As many people will have read there was a glitch in the surface temperature record reporting for October. For many Russian stations (and some others), September temperatures were apparently copied over into October, giving an erroneous positive anomaly. The error appears to have been made somewhere between the reporting by the National Weather Services and NOAA’s collation of the GHCN database. GISS, which produces one of the more visible analyses of this raw data, processed the input data as normal and ended up with an October anomaly that was too high. That analysis has now been pulled (in under 24 hours) while they await a correction of input data from NOAA (Update: now (partially) completed).
There were 90 stations for which October numbers equalled September numbers in the corrupted GHCN file for 2008 (out of 908). This compares with an average of about 16 stations each year in the last decade (some earlier years have bigger counts, but none as big as this month, and are much less as a percentage of stations). These other cases seem to be mostly legitimate tropical stations where there isn’t much of a seasonal cycle. That makes it a little tricky to automatically scan for this problem, but putting in a check for the total number or percentage is probably sensible going forward.
It’s clearly true that the more eyes there are looking, the faster errors get noticed and fixed. The cottage industry that has sprung up to examine the daily sea ice numbers or the monthly analyses of surface and satellite temperatures, has certainly increased the number of eyes and that is generally for the good. Whether it’s a discovery of an odd shift in the annual cycle in the UAH MSU-LT data, or this flub in the GHCN data, or the USHCN/GHCN merge issue last year, the extra attention has led to improvements in many products. Nothing of any consequence has changed in terms of our understanding of climate change, but a few more i’s have been dotted and t’s crossed.
But unlike in other fields of citizen-science (astronomy or phenology spring to mind), the motivation for the temperature observers is heavily weighted towards wanting to find something wrong. As we discussed last year, there is a strong yearning among some to want to wake up tomorrow and find that the globe hasn’t been warming, that the sea ice hasn’t melted, that the glaciers have not receded and that indeed, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Thus when mistakes occur (and with science being a human endeavour, they always will) the exuberance of the response can be breathtaking – and quite telling.
A few examples from the comments at Watt’s blog will suffice to give you a flavour of the conspiratorial thinking: “I believe they had two sets of data: One would be released if Republicans won, and another if Democrats won.”, “could this be a sneaky way to set up the BO presidency with an urgent need to regulate CO2?”, “There are a great many of us who will under no circumstance allow the oppression of government rule to pervade over our freedom—-PERIOD!!!!!!” (exclamation marks reduced enormously), “these people are blinded by their own bias”, “this sort of scientific fraud”, “Climate science on the warmer side has degenerated to competitive lying”, etc… (To be fair, there were people who made sensible comments as well).
The amount of simply made up stuff is also impressive – the GISS press release declaring the October the ‘warmest ever’? Imaginary (GISS only puts out press releases on the temperature analysis at the end of the year). The headlines trumpeting this result? Non-existent. One clearly sees the relief that finally the grand conspiracy has been rumbled, that the mainstream media will get it’s comeuppance, and that surely now, the powers that be will listen to those voices that had been crying in the wilderness.
Alas! none of this will come to pass. In this case, someone’s programming error will be fixed and nothing will change except for the reporting of a single month’s anomaly. No heads will roll, no congressional investigations will be launched, no politicians (with one possible exception) will take note. This will undoubtedly be disappointing to many, but they should comfort themselves with the thought that the chances of this error happening again has now been diminished. Which is good, right?
In contrast to this molehill, there is an excellent story about how the scientific community really deals with serious mismatches between theory, models and data. That piece concerns the ‘ocean cooling’ story that was all the rage a year or two ago. An initial analysis of a new data source (the Argo float network) had revealed a dramatic short term cooling of the oceans over only 3 years. The problem was that this didn’t match the sea level data, nor theoretical expectations. Nonetheless, the paper was published (somewhat undermining claims that the peer-review system is irretrievably biased) to great acclaim in sections of the blogosphere, and to more muted puzzlement elsewhere. With the community’s attention focused on this issue, it wasn’t however long before problems turned up in the Argo floats themselves, but also in some of the other measurement devices – particularly XBTs. It took a couple of years for these things to fully work themselves out, but the most recent analyses show far fewer of the artifacts that had plagued the ocean heat content analyses in the past. A classic example in fact, of science moving forward on the back of apparent mismatches. Unfortunately, the resolution ended up favoring the models over the initial data reports, and so the whole story is horribly disappointing to some.
Which brings me to my last point, the role of models. It is clear that many of the temperature watchers are doing so in order to show that the IPCC-class models are wrong in their projections. However, the direct approach of downloading those models, running them and looking for flaws is clearly either too onerous or too boring. Even downloading the output (from here or here) is eschewed in favour of firing off Freedom of Information Act requests for data already publicly available – very odd. For another example, despite a few comments about the lack of sufficient comments in the GISS ModelE code (a complaint I also often make), I am unaware of anyone actually independently finding any errors in the publicly available Feb 2004 version (and I know there are a few). Instead, the anti-model crowd focuses on the minor issues that crop up every now and again in real-time data processing hoping that, by proxy, they’ll find a problem with the models.
I say good luck to them. They’ll need it.
Magnus, sorry, not enough clues. I tried a few online translation sites and all failed to make English out of that piece. But I can read “opinion” and “politically correct” well enough to guess it’s not a fact-heavy article. I wonder what’s special about 115 years?
You can find a lot of possibilities with Google giving it just the words you asked about, for example “Coldest were Arkansas and Mississippi, who saw their 19th coldest October in the last 115 years.”
http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/october_2008_remains_seasonably_cool“
Magnus (398),
I can’t read in the language of the article but you can go to the GISS data and go all the way back to 2002 to find a “colder” October.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
The “year” of 2008 is still on pace to be a top 10 year. I’m not sure which you (or they) meant since october is not a year like you said, but either way, God knows where they pulled that number from.
ALL of September was still t-shirt wearing weather in the UK (when it wasn’t raining). October had two days where there were cold wintry weather and November is looking to do about the same (we’ve just had “artic conditions” apparently. Lasted one day, two further north).
Hank, #396. Hey, you posted that we shouldn’t use denialist because they’ll say we’re persecuting them.
So I used the same tactic.
Either they have to give up that or me.
PS Hank, look later on after that quote.
That’s a pretty good explanation of why patterns aren’t enough when statistically insignificant.
If you’re going to tell me off when I’ve “done wrong”, then laud when I’ve “done right”.
Wayne,
What they actually detected on Jupiter were rising “hot spots,” which the deniers interpreted as “global warming on Jupiter.”
Jupiter’s semimajor axis is about 5.2 AUs, so Earth receives 27 times as much illumination as the giant planet. But temperature follows the fourth root of insolation, so this would make Earth only 2.3 times hotter if Earth and Jupiter had the same bolometric Bond albedo (and they very nearly do, 0.31 for Earth and 0.34 for Jupiter).
The situation is even worse for global warming on Pluto. Pluto has warmed from about 37 K to 39 K in recent years, a 2 K increase. Pluto is at 39 AUs, so this 2 K increase would correspond to about a 12 K increase at Earth. We would have noticed.
Now the deniers just need to explain how Uranus and possibly Venus are cooling due to an alleged increase in solar luminosity (which has not been detected by the satelites equipped to measure it). The fact is that temperatures of planets can rise and fall for many reasons, most of them local, so the “Mars is warming too; it must be the sun!” line doesn’t hold up.
Re #406–actually, further to it–one of the delicious ironies is that the (partial) surface warming of Jupiter Barton describes was predicted ca. 2 years in advance by, you guessed it, a computer model of Jovian atmospheric circulation.
(Captcha directs us (ungrammatically) to another portion of the solar system: “you Mercurys.”)
Mark,
> Either they have to give up that or me.
…
> If you’re going to tell me off when I’ve “done wrong”,
> then laud when I’ve “done right”.
Life is not fair and much gets ignored. The Contributors are the ones who can tell all of us readers if we ask a good question or answer something in an unusual way or with a good new cite. Hope for that.
Thanks for the tips, I did check the GISS and that was why I was so surprised by his latest of 3 articles that try to misinform about the global warming. I translated the part I asked about:
“For this reason it happens that researchers masks facts and manipulate data. The latest was the new false alarm from GISS, the month of October was the warmest ever. It proved to be mixed up data between months.
Serious researchers had checked an extra time, when they got strange results. Instead they chose, in the doomsday prophet James Hansen’s spirit, to worry the public by pressing the emergency button directly. Since people did not recognize the reality also this attempt was revealed. October was one of the coldest of 115 years!”
#406 Barton, Yes explaining things this way is extremely devastating for those who take at least this contrarian stance. All the while its very much easier to use AU numbers instead of Kilometers. Makes it easier not to make mistakes.
With AU’s instead of Internet sources, I come up with your same factor
but from a different way, The square root of the ratio of AU distances Jupiter/Earth, SQRT of 5.2 gives a factor of 2.28 gives the same result.
Mars looks intriguing because its lower albedo compensates for its greater distance somewhat, making a theoretical “solar” temperature boost on Mars of 1 K about the same on Earth. But there is a bit of simplicity arrogance in using simple counter arguments, all the planets have their own climate systems, which in essence mean that blanket generalities are a bit dangerous to make in the first place. But when a contrarian will use another planet to prove that we don’t know what is happening on Earth, he may as well be very capable as Kevin’s model in 407.
Re: #410, Just to clarify, I don’t think the original work, by Dr. Philip Marcus of UC-Berkeley, had any particular agenda. (And his original model-based conjecture went a bit further back than I indicated, to 2004.) Here’s an exerpt from Science Daily:
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080522121036.htm)
“According to Philip S. Marcus, a professor of fluid dynamics at UC Berkeley, analysis of the Hubble and Keck images may support his 2004 conjecture that Jupiter is in the midst of global climate change that will alter temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Celsius, getting warmer near the equator and cooler near the south pole. He predicted that large changes would start in the southern hemisphere around 2006, causing the jet streams to become unstable and spawn new vortices.
“”The appearance of the planet’s cloud system from just north of the equator down to 34 degrees south latitude keeps surprising us with changes and, in particular, with new cloud features that haven’t been previously observed,” Marcus said. “Whether or not Jupiter’s climate has changed due to a predicted warming, the cloud activity over the last two and a half years shows dramatically that something unusual has happened.”
“”A major goal in taking the Hubble images is to look for changes in the zonal wind profile since the Cassini encounter in 2000,” added team member Xylar Asay-Davis. “If we do find major changes, these could provide important supporting evidence for climate change on Jupiter.””
The equatorial surface warming is clearly stated to be a result of changes in atmospheric circulation–a fact ignored by Monckton et. al. in attempting to impute it to solar forcing–and is thus in line with Ray’s point about the the Jovian energy budget’s relatively small solar component.
More on Marcus:
He also believes this change to be cyclical with a period of around 70 years. Here is a link to the abstract of the 2004 paper in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6985/abs/nature02470.html
Kevin, If so, Monckton’s logic is critically flawed, a 10 K solar forcing increase on Jupiter is equal to a 22 K solar forcing on Earth. This simple ratio calculation renders such statements as ignorance floated as reality. Most news reports about this are worse than that. They state a warming on other planets, devoid of details, repeating errors without any retractions continuously, as if repetition is magical, perhaps it is, many people are sure Global Warming is Solar cycle forcing, the incantations of false druids weigh deeply in many contrarian minds.
#413:
Yes, Wayne–As an example, in searching the original paper I found a denialist report on the matter. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65165)
The headline is “No kidding! Climate Change Spreads to Jupiter, Mars,” and begins with the obligatory reference to Al Gore; the apparent conclusion is as you describe it: Terrestrial warming *must* be due to this apparent solar forcing.
Yet the quotes from the UC press release are accurate, and include the statement, quoted in my post above, which specifies that the Jovian equatorial warming is accompanied by polar *cooling.* It’s hard for me to imagine that this incompatibility was not understood–but then again, if the misrepresentation was intentional, it would have been both easy and desirable (from the propagandist’s point of view) to edit the quotes more tightly. Then again, the account doesn’t include the fact that the basis of Marcus’s 2004 paper was a computer model of fluid dynamics.
Lack of understanding? Deliberate misapplication of research in order to mislead? I can’t tell for sure. What is very clear is that the factual basis for the idea that Jovian climate reflects solar forcing is worse than non-existent: Marcus’s research claims to account for the changes (with some credibility, in that his predictions appear to accord well with observations so far) *entirely with respect to the fluid dynamics of the Jovian atmosphere.* No solar forcing required!
So his paper, cited to support the “contrarian” argument, actually undermines it. And it doesn’t take any great sophistication to figure this out; you just have to pay attention to what Prof. Marcus actually said.
Perhaps this helps clears up the “one of the coldest in 115 years” (or 114, or whatever)mystery:
“October wasn’t the warmest October ever, it was only the 70th warmest in the past 114 years – in the bottom half of all Octobers, not at the top of the list.”
– Lorne Gunter, National Post (Canada), Nov. 17, 2008
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/17/lorne-gunter-global-warming-numbers-get-a-little-help-from-their-friends.aspx
There is a correction at the bottom:
“Please Note: While this column states that this past October was the 70th warmest on record, it was only 70th warmest in the United States. Globally, October 2008 very likely ranks among the top 10.”
GISS has it at fifth warmest, while NCDC has it in second place.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/oct/global.html#current-month
Lots of other howlers in there too …
There seams to be no end to it, today we got to know that the ”one of the coldest October of the last 115” came from. http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_2099325.svd
Apparently a article in the Telegraph 20/11 2008 however I haven’t found it yet. The Swedish article say that it comes from among others US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration…. where I can find no support for the claim… any one?
Ray (391), the mathematics of forcing from concentration ratios is less than rigorous. For CO2 it is currently stated as (5.35)ln of concentration ratio. The 5.35 factor has been changed from time to time to better fit observations. The log relation is widely assumed to not apply through the whole range of concentration ratios. I say assumed because it is a deduction, not a physics certainty. Other gases have different mathematics and factors based on best guessed observations. Etc. So the mathematics are really a good scientific assumption based on current actual concentrations and observations, not a clearly verifiable physics certainty especially as it might be projected to much higher (or lower for that matter) concentrations.
I don’t claim it is not valid; I’m not knowledgeable enough to do that. What I do say is simply that the mathematics is far from an unassailable certainty as you implied in 377, and therefore is reasonably questionable. (Though I do not question that forcing continues to some degree as the concentrations increase, at least to something much higher than 280.)
Ok, here… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
Rod, actually there are good reasons to assume a logarithmic dependence–in part because a lot of the contribution as we move higher is in the wings of the absorption band. There is also the fact that we are forcing the effective emission altitude up to higher (and colder) levels–that, too, ought to look roughly logarithmic. I agree that it is an empirical fit, but it is physically motivated. It is also quite good, and if it were to change dramatically around 280 ppmv, there would have to be some mechanism. Something would have to underlie the change. We have zero evidence of this. Indeed, we have evidence to the contrary. The mechanism still appears to be going strong.
Re: 415, 416, 418 etc.
In the opinion piece in the Telegraph, referred to above in 266 and 418, Christopher Booker wrote:
“In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration … ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.” This appears to be correct, although of course the figures are preliminary and could be revised later.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
Most likely, confusion between global and (presumably continental) U.S. temperature has resulted in propagation of the error. This is not the first time we have seen this confusion.
The same thing happened last year with the slight adjustments to U.S. temperatures last year resulting in 1934 slightly ahead of 1998, although still in a statistical tie.
Robert Sopuck of the Canadian Frontier Centre for Public Policy wrote:
“We are all familiar with the notion of climate change, and we have been told repeatedly that the science is settled… The earlier NASA calculations concluded that 1998 was the hottest year on record, but McIntyre’s corrected calculations show that 1934 was the hottest. It must be noted that NASA accepted McIntyre’s numbers and issued a correction, although with no fanfare.”
http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=1992
Interestingly, Sopuck was later appointed by the Stephen Harper-led Conservative government to a blue-ribbon advisory panel, the National Roundtable on Energy and Environment (NRTEE).
Ray, “good reasons”, “physically based”, “good fit”, “appears to be”, I have no problem with. It is just not “golden”, without question or (some) doubt and uncertainty, and no rationale to discard opposing thoughts out of hand. I agree there is no reason to suspect an abrupt change around 280ppm. But as one gets to 1000ppm (or somewhere) who knows for sure? There is reasonable expectations that the mathematical relationship might change, if not the log function itself at least the power factor of the concentration ratio.
re 421. There’s plenty of reason to dismiss STUPID alternatives out of hand.
Someone comes up with a GOOD one and it will be considered.
I mean, just because we don’t know *golden* reasons why people catch aids doesn’t mean we should take on board the idea that this is a curse from beelzebub on the persistently black. Why? ‘cos that’s a stupid reason.
Rod, we’re a whole helluva long way from 1000 ppmv, and we’re a helluva long way from having to think long and hard about big changes. Paleoclimate indicates that 3 C per doubling will likely get us through a couple of doublings, and that would be sufficient to cook our collective goose. Remember, at some point, feedbacks increase ghg release from natural sources, and then we’re just along for the ride, however short it might be.
Rod B — The various approximations for the CO2 effect are in IPCC AR4. The one you cite is the simplest; I seen an implicit claim that it is good through 1500+ ppm.
Ray, all of that (423) may also be true; doesn’t change my basic assertion. David (424), I do not disagree that some are 100% confident in their differential mathematical projections; doesn’t mean prima facie that they are accurate. Mark, some person’s good science is another’s stupid alternatives. Because we don’t know golden causes of AIDS says we don’t know the golden causes of AIDS. Your non sequitur is, well, a non sequitur.
Rod B writes:
In fact it does change. The Myhre et al. equation only holds over the range 1-1,440 ppm, as I recall. Outside that you need either a radiative-convective model of the atmosphere you’re interested in, or some kind of gray approximation.
This would be a good candidate, if Gavin can do a thread on uncertainties and keep it focused.
One fairly recent paper:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/7/81/2007/acp-7-81-2007.pdf
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 81–95, 2007
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/81/2007/
Reevaluation of Mineral aerosol radiative forcings suggests a better agreement with satellite and AERONET data
—
Hmmm, I see one of the authors has since moved to “CDC IXIS CAPITAL MARKETS, Paris, France” — how’re they looking?
Rod, Of course it doesn’t change your assertion–you assertion is utterly baseless. There is not even a suggestion of significant departure from current forcing almost 3 doublings! One cannot reason a man out of an opinion which he did not arrive at by reason. The thing is, there’s no cost for you to hold onto doubt whether it is rational or not. On the other hand, for a scientist, the cost is inability to understand the world around him. At some point you take the best model you can come up with and see how far it takes you. You can modify the model when it fails. We’re still a long way from that.
Re #421:Rod B,
in Ray Pierrehumberts’ climate book
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/
in section 4.5 you can find calculations also for higher that 1000ppm CO2.
Rod 245. No, you’re wrong:
“Mark, some person’s good science is another’s stupid alternatives.”
Who was talking about good science? We’re talking about crackpot theories cooked up out of ignorance and need. You would be answering my comment if you tried
“Mark, some person’s stupid alternative is another’s good science”.
However, this fits more exactly with you and even better with the denialists and the willfully ignorant (the “It’s the SUUUUNNNNN!” brigade). They think the AGW models are stupid alternatives, not good science.
However, no matter how you try to slice it, the theories of “It’s the SUUUUNNN!” and “It’s all due to GCR” are not good science, even if you believe in them. They aren’t science in exactly the same way as creationism isn’t science, even though many scientists believe it to be true.
So there’s no way I could be seeing someone else’s good science as a stupid alternative because their “science” is not science.
Your trick of not answering a point made but rewording it and answering that changed question as if it was the one asked is a common trick to lie to the public. Con men and politicians do it a lot. You just happen to be very bad at it (a politician or con man wouldn’t try it amongst people intelligent enough to spot it).
If you’re going to give a comment on something I said, make the comment FIT what I said.
PS RodB Look up “Non sequitor”.
If I’d gone “And thursday is meat loaf night” THAT would be a non-sequitor. There ARE people who think that AIDS is a curse. And they won’t listen to anyone who proves it different. This is congruent with the “it’s the SUUUNNN!” brigade and therefore is not a non-sequitor.
That’s another technique used to hijack an argument: make a latin statement that means “ignore them, their argument is silly” but in a way where it doesn’t work. E.g. Ad Hominem attacks. Use it to tell everyone not to listen to the other person calling you stupid “because it’s just an ad hom” when this isn’t an ad hom when you are saying “Trust me, I know what I’m talking about” and someone points out where you’ve been really, stupendously incorrect in the past and saying that someone as dumb as that can’t be trusted to know without giving proof first. That’s not an ad-hominem because the entire reasoning is how you are knowledgeable.
Mark, a quicky response: my assertion that the mathematical relationship of forcing as a function of concentration might be different (non-linear) over different concentration ratios has no connection or relation what-so-ever with someone thinking AIDS “is a curse from beelzebub on the persistently black”. That makes it a non sequitor. Look it up.
A reflection –
The USG has committed more than a trillion dollars in the last month or so (depending on how you count it) to address an economic crisis where –
– A primary focus is to address a psychological issue of trust in the minds of those who run large commercial lending institutions. No physics here, and precious few models to use.
– much of the data used to track the macroeconomic environment is months old, is frequently revised, and in some cases, is constructed to make things look better than they are ( current unemployment figures, for instance vs. employment/population ratio).
In comparison, the mountain vs molehill argument on temperature data quality and methods above seems more like – what molehill?
Get real – if perfect data is required to make a decision, then how you get out of bed in the AM?
I sympathize with the RealClimate folks. Keep up the good work.
I don’t quite understand those who have fun disparaging mistakes which are corrected swiftly,
especially those making a name to themselves because they think AGW is a hoax spawned by a few cash starved climatologists. Or an esteemed book writer who thought that Environmentalists are Terrorists! The very essence of a true environmentalist is respect for the environment and all those who dwell within, especially humans. For those who fancy climate science as a collective fantasy, go outside a little, or look:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/rnl/sfctmpmer_30b.rnl.html
November will be quite warm…. Equally warm for the whole atmosphere again in the High Arctic, even after a significant LaNina… Imagine then a long night sky, with 5.2 mag stars in sight,
-16 C temperature end of November, on the ground 75N Latitude, in the middle of the archipelago…
To the McIntyre’s of this world, well done! you found a mistake… But do you have a clue about how warm this atmosphere is???? Any idea??? Its so much warmer in the Arctic, that the 50-71 normals in some locations have increase to nearly 1 degree for the period of 71-2000. Not even including the recent warming. Talk with perspective, change your contrarian smugness to
climate knowledge, that would be refreshing.
Excellent post Vince (433), but it’s more like 8 trillion.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/26/MNVN14C8QR.DTL
Ray, I’m simply asserting that there is a reasonable question or uncertainty with the marginal projections of the forcing-concentration mathematical relationship. The operative words are question and marginal, and there are of course degrees of questionability and marginality. On one hand you imply it is unassailable – “There is not even a suggestion of significant departure from current forcing almost 3 doublings.” But then two sentences later you say, “…you take the best model you can come up with and see how far it takes you…” which is contradictory. I agree the latter is a valid way to proceed, but to rely without a hint of a question about the forcing function on a model which uses the very same function as the input leaves a little to be desired in terms of perfection. Though I understand science has to proceed with the best it has.
I think there is a scientific basis for this specific area of questioning. There is less than a solid understanding on the degree that the band spreading is effected. There is less than complete understanding on even the detailed process of molecular absorption and energy transfer. If nothing else, the latter is in part a quantum mechanical process which is inherently a bit uncertain, at least theoretically. There is a great dependency on the somewhat illusive factor (5.35); for instance the oft rationalization that it is less than linear is entirely dependent on the factor applied to a linear relationship, the “a” in F = a(C/C_o); if “a” is 1.4 or more the log forcing is greater than linear forcing up to three doublings.
At minimum it is not just junk science based on personal need (??) that Mark contends – though Mark seems obsessed mostly with convincing me and others that I am not a skeptic! Or at least a good one. ;-) To repeat, I am not refuting the scientific function; nor do I disagree that one needs to go with what one knows. I am disagreeing that it then follows that we should eliminate all doubt and uncertainty and never have any need to question it ever again (and maybe beat hell out of anyone that does…)
Nope, RodB, that isn’t what Ray says.
He’s saying that a WAG isn’t countering ANY of the uncertainties. And that’s a lot of what’s coming out at the moment. Wild. Assed. Guessing.
re 432: So what do you think the number is and how do think you get it?
Anything?
[listens]
?
Re: #436 (RodB)
I think actually the operative word is “reasonable.” What is the reason you suspect the forcing-concentration relationship changes above 280ppm (or 380ppm, or whatever)?
Ps to 436: I think it should read 1.4 or less, not “more”
No, tamino, “reasonable” modifies “question” and “marginal”, and I’m saying the function might be different. One basis is the empirical nature of the power of the concentration ratio factor. The precise number has little basis in inherent physics, other than observation at the current level (+ or -); there is a reasonable conjecture that it could be something less than 5.35 (I’m out of pocket at the moment and going on my memory of 5.35…). In fact the basic theory of absorption could easily suggest a factor of 1.00, though that of course is a conjecture. The other aspects of molecular absorption and energy transfer that I mentioned above also offer a reasonable level of uncertainty (questioning), though this is not a proof of refutation.
Mark, I have minimal clues as to what the precise function should be/is at any particular concentration ratio. 5.35 might still prove to be right on. At the worst that makes it a SWAG, and in no way a WAG — but whatever turns you on…
Rod, Merely saying “Well, it could be wrong,” is not science. You then have to go on and ask, “OK, how could it be improved.” If you don’t have an answer, then what you are doing is not science but rather rationalizing your decision to reject the science. A physically motivated, empirically tested equation, that is supported by reams of evidence is about as good as it gets most of the time in science. Lev Landau was famous for this type of approach–let the physics tell you the form of the equation, while data tells you the constants.
What is more, such approximations usually do not fail catastrophically without giving some indication well in advance. Don’t like the equation? Fine. Find something better. Otherwise step aside and let the scientists do science.
Re 438: The number isn’t mine it’s Bloomberg’s. It includes ~ $5.5 trillion worth of guarantees and other finance backing initiatives by the Federal Reserve. Google “U.S. Pledges Top $7.7 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit” and “Fed Risks ‘Spitting in the Wind’ With New Aid Pledges (Update3)”.
I’d be glad if it was BS, but this is not the place to discuss it.
re: 440. Seriously Wild Ass Guess?
It seems to be all you think will work.
Now, why do you think it is 1.4 or less? What form do you think the equation takes and why? Does it fit the data available? Stop waving your hands and get dirty with the details.
Rod, it seems to me that you are relying on vagueness to support your position. It seems to me that your criticism could mean one of three things–none of which are supported by any evidence:
1)You could be arguing that the proportionality constant is simply too high. This is contra-indicated by the evidence. You won’t get a model that matches current and past data with such a constant.
2)You could be arguing that the for some reason the proportionality constant changes somewhere between 280 and 380 ppmv. If so, there would have to be some mechanism for that change. The character of the absorption process would have to change in this range. There is zero evidence for this and indeed plenty of laboratory evidence against it.
3)You could be arguing against logarithmic dependence itself. While this form is not “derived” from first principles as such, it is physically motivated by the processes whereby absorption by CO2 increases with concentration. Given these processes, it is hard to come up with anything other than a log dependence or something very similar. Certainly the log dependence is the simplest model, and there really isn’t a strong competitor.
For the life of me, I can’t think of any other basis for your argument, and to call these bases “weak” is to be charitable.
Please state your position clearly.
Ray, then you are saying nobody can question any science proposition until after they have completely assessed and answered their own question. By definition this means, in effect, no one can ever question any science even if based on a reasonable scientific uncertainty and conjecture. This virtually eliminates all modification of any scientific approach other than undirected random observations and pursuits. It also says that until someone can prove a negative (without even asking the question, BTW) they can not assert a positive. Nice job if you can get it.
Ray Ladbury,
Solar heat energy passes thorough the atmosphere into the oceans. Only the oceans have the capacity to absorb and hold excess radiation. A few factoids will demonstrate.
Most of all of the energy in wavelengths above the near ultraviolet reaches the surface. It is true that the upper atmosphere absorbs the energy from the extremely short wavelength radiation, but it also is true that less than 10% of solar energy is in wavelengths shorter than 0.4 microns. Shorter wavelengths of visible light and infrared penetrate deep into the water.
The mass of ocean water is far greater than the mass of air. Without looking up geological data, I feel safe in saying that the mass of water exceeds the mass of air by many orders of magnitude. The oceans are well mixed near their tops. Effective mixing extends downward over 100 meters. Most cooling of the oceans is through evaporation, not radiation, so a lot of heat accumulates below the surface. Solar radiation penetrates only to approximately 3 to 5 feet into solid ground wherefrom it radiates effectively after dark. That one meter of dirt weighs about 3 times as much as one meter of ocean water, but dirt has a heat capacity of approximately one-fourth the heat capacity of water. Add to that the fact that oceans cover over twice as much surface as continents, and you see that most solar heat sequestering must be in the oceans. Heating and cooling of the atmosphere must be mostly the result of release and absorption of heat by the oceans.
Tamino,
Art D’Aleo performed the analysis of correlation between solar activity and temperature. He developed a simple algorithm that includes solar activity and the PDO and ENSO indices. You can read about it on his website.
Researchers at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, provided the documentation of the onsets of glacier retreats and other indicators of climate warming versus carbon dioxide concentrations and fossil fuel use. You can find the paper on their web site.
David B Benson,
I tried to gain access to the web page that summarizes anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions for the past 300 or so years but the address took me to a page not found note. I was interested in seeing the data if you don’t mind reposting the address.
Rod, your position is not helped by distorting my own. What I am saying is the criticism has to be informed. You have to have some physics-based reason why the theory is wrong and of how to improve it. That’s how science works. How can one assess which model is better if you only have one model and someone with a vague suspicion that it might be wrong?
What you are doing now is anti-science–refusing to be pinned down to any specific idea because you know you cannot defend a definite position on physical grounds. I do not see how you can reasonably defend a refusal to state your position and argument precisely.
“There must be a pony here somwhere” argumentation always increases on the holidays — recreational typists go looking for fun on the Intartubes, dumping their favorite stuff into science sites and insisting the scientists must be able to find something good if they only looked into it hard enough.
Citation to OISM by “Snorbert” (formerly Norbert at marklynas and some old religion boards, I’d bet) sounds like the opening bell for another round of seasonal silliness.
You can look this stuff up, it’d be pointless to retype the many refutations. Need help? Try the Search box at the top of the page, or Google Scholar.
Re: #446 (snorbert)
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is the source of the fraudulent petition attempting to show that there’s no concensus among scientists about global warming. Not just mistaken; fraudulent — it’s been dealt with here many times. It appears that you don’t believe global warming, but when it comes to contradictory claims you have zero skepticism to apply.
As for D’Aleo, I think you’re referring to Joe, not Art; I already read about it. His analysis is as bogus as it’s possible to be in one lifetime. I dealt with him here. If you have even a tiny bit of desire to know the truth, go read that post. Thoroughly. Then come back here and tell us all what you think.
That snorbert seriously cites the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine says all that we need to know.