by about 840 G-ton.
This data shows an increase in CO2 emission by 460% has not changed the increase in the GMT.
As a result, the climate risk due to human emission of CO2 is zero.
John,
Basically, yes.
Natural variation likely led to a higher measured rate of warming during the 1980s and 1990s. Speculation has that natural variation will continue to lead to lowered observed rates in the next decade or two. Over the long haul, these average out. Hence, the underlying linear rate since 1880 is the best guess going forward.
Since temperature responds linearly to an exponential increase in CO2, the linear temperature rise may begin to taper off as the atmospheric CO2 changes approach linearity (this is occurring today without any major CO2-limiting legislation).
Natural variation can be divided into two components: short-term changes such as ENSO events, volcanic eruptions, and solar magnetic cycle (the dog analogy), and long-term changes involving the longer solar cycles and PDO/NAO changes (the pseudo-sinusoidal effects).
627.John,
Basically, yes.
Natural variation likely led to a higher measured rate of warming during the 1980s and 1990s. Speculation has that natural variation will continue to lead to lowered observed rates in the next decade or two. Over the long haul, these average out. Hence, the underlying linear rate since 1880 is the best guess going forward.
Since temperature responds linearly to an exponential increase in CO2, the linear temperature rise may begin to taper off as the atmospheric CO2 changes approach linearity (this is occurring today without any major CO2-limiting legislation).
Natural variation can be divided into two components: short-term changes such as ENSO events, volcanic eruptions, and solar magnetic cycle (the dog analogy), and long-term changes involving the longer solar cycles and PDO/NAO changes (the pseudo-sinusoidal effects).
Since the physics lesson was appparently lost on many here, let’s try this mathematically. For any three dimnensional object, its volume is a product of its base area and depth. If its base shrinks, then its volume will shrink proportionally. The same is true if its depth shrinks. However, it both its depths and base shrink, then its volume will shrink as a product of both the base and depth.
This is what we are seeing in the sea ice calculations; both a decrease in area and depth, resulting in a volume decrease which significantly exceeds either. This does not mean that the volume will go to zero before either the base area or depth. That is a mathematical impossibility. The volumetric decrease will slow, even as the base area and depth keep shrinking. For example, if both the base and depth shrink by 33%, the volume will decrease 56%. A subsequent 33% loss (of its original value) will result in a 33% loss in volume. The last 33% will result in a volumetric loss of only 11%.
Hence, volume is not a valid representaion of sea ice area decline.
Craig,
My answer is still no. That is if you mean, “is Arctic sea ice declining today faster than a decade ago?” If you mean longer term, then yes, becasue the measurements show Arctic sea did not becline to decline until ~1990.
Since the physics lesson was appparently lost on many here, let’s try this mathematically. For any three dimnensional object, its volume is a product of its base area and depth. If its base shrinks, then its volume will shrink proportionally. The same is true if its depth shrinks. However, it both its depths and base shrink, then its volume will shrink as a product of both the base and depth.
This is what we are seeing in the sea ice calculations; both a decrease in area and depth, resulting in a volume decrease which significantly exceeds either. This does not mean that the volume will go to zero before either the base area or depth. That is a mathematical impossibility. The volumetric decrease will slow, even as the base area and depth keep shrinking. For example, if both the base and depth shrink by 33%, the volume will decrease 56%. A subsequent 33% loss (of its original value) will result in a 33% loss in volume. The last 33% will result in a volumetric loss of only 11%.
Hence, volume is not a valid representaion of sea ice area decline.
“So while it is conceivable be that there is a bias, it is currently undetectable, which implies it can’t be that large.”
Does the system have a memory? Yes
Can it generate internal variability? Yes
Is the system likely to be perfect? No
Can very small insignificant changes in an imperfect stationary system with a memory be responsible for warming /cooling trends? Yes
Is it possible, that global warming is a consequence of such behaviour (are all the ingredients present)? Yes
Does this prove that “it can’t be that large.” Gee, I don’t know!
Does it prove that the IPCC have left the egg out of the cake? Gee, I don’t know! Does the Cake give you a stomach ache?
Can a stationary series like ENSO cause global warming?
Could it be that the ENSO series for the last few hundred years is slightly above a hypothetical thousand year average? Even better, is there any evidence that it is not? It’s perfectly reasonable for an imperfect system to ‘wobble’ around a bit, leading to periods where it is slightly above average (or slightly below). While such changes to a stationary system are insignificant (for the human eye for example), the impact of such changes on global temperature trends can indeed be significant and therefore detectable in a system which can remember past changes.
The robust relationship between a stationary system such as ENSO and global temperature is well known, and the suggestion that recent trends could be due to stationary processes has been strongly challenged in spite of the ENSO ‘fingerprint’ on temperature (such arrogance is primarily due to AGW dogma, with some even having the nerve to suggest the opposite has occurred!), yet such challenges are weak, and are no different to saying there is no evidence that today at ‘x’ location the temperature is anomalously cool because there is no data at that location, therefore it must be anomalously warm because there is melt water.
An ‘absence of proof’ is not the same as ‘proof of absence’, however, even more frightening for the AGW crowd is their own evidence that shows that ENSO is always changing in both frequency and amplitude over long time frames. The AGW crowd will always argue that the changes must then be restricted to thousands of years, ignoring that no statistical significant change in a stationary series is required to cause warming or cooling. Insignificant for the stationary series, yet, significant for humans who have to put up with cyclical global temperature change over time (such an ugly thought, gaia doesn’t care about us!). Insignificant changes in a stationary system can add up in a system with a memory leading to temperature trends.
So ENSO can’t explain global warming if it remains exactly the same and doesn’t wobble an inch. Such a suggestion is physically impossible in a system like earth, especially over long time frames, and is even wrong on a decadal basis (1976 climate shift?).
(1)Is this uncertainty reason for inaction on climate change? No.
(2)Taking this added uncertainty into account, have the governments ‘done enough’? No.
(3)Is this uncertainty well represented in the IPCC report? Unequivocally no.
(4)What’s the most likely reason for (3)? (2).
Yes and since 1997 there has been no warming. So the REALITY seems to have blown a rather large hole in all your beautiful models.
Not that reality is likely to bother you…
Hi Anonymous Coward:
Oh, thank you for your opinion on how I should behave.
I have my own opinions, of course.
About ExxonMobil and it’s ongoing and heavily documented program to influence or subvert climate scientists, all of that is in the public record. There was a link in the deleted post to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists on those ongoing and effective efforts, but apparently that is verboten on this site.
It’s far from obvious who is involved in this effort. The core financial system of this country was built on fossil fuel wealth, and those links run very wide and deep, in my opinion.
So, my advice to you on how you should behave is that you should be skeptical of all sources and of all experts on this matter.
Hi again, Anonymous Coward-
It is not a matter of counting scientists.
What matters is who is applying correct physics, mathematics or whatever, Nothing else matters.
It is incorrect physics to treat the Earth’s surface as if it were radiating as a blackbody in space would do. The surface is not insulated from its surrounds, namely the atmosphere and sub-surface crust, deep ocean waters etc.
Hence it is incorrect physics to apply Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to the surface as is done in the development of the AGW hypothesis.
Hence the AGW hypothesis is not grounded in correct physics. Need I make the final statement?
Richard,
I agree. A scientific fact requires a much higher standard of proof. Just because we think something “should” happen, does not necessary mean that it necessarily will.
Large temperature drop in the South Atlantic in 2011.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SA-SST.htm
I’ve checked David Whitehouse’s numbers and they seem accurate to me. Using the CRU version of Hadcrut3 the trend since 1997 to 2011 is 0.015 deg which is much less than the noise, so he is correct. The rest of his figures are accurate as well. As far as the 5 year averages he uses, James Hansen uses the same time period and notes similar results.
Wisely, David Whitehouse just presents the figures with no comments on their implications, though he does make some cutting comments about using decadal averages alone in the UK Met Offices press release which, he rightly, gives only one side of the picture. The Met Office press release should have had the knowledge to realise that the graph in the Mail on Sunday was the very same data presented a different way.
There doesn’t seem any argument that since 1997 in the CRU Hadcrut3 that there has been no statistically significant rise. What it means on the other hand.
In 1981 NASA’s Dr Hansen made a huge mistake in assuming the Earth’s surface radiates like a blackbody. A further assumption was made that radiation from a colder atmosphere can be converted to thermal energy by a significantly warmer surface. It cannot be, and so it cannot warm or slow the rate of cooling. See http://climate-change-theory.com for more detail.
In 1981 NASA’s Dr Hansen made a huge mistake in assuming the Earth’s surface radiates like a blackbody. A further assumption was made that radiation from a colder atmosphere can be converted to thermal energy by a significantly warmer surface. It cannot be, and so it cannot warm or slow the rate of cooling. See http://climate-change-theory.com for more detail.
Brian,
Can you show that any of those were caused by the specified input?
How about the following:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/story/2012-01-19/global-climate-report/52676690/1
“A strong La Niña lowered the world’s average temperature last year to its second-coolest reading of the 2000s”
Noticeable temperature drop in the S. Atlantic and a reversal of the last year rise in the N. Atlantic:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SA-SST.htm
MEMBERS
There is enlightenment coming, it will be a cleansing wind throughout academia. This is just the tip of an iceberg that will sink the titanic of AGW, and all those on board. They are of the dark ages.
Ask Dr David Evans, see his expose at Jo Nova science blog (au). Go to Tallbloke (uk). Go to Judith Curry (com).
The greatest fear I have is polluted minds around me. What have we become, men, who give their minds to others for safekeeping. We should pity ourselves, as well as them.
My countrymen are in danger, we have never had such wide divides between us, it is threatening division and insurrection. It must stop. We are close to solving the mystery of climate, we have most of the pieces now, and great minds will complete the puzzle soon. The Greens are deluded, we will prove it.
I am but a troubadour, with a spatha of iron will. By His grace.
Yours sincerely,
Markus Fitzhenry
———————————————————————–
Thus far, the science of atmosphere has rested on the paradigm of Greenhouse.
It is a misinterpretation of the observations of the French scientist Baron Fourier by Arrhenius in 1896. It is that misconception, of previous known physical laws, that has polluted our perceptions of the Earths’ atmosphere into the modern ages.
To shift that invalid principal, one has to offer a different perception born of observations and proved in the universal application of it, within a symbolic syntax (maths).
This is the crux of the matter:
The current paradigm demands our atmosphere is gas in an enclosed house.
The correct principle is that the enclosure itself is the whole of the atmosphere. Consider the greenhouse roof to start at the Earths’ surface and end at the top of our atmosphere.
The invalid greenhouse principle is false when subjected to the principle of conservation of energy. They cannot explain why it is so except for the introduction of a new invalid principle.
As we have always done, when our knowledge of the universe of physics reaches the end of our ability to predicate, we fear the unknown. We naturally conserve our existence and fear is a mechanism of this conservation.
It must be so, that earth, water, air, are different forms of the manifestation of energy in mass. The perception of a greenhouse allows a supposition that the energy equation of the equilibrium of mass can be different in its different forms of manifestation.
Baron Fourier would be aghast.
——————————————————————————
The presiding Justice in this case is the reasoning of man.
It is a fundamental practice of man that we fail. We once conceived a Sun around a flat Earth. Each generation enters the revolving door of ignorance.
What man on Earth has never been mistaken? Not I, not you. Yet each generation of man, believes anew. It is a bias, of the overarching preservation of dignity, that we can omit no wrong.
Our planet, a moon of the Sun, exists in a bath of space, its atmosphere and oceans are the gifts that gave us life.
Why do men around me, fear the Earth that created them? Is it the fundamental fragility of man and our inability to control the Universe that leads to thoughts, so fearful, we close our minds and hide in caves?
The first law of science related the energy in mass. Our ancestors told us it was so, by observational reasoning. Like a rebellious teenager we have rejected this fundamental nature of our universe. It is so, we cannot add more energy to Earth, a script, derived before the evolution of man.
Greenhouse, were used in cold Europe for the enhancement of biological life. Why wouldn’t a man, think an analogy, could correlate to the creation of life on Earth, with the atmosphere as its vessel? It is a belief without truth.
The enclosure of Earth is its atmosphere. The whole of the atmosphere is a window of safety it protects us from the damaging rays of the Sun.
Radiation cannot enter the mass of Earth, radiation cannot enter the mass of Oceans, and radiation cannot enter the mass of Atmosphere. It is the enhancement under pressure of the kinetic energy of the Sun that gives us warmth.
Our Atmosphere cannot create radiation, it cannot create kinetic energy, it cannot add extra heat to itself. We are bathed in the temperature of space it attracts our destiny, Cold.
The truth of this reasoning cannot be judged. But they, the gods in white coats claim deity and cannot be wrong.
It is the inconvenient truth, of the certainty of man to err.
————————————————————————————–
(Re•duc•tion•ism)
noun
1. The practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon, esp. a mental, social, or biological phenomenon, in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, esp. when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation
Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.
Reducto, some simplifications do lead to greater understanding, imagine trying to teach kids the mystics that has been created by Science of Atmosphere, without relating it to their understandings.
I have previously posted a little ditty, hopefully something like that can be taught to kids, so they understand more. And frankly some of those lyrics that have been deposited by me have also helped some of the greatest minds in the field to understand the wrongness of the greenhouse paradigm.
The article, Roger posted on Baron Fourier nailed it for me. When I thought about the N&K principle, it clicked immediately. He did not distinguish the manner of mass, between its different compositions, in the crust of the Earth.
Casting off greenhouse, I quickly saw the relationship of refrigeration when Roger posted that graph about the temperature throughout the atmosphere as stratified. Then, looking back on Fouriers’ observations, it was obvious carbon meant very little to heat distribution in a straight line within the Earth.
I then imagined the greenhouse, as the glass only and hence a new perspective. But what mechanism drove our system. Clearly not a greenhouse, as its hotter at TOA. Then it struck, refrigeration heat pump, thermostats, condensers and evaporators, when logically applied to the natural systems of atmosphere, it gelled, like a bolt from Heaven.
To to be sure, I’m not sure it wasn’t. Roger Tattersall, was the reason for my limited understandings, enough to conceive an idea, and Hans Jelbrings’ comments to me were enlightening. Willis Eschenbachs’ perpetual motion machine made me think real hard. He is admirable.
Markus Fitzhenry.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/greenhouse-gases-cool-planets-volcanos-warm-them/#comments
http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/28/keith-seitter-on-the-uncertainty-monster/#comments
———————————————————————————————————–
Of course, AGW didn’t make it, it’s DOA. It is deceased for this very reason:
They added a new invalid principle to greenhouse, Co2 forcing, but,
They could not, even with that, explain how physics, models greenhouses, when it’s hotter on the outside.
You cannot match the Science of Physics, to an incorrect philosophical perception of greenhouse.
We are back where we started;
“Why wouldn’t a man, think and analogy, could correlate to the creation of life on Earth, it’s vessel, the atmosphere?”
The inconvenient truth, of the certainty of man to err.
Markus Fitzhenry
————————————————————————————————————
The troposphere is the condenser, the tropopause is the separation device and the stratosphere is the fridge cabinet of outgoing heat, cooling incoming rays, as they warm to the gravitational pressure of the atmosphere, after preceding through the thermostat of the mesospause, and then onto the thermostat of the tropopause, before again heating closer as pressure increases at the Earths’ surface, until the force of pressure on the thermodynamics of the enhanced potential energy completes the system back to the separation device of the tropopause.
I predict no warming by greenhouse, but certainty of cooling by refrigeration.
“Markus, you are but a troubadour, why do you think you can relate Philosophy to the Science of Physics?”
I can’t, but it seems, neither can they.
Markus Fitzhenry.
—————————————————————————————————————
Richard Betts| January 28, 2012 at 5:34 am | Reply
Hi Judith
Thanks for highlighting the Huffington Post article – I agree it’s a good article.
You ask “Can someone remind me why we need the IPCC AR5?”
Later in the article you have the answer:
“the uncertainties need to be spelled out, if not resolved, and especially those elusive feedback effects which account for the wide range in estimated warming this century.”
The IAC noted that AR4 could have done a better job in spelling out the uncertainties, at least in WG2. There is a real effort going in to this in AR5 – and indeed you can already see early evidence of this in the recent SREX report, which had more nuanced messages on droughts and hurricanes than AR5, including a more careful application of likelihood estimates (only using them when confidence was high enough, hence the downgrade of the drought statement).
At the WG2 lead authors’ meeting last month, one of the TSU members gave us a great talk on care in assessment writing – basically being very precise about what the literature is actually saying, what the evidence actually is and how well it agrees, and being careful on reflecting the scope of literature sources accurately (region, timescale, etc etc). I can see the WG2 leadership making a real concerted effort to avoid the problems of AR4.
markus | January 28, 2012 at 6:01 am | Reply
Dear Richard,
I’m hope I’m not being rude by addressing you directly but, I’ve noticed a rather large Mammuthus has entered the room. Do you think AR5 should possibly address some of the science that has unexpectedly created it, before the stampede arrives.
Markus Fitzhenry.
What is truly astonishing is the admittances they haven’t got it right for a decade. And we are destroying ourselves over it?
They should have left their bias at the door, of the scientific hall.
They cannot predict, no more than a biased wit.
Do you know volcano eruptions, warm Earth?
Markus Fitzhenry
——————————————————————————————————
They should not call themselves a scientist, if they are so biased, that it completely blinds them to truth of fact. There is nothing to proselytise in science, nothing at all. They really are a disgrace to their profession. And right now I really don’t care if they end up being lampooned.
They kept pushing crap into the face of my fellows, they will be held up to ridicule in front of their peers.
There has been enough destruction in our society, over the rubbish the greens have been trying to push down our throats, and it is going to stop. They are delusional; they have harmed my countrymen greatly.
You tell me what peace has been over our lands during the last 3 – 4 years. One lesson that will be learned from all of this is the disgusting manner in which climate scientists appealed to authority as their reasoning. Academics my bum. Idiots that cause disquiet amongst men.
I do not want children being taught incorrect paths of reasoning. Lefto academia, have infiltrated learning and they are the greatest pollution facing us. I want my brothers’ children, free of rhetoric.
I want them taught to think for themselves, so they can solve the great mysteries of the universe, and have freedom of thought, to love mankind.
Damn them, and their entitlement.
————————————————————————————————
By the knowing that I know, a proclamation is made.
Arrhenioushansenous has been slain, by the hand of a man.
Rejoice, for the fear of climate is no more.
The most powerful force in the universe is the reasoning of a man.
Markus Fitzhenry.
In the land of the free, they coward and scorned, with a big red dragon, to ward off the horns.
Markus Fitzhenry.
——————————————————————————————
Look beyond the oceans, for there you will see, your brother, for they are yee.
Markus Fitzhenry.
—————————————————————————–
He cannot be denied.
Pete @ 40,
not really true though is it. there are any number of places that have not experienced warming in the last handred years. See :-
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=090015&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
or
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=074128&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
or
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=048013&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
in fact, go to any long term station in Australia that isn’t in the middle of a capital city and see
Dear Moderators,
My recent post met all of your comment policies but appears to have been rejected and not even put in “the bore hole”
If you are going to do this, it would be nice to send a short explanatory email.
It is easy to forget that the original ‘gate’, Watergate, was not about the crime but about the cover up. I sometimes feel that a few climate scientists are trying to do a ‘Nixon’ and present facts every which way to disguise that fact that warming is not continuing at its predicted rate. This has two consequences. Firstly the anti-AGW crowd can ‘prove’ that the temperature trend has been flat (I’ve shown how to cheat and ‘prove’ just that on my web site at http://www.climatedata.info/Discussions/Discussions/opinions.php . Secondly when climate scientists, as I’m sure they will, find the explanation for the stasis and include it in their models the doubters will say “How can you correct a problem which you said did not exist?”
Recently Sir Brian Hoskins, Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, gave a talk to a wide group of students at Imperial College (mainly science, technology and medicine). You can hear (but unfortunately not see it) it here:
http://www2.imperial.ac.uk/imedia/content/view/2162/imperial-horizons-one-the-science-of-climate-change-brian-hoskins
In his talk he was refreshingly open about discrepancies between model projections and observed data and areas where climate science was not yet up to speed. Yet, he still gave a convincing talk. Thinking about this I realised that if a climate scientist gives a presentation with cherry-picked data to a group of lay people they won’t notice the omission and will believe the presenter. On the other hand if another scientist presents all the data, warts and all (as Sir Brian Hoskins did), but explains how this does not falsify the overall picture that scientist will also be believed. The difference is that anti-AGW bloggers will find it easy to attack the first presenter and less easy to attack the second one.
UK’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology published report
Climate Variability and Weather February 2012
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/POST-PN-400.pdf
with this statement:
Natural forms of climate variability are likely to be the main influence on the UK’s climate over the next few decades.
For some months now, a graphical representation of numerical analysis was available here
One of the founders of modern science, Francis Bacon (1605) observed that studying the truth includes:
Will our children actually be taught to think critically based on these foundational principles of science? Or will undeclared presuppositions and censorship be silently imposed on our children in the name of “science” education?
Should students be allowed to consider “Evidence-Based Climate Science”? Will they be allowed to review and evaluate the full range of scientific information including evidence presented by the NIPCC (but ignored by the IPCC)? Should they be allowed to consider the benefits of higher CO2?
Eugenie Scott starts by perpetuating the politically correct equivocation of “climate change” for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.” Rather than allow examination of the full uncertainties involved in climate science, NCSE uses the pejorative “climate denier” for anyone skeptical of its dogmatic interpretation. (Subliminally inferring Holocaust deniers).
Would Scott allow students to learn that the long term average global temperatures are declining from the Holocene climatic optimum (interglacial maximum) towards the next ice age? Will NCSE highlight the very large uncertainties on the impact of clouds? Can I then trust Scott to encourage exposing students to the full range of evidence on natural variation and to evaluate the corresponding full range of implications?
NCSE makes the rhetorical ploy of defining its dogmatic interpretation as the only view of “science” and imposes hidden presupposition (naturalism) in a circular argument to justify that argument – implying Carl Sagan’s assertion
NCSE a priori rejects evaluation of objective data to examine whether or not the observed universe and biochemical life could have arisen from stochastic processes.
Lets uphold full sweep of objective skeptical science that is willing to “kick the tires” and examine all the evidence, and not be swept along by unexamined presuppositions and authoritative assertions.
One of the founders of modern science, Francis Bacon (1605) observed that studying the truth includes:
Will our children actually be taught to think critically based on these foundational principles of science?
Hey, I’m like one of those annoying students!
Here’s my question: Why should we take any notice of climate scientists if they cannot even explain why the New York City is not covered in a kilometre of ice?
You can’t even explain why the earth is currently much warmer than the pleistocene average, so why should we believe anything you say about the cause of a degree of warming, when you can’t explain ten times that amount.
Just because there is evidence of anthropogenic radiative forcing, doesn’t mean that it is dominating the climate changes we see today, all it means is that it is operating (big woop).
If you keep teaching us this ‘science is settled’ crap, my Dad’s a marine and he’s going to woop your arse come parent teacher night.