Update: It seems that the UNFCCC background page referred to below has changed and the link no longer works – see table of contents.
A response from Justin Wood, writing to me from Australia after my previous post (cited with permission below), has prompted me to write a follow-up on the story of the greenhouse effect (GHE).
I wonder if you’ve seen this terrible description of the greenhouse effect on a UNFCCC background page? http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2903.php
It actually says that incoming solar energy is ‘reflected’ by the planet’s surface ‘in the form of a calmer, more slow-moving type of energy called infrared radiation. … Infrared radiation is carried slowly aloft by air currents, and its eventual escape into space is delayed by greenhouse gases’ (emphasis added).Given your recent excellent explanation of the real physics on RC, I thought you might be interested! It’s downright disturbing that this silliness comes from such an important source; and I’ve found it repeated all over the place. (On that RC post, I would humbly suggest that the section on stratospheric cooling could helpfully be expanded to make that clearer?)
I won’t discuss the stratospheric cooling now, but rather try to place recent events (including floods in Niger), which involve the hydrological cycle and atmospheric circulation, into the framework from my previous post ‘A simple recipe for GHE‘.
Again, it can be useful to stop and contemplate whether a simple conceptual framework can provide greater understanding of climate model predictions and the observations we make on the climate system. I think that there are not too many simple descriptions, as Wood pointed out, that are convincing in terms of physics.
Can we use such simple conceptual explanations for events such as the recent spate of extreme rainfall and heat waves then? I want to stress, as we did when discussing tropical cyclones, that single events do not constitute evidence of a climate change. Since climate can be defined as ‘typical weather pattern’ (or weather statistics), then climate change can be that extremes become more or less typical, and such change must start with a few events. This touches the difference between weather and climate, and each of these events can be considered as weather. But there is a connection between these weather events and results obtained from climate models.
There are fascinating as well as disconcerting sides to the fact that global climate models reported in the IPCC AR4 suggest warming in the upper troposphere in the tropics (Figure 1 below). I regard these traits as important clues that may help unveil the secrets of the troposphere; The key into this mystery involves energy conservation, planetary energy balance, and the planetary energy input taking place at its surface while its heat loss mainly occurs at higher levels, as discussed in ‘A simple recipe for GHE‘.
This story is about surface fluxes, a fuzzy connection between energy flow and circulation of water, and physical constraints pin-pointing the solutions. In other words, the hydrological cycle associated with moisture transport is tied to the energy flow associated with moist convection.
Another simple mental picture
I will yet again try to present a simplified physical picture: Our climate includes energy transport both from the equatorial region to the poles as well as a vertical flow from the surface to the height from which it can escape freely into outer space. The story behind mid-to-upper tropospheric warming strongly involves the vertical energy flow, which will be the focus of the discussion. In very simple terms, the laws of physics say there has to be a flow of energy from the planet’s surface, where energy is deposited, to the heights from where the heat loss takes place (see schematic below).
The vertical energy flow can take several forms: radiative, latent, and sensible heat. The radiative energy transfer has a character of diffusion (photon diffusion), and the more opaque the atmosphere, due to increased GHG concentrations, the slower the effective radiative energy transfer. A similar situation is believed to take place in the outer layer of the Sun, in the opaque convective zone, where convection is the main mode of energy transfer (which by the way subsequently play a role in solar activity).
If this were the whole story, then an increase in GHG concentrations would imply a deficit between the rate of energy gained at the surface and heat loss from the upper atmosphere due to hypothetically lowered energy transfer between the two levels: The emission temperature would decline as a result of net heat loss high up, and surface temperature would increase as a result of net gain in energy on the ground.
One consequence of a deficit in the vertical energy flow would be different heating and cooling rates at different heights that subsequently would alter the atmosphere’s vertical structure (lapse rate). The planetary heat loss would drop if the emission temperature were to drop, and the planet would no longer be in energy balance, resulting in energy accumulation. However, planets will eventually reach new equilibrium states where the heat-loss balances the energy input.
Other forms for heat flow between the two levels are expected to compensate for the reduction in radiative energy transfer (despite greater temperature differences) if the planetary energy input and heat loss are to balance. One such candidate is convection, carrying both latent and sensible heat and where the energy transfer takes place in form of heat-carrying vertical motion. Indeed, warming below and cooling aloft give rise to more unstable conditions that favours convection.
Higher temperatures near the surface also cause increased evaporation according to a physical law known as ‘the Clapeyron-Clausius equation‘. Evaporation requires energy so that heat, which otherwise would go to increase temperatures, is instead used to transform water to water vapour (phase change). Differences in the molecular weights of N2 and H2O means that moist air is lighter than dry air. Thus, increased evaporation favours convection, which transports both energy – as sensible (higher temperature) and latent (vapour) heat – and moisture. This is seen occurring naturally, especially in association with warm ocean surface in connection with the El Nino Southern Oscillation. Convection can therefore compensate for reduced radiative transfer if its mean vertical extent reaches the height of the planetary heat loss. Convection also is one of the factors that determines the thickness of the tropopause (Wikipedia on Troposphere: “The word troposphere derives from the Greek: tropos for “turning” or “mixing,” reflecting the fact that turbulent mixing plays an important role in the troposphere’s structure and behavior.”).
Moist convection results in cloud formation: water vapour condenses and form cloud drops. The condensation releases heat and hence increase the temperatures, which subsequently has an effect on the black body radiation. Hence, cloud formation plays a crucial role for the planetary heat loss – in addition to affecting the planetary albedo.
The reason why Figure 9.1 in IPCC AR4 is disconcerting is that the temperature anomaly in the upper tropical atmosphere bears the signature of increased moist convective activity, which means that the hydrological cycle probably gets perturbed by increased GHG forcings, hence affecting rainfall patterns.
There have been some misunderstanding regarding the enhanced warming in the upper troposphere – mistakenly taken as being inconsistent with the climate models, or taken as the “finger print” of GHE, rather than as a plausible consequence predicted for an enhanced GHE due to the perturbation of the hydrological cycle (the “finger print”-misconception assumes that the models are perfect).
Changes in the convective activity also have other repercussions. Air just doesn’t pile up, but if is rises in some places, it means that there is sinking air elsewhere. A typical example of this is the Hadley cell, where the circulation involves rising air near equator associated with low sea level pressure and downward motion poleward of this region – an arid region known as the subtropics with high sea level pressure. A change in convection on a planetary scale, due to compensating a reduction in the vertical radiative energy transport, hence may have a bearing on drought and flooding events – and this is what the global climate models seem to suggest. If a shift in the hydrological cycle were to lower the response in the global mean temperature, there may be a poisonous sting in such a negative feedback: changes in the precipitation patterns.
When GHG concentrations change, there is also a disruption in the vertical energy flow so that the planetary energy balance is perturbed. This is the frequently cited extra forcing estimated at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), and this is where some of the assumptions made above don’t quite hold (the picture is correct for a planet in equilibrium, but during a transition the planet is no longer in an equilibrium) and extra energy is taken up by warming of the oceans and surface.
As a physicist, the key to understanding the relationship between GHE and the hydrological cycle – and indeed the troposphere – is in embedded in the question of what happens with the energy flow between the two levels where the planet receives its energy and where it leaves the planet. For more numbers and details, I’d recommend a number of posts previously published here on RC (here, here, here, here, and here).
JP 199: I am scientifically skeptical of AGW because, AFAK, the anthropological correlation can only be established over a very short time period, speaking paleoclimate-wise.
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. CO2 is rising.
3. The new CO2 is anthropogenic. This was tentatively established from its radioisotope signature in 1955 (Suess) and confirmed in 1957 (Revelle and Suess).
4. Temperature is rising.
5. dT and ln CO2 correlate to r = 0.87 from 1880 to 2008 (76% of variance accounted for).
Which of the above do you dispute? #3? On what basis?
John Peter @199 cites, for the second time, my paper on climate change and forests.
Thanks, though I demur at your suggestion that I am an expert; if I’ve been successful at anything it is integrating and summarizing the findings of experts.
I also wouldn’t want others to infer that my writings are consistent with your point, for example as you expressed @ 78: that “. . . more CC details are a requirement. We need them in order to choose what and how much we can and should do.”
I acknowledge that there are considerable uncertainties around climate change and the likely responses of ecosystems to that change, but I feel strongly that those uncertainties should not preclude action. There are a host of activities commonly considered “robust to uncertainty,” such as reducing the extent of roads on public forest lands and improving the ability of those that are retained to resist extreme precipitation events, or reducing the density of forests vulnerable to drought and fire while retaining trees and species more tolerant of these stressors. I provide other examples in my paper.
I share SecularAnimist’s inability, expressed @ 180, to understand your points relative to uncertainty and its implications for taking action (or not), but I would suggest that your comment @ 78 about finding alternatives to fossil fuels indicates that the notion that there are actions that can be robust to uncertainty isn’t entirely foreign to you. Thanks again.
HR @200
JP said
I certainly do not believe we can control it.
“it” = global Warming = Climate Change, not CO2 or even all the GHGs.
Wallace Broecker: Sun melts ice which flows as fresh meltwater into the ocean which plugs the TH circulation which (tipping point) switches the heat distribution paths. CO2 doesn’t control these processes it only greases them after awhile. Even all of Greenland’s meltwater isn’t enough to plug the THC, currently it would require the East Antarctica ice according to RC.
GHG can adjust between insolation points but GHG doesn’t provide the power. That comes from the ocean and the Sun. It’s a non-linear chaotic set of processes that I don’t believe we will ever control.
Thanks for the reference to Steve’s “The role of CO2 in the earth’s history” though. As always, it was worthwhile.
#199 John Peter
Please keep in mind that the regulars here have seen so many, such as yourself, come into this thread purporting themselves as reasonable people in the debate, and concerned citizens, saying well we don’t know enough yet to prove that we need to do anything or any degree of anything (ref. Lomborg)
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/the-copenhagen-distraction
Those experienced here can pretty much recognize and deduct approximately when that person will come out and just say, well I don’t ‘believe’ we know enough, or I don’t ‘believe we can yet prove it’s human caused, unt, unt, unt, etc., etc., etc.
It’s really quite predictable.
As to your post points:
Don’t worry, improved resolution is on the way, though not needed to begin down a meaningful policy path, please see:
http://www.climatelobby.com/
Re. Kevin’s lost heat, it’s probably not under the bed. In other words, it’s probably not in the atmosphere. The lost heat is important and will probably come back to bite us as suggested by Kevin. I highly doubt that the heat disappeared, so the only reasonable concern is when will it manifest in the areas we are measuring and how will that change the scientific picture. To be more succinct, it will likely not change the picture favorably for human benefit.
You say you “believe in the climate is warming”. As I have mentioned before, the climate really does not care what you believe. You raise a number of long debunked memes here, and back in that place I like to call reality, the anthropogenic correlation is significant as illustrated through the maths, physics, models, and observations. Saying correlation is not causation to this rather more informed audience is not winning you any points on the reasonable scale. Pretty much everyone here knows that.
See:
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/attribution
Your notion that we can’t do much about it is naive at best and requires further context.
It is now well established, id est unequivocal, that we have left that path of natural cycle. Therefore, in the application of Ockhams/Occams Razor, entia non sunt multiplicinda praetor nesecita tatum, the current changes are deductably human-caused.
Therefore, we have sufficient resolution in our understanding of the problem, that of the long lifetime of atmospheric CO2 and its associated warming capacity in relation to atmospheric increases to begin setting policy for limiting the offending emission.
Summary, your general assertions are unfortunately based in naive understanding of the overall connections between relevant points. We are introducing too much CO2 to our atmosphere.
Just because you don’t understand it, does not alter facts or well established science.
OK?
—
Fee & Dividend: Our best chance – Learn the Issue – Sign the Petition
A Climate Minute: The Natural Cycle – The Greenhouse Effect – History of Climate Science – Arctic Ice Melt
Re. my response to #199 John Peter
For clarification (missing preview again)
My paragraph
It is now well established, id est unequivocal, that we have left that path of natural cycle. Therefore, in the application of Ockhams/Occams Razor, entia non sunt multiplicinda praetor nesecita tatum, the current changes are deductably human-caused.
is incomplete in thought. Sometimes I skip forward in my mind and forget to go back and complete. So for the sake of clarity and avoid being accused of over application of the Razor, I will apply Einstein’s limiter “Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.”:
Unequivocal on natural cycle is fairly well founded as shown in the NCAR work from Mheel et al. But also in the list needs to be included a host of other points that are reasonably considered unequivocal in the well established science (Barton already provided you a nice succinct list above):
– isotopic signature
– CO2 atmospheric lifetime
– CO2 traps long wave infra red
– planet is warming
– natural variation is still happening but is now on a positive biased path, or under the influence of said positive bias
– humans added the extra CO2
– soil moisture content is dropping is important agricultural areas
– warmer oceans evaporate more water into the atmosphere
– H2O is a greenhouse gas also
– warmer oceans and consequent increased H2O can/will contribute to enhanced greenhouse effect
I could go on, but you should be getting the point by now. There is enough evidence, both in the instrumental record as well as the paleo record to parse equivocal and unequivocal.
Also, I object to anyone that makes a claim and then says I don’t want to debate it anymore. It is an argument to ones own authority and reprehensible in the context of your usage thus inviting censure based on lack of evidentiary reason-ability.
Applying false logic based on incomplete understanding will absolutely get you the wrong policy. But your reasoning is a bit Lomborgish, with relevance of priorities somewhat backwards.
—
Fee & Dividend: Our best chance – Learn the Issue – Sign the Petition
A Climate Minute: The Natural Cycle – The Greenhouse Effect – History of Climate Science – Arctic Ice Melt
#203 John Peter
You are presenting a classic red herring by focusing on irrelevant context.
You’re saying that if you go outside of your door today and tell the climate to cool down, it won’t. Since your telling the climate to cool down has no effect, then it makes no sense to try anything else. Ever heard of a straw-man argument?
Check out:
http://www.uscentrist.org/news/2007/word-play
So you have presented the idea that we should not do anything now because we don’t have enough information.
Then you say we can’t do anything anyway, even if we have more information.
Hmmm. . .
Then why are you posting anything here at all. Go hang out on a nice little island, sip rum, and watch the sea level rise.
In fact it sounds like you are using the M&W paper technique illustrated in the next thread
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/doing-it-yourselves/
The main logical fallacy is that you are claiming that we can’t control something we are already controlling. We added GHG’s and that is warming the planet and diverging the course of the climate path on a warming path. So your argument fails.
It’s very simple, in fact unequivocal, slowing down, leveling off, and reducing atmospheric concatenation of CO2
Also, not a lot of power being generated from the oceans, it’s more of a heat storage system that slows changes through inertial capacity. Pretty much all our heat comes from the sun and there is also a bunch of molten stuff under the mantle of the earth that gives us a small fraction of the warmth.
—
Fee & Dividend: Our best chance – Learn the Issue – Sign the Petition
A Climate Minute: The Natural Cycle – The Greenhouse Effect – History of Climate Science – Arctic Ice Melt
Geez, sorry guys. I screwed up again
should be
It’s very simple, in fact unequivocal; slowing down, leveling off, and reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2, will reduce future global warming potential.
And since this relates to human behavior, it absolutely is possible. The claim that it isn’t possible is akin to saying 300 years ago that humans can’t burn fossil fuels in order to improve their standard of living and level of relative luxury.
—
Fee & Dividend: Our best chance – Learn the Issue – Sign the Petition
A Climate Minute: The Natural Cycle – The Greenhouse Effect – History of Climate Science – Arctic Ice Melt
199 (John Peter),
Thank you for a reasoned and substantive response, with which we can engage in a discussion without hyperbole.
Others have responded to you, so I’ll try not to retread too many points, but instead to try to get more directly and clearly to what to me is the heart of the issues, or, more specifically, your issues.
Without arguing any particular specific, I agree there will be many cases where we do not have detailed information to try to micromanage climate effects, but as I said before, to me this is a losing strategy to begin with. Knowing exactly how the Amazon or the Arctic or the Sahara will respond to warming, and then engineering local solutions, is not the way to go.
Simple, effective reduction of CO2 emissions, to reduce the overall degree of warming, is the only reasonable course. Doing so does not take more detailed knowledge, or even better knowledge on the extent or likelihood of warming. It merely involves recognition of the fact that warming may be very dangerous, and as such preventive action is warranted.
You previously have stated that physics is your religion, and yet you are ignoring the physics. The physics are, in fact, at the heart of the whole thing.
Physics, pure math and scientific knowledge, predicts that the GHE will occur, how, and to what degree (with error bars). When we make such a prediction based purely on theoretical knowledge, and then see that prediction confirmed in multiple real world observations, it adds substantial weight to the theory.
In this case, the science is absolutely rock solid. Please stop focusing on the paleoclimate evidence. It is very useful, but just a small piece of the puzzle, and hardly the most important or even necessary piece.
If you study and understand the physical science (not just the paleoclimate history, but the physical theories, mechanisms, and observations), combined with the full body of evidence supporting (or failing to contradict!) the theory and predictions, then it is unequivocal. There is enough weight of evidence, when taken as a logical chain of connected, factual, statements, for an intelligent person to say “whoa, this doesn’t look good at all.”
The evidence is strong enough, and if you don’t believe so at this point, then I would put it to you that there are pieces of evidence or elements of the science that you do not understand strongly enough. If that is the case, people here would be more than happy to help direct you to the gaps in your knowledge which will help you to change your own mind, i.e. to convince yourself that the theory is more solid than you currently think.
If I were you, I would begin with improving your understand of heat, energy, and chemistry at the atomic level (degrees of freedom, quantum energy, etc.). I’m not implying that you are weak in this area, only that it is the foundation in which one should be strong in order to proceed to the next step.
Two other brief notes:
This statement demonstrates some serious misunderstanding of the role of CO2 levels in the biosphere. I accept your admission to a lack of understanding of biology, but this statement is so out there that I had to point it out. CO2 levels have been such that they have supported life on this planet for a half billion years. Nothing we could possibly do will lower CO2 levels so far that it hurts plants, and while the added CO2 may help some plants grow more robustly, the changes in precipitation and temperature will greatly offset this.
Plants grow with a “reaction limiting” sort of system, where they will respond only as well as the worst ingredient (light, water, temperature and CO2 being the main components). You can raise CO2 levels to extremes, but without all of the others in optimal supply, the increase is irrelevant. If any of the others fall away from the optimal ranges, the plants will suffer. [That said, it is true that most plants will benefit from CO2 above today’s levels, but they’ve also done just fine for quite a long time at previous levels, and like all life forms some plants will respond better than others to raised CO2 levels, so once again, this is a change that will impact the biosphere, and possibly in a bad way if the plants that do better are weeds and not productive crops.]
You keep bringing it up, and I don’t entirely see the relevance, or, rather, the weight you seem to attribute to it. Yes, we don’t know. Yes, as a scientist I’d say “shoot, this is embarrassing, I hate having a gap like that in my knowledge.”
But all that this hidden heat sink is doing is to slow the rate of warming, not the final degree of warming (unless the heat is being beamed away from the planet by aliens to a distant star, as energy, because they’re too smart to foul their own atmosphere with too much CO2). Finding the missing heat will help us to better predict the rate of warming, especially if that sink is one that can become saturated (thus causing the rate of warming to suddenly and unexpectedly accelerate) or has other, unexpected side effects (such as depletion of ocean life).
Sorry, this isn’t really relevant, and it’s a bit inappropriate, but could you refer to him as Dr. Trenberth, or just Trenberth? Referring to him as Kevin sort of implies that the two of you are drinking buddies. It gives your posts (to me) a bit of a flippant, disrespectful taste. It’s not important, but it just… irks me.
John Peter has jumped right past prevention and is discussing mitigation.
I know this is a popular policy position: delay until it is too late, then say it is too expensive or difficult to do anything.
But that idea is predicated on the notion that it is already too late. And clearly, it is not, yet our window of opportunity is rapidly closing.
But even if the window does close, we will still have to reduce our emissions in the end. We can’t waste time and money on mitigation while simultaneously pumping out ever increasing levels of CO2.
John Peter: you claim to be open to the idea of reducing emissions. Why do you think it won’t make any difference? All the studies I know of show that the sooner we reduce emissions, the sooner we can stabilize temperature. And, since CO2 is well mixed, reducing emissions is a global issue not a regional one.
You have been dabbling in some complicated issues, but you have yet to grasp the basics. Paleoclimate or advanced radiative physics won’t help you – not if you can’t get a good grounding in the basics.
JPR@201
Correlation does not prove causality. Other than for that I agree.
*********************************************************************
Rick Brown @202
I also wouldn’t want others to infer that my writings are consistent with your point,
I thought your words I quoted were very good ones. So are your words:
“…Because policy is at least partly values-based, science
cannot determine policy; however, basing policy on science increases the odds that policy will provide the values we seek…”
supportive of a regional CS requirement also. You don’t have to have it, but it sure might help.
I cited your report because it was high quality. Others can read it and make up their own minds. I won’t cite it again but I regret that you changed your mind.
Perhaps you are not an expert in climate science but I am still impressed by your cv:
http://www.defenders of wildlife.org/about_us/staff/rick_brown.php
***************************************************************************
JPR@204
JPR@205
JPR@206
JPR@207
Geez, sorry guys. I screwed up again.
I agree
***********************************************************
To everyone:
Ordinary citizens need your support, otherwise they have to go it alone. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6449982/Indian-engineer-builds-new-glaciers-to-stop-global-warming.html
Regional CS could be useful for planning dams and other geo-mitigations.
208 Sphaerica says Thank you.
You are quite welcome. As you so often stated, you certainly deserved my response.
OTOH, you may also see why I was reluctant to express my viewpoint in more detail on RC.
I consider your post to be reflective, responsive and to the point.
My intention all along was to get Dr. Trenberth’s recent work more widely recognized. I hope I’ve been successful.
You are a good and very capable communicator. I consider #208 to be an excellent piece of work.
#210 So sayeth the anonymous John Peter “I agree”
re. @201 Correlation does not prove causality. I think everyone here agrees with that. But the science of the evidence of human-caused global warming is not such a house of cards as you seem to infer. It’s not merely based on correlation, it’s based on the physics and maths, and models, and observations, and ice mass loss, and rising temperatures, and warmer oceans, and sea level rise, all matching well to the expectations from the basic science and the models, i.e. it’s a bit more robust that inferred. So in this case, it is not about mere correlation; therefore the argument correlation does not prove causality does not apply.
re. @204-207 Other than the mistakes I pointed out in my bad typing habits what precisely are you inferring is mistaken? Or are you just purporting your belief again?
—
Fee & Dividend: Our best chance – Learn the Issue – Sign the Petition
A Climate Minute: The Natural Cycle – The Greenhouse Effect – History of Climate Science – Arctic Ice Melt
John Peter @210
Thanks again, but I continue to be confused (a not uncommon feature of my life). Regarding improved regional climate science you say “You don’t have to have it, but it sure might help.” This is an acceptable summary of my perspective, about which I have not changed my mind.
Perhaps it’s a summary of your perspective? But you also @ 210 (and @78 and 175)refer to a “requirement” for regional climate (or other) science “. . . in order to choose what and how much we can and should do.”
Which is it? Would more science be good to have but not necessary to take action, or is it a requirement before we can choose what to do?
Bob (Sphaerica) (208), just a short observation: you say, disagreeing with John Peter, “….it is unequivocal.” Followed immediately with, “There is enough weight of evidence…. for an intelligent person to say “whoa, this doesn’t look good at all.”” The 2nd statement is not the same as the first and does not logically substantiate it.
I (and possibly John??) might disagree with the conclusions of the latter statement, but it is a valid opinion founded in fact, substance, and scientific interpretation. The first statement is extreme and incorrect.
214 (Rod B),
Your statement that the 2nd statement is not the same as the first is certainly true. Why would I say something twice?
Your statement that the second does not substantiate the first is confusing. It’s not meant to. It’s meant to build on it.
Your problem probably comes from the uses of the words “unequivocal” and “weight of evidence” together.
To me this is playing word games by making something nuanced (i.e. science) seem simple and black and white.
Science never, ever proves anything to be true. Every single belief in science is a belief, not a fact. All of science is a series of interconnected beliefs which fail to contradict each other, and are supported by observational evidence that further implies their truth by failing to contradict it, with the understanding that at any time surprising evidence could be uncovered that shatters or at least requires modification to previous views, or an Einstein could pop up and interpret confusing, contradictory evidence to say “Surprise, look, speed isn’t simply additive, that equation is way more complex than that.”
Right now, the physics is sound and there is no reason in the universe to doubt it.
Right now, a vast body of observational evidence supports the theory and estimated degree of warming, and there is an undeniable dearth of evidence to contradict it.
The science is unequivocal and must be treated as such unless and until someone succeeds in proving otherwise.
Have you looked into the trend of tropospheric heating in recent years? It’s pretty dramatic when you look at the data , downright scary none the less. It seems that the global level of CFCs is historically high which is reflecting heat into the troposphere causing it to heat which is quite un-natural.
Rick Brown@213
The former. Not required for action – e.g. Glacier man. Required to HELP choose between actions.
Regional RC may you help decide. for instance, when to come in from the cold. Global average is little or no help. Regional CS could be more helpful because it may give a more tailored answer depending on latitude, for instance.
OTOH you may decide to accept or not accept CS advice.
I think of CS as a tool. Regional CS should be a more useful tool in some cases; “requirements” mean tailored to fit the user.
JPR@212
wrt #201, I disagree.
wrt to #204-#207, I still agree you screwed up.
Most blog entries are opinions, usually the author’s
216 Brandon said: “It seems that the global level of CFCs is historically high”
These guys claimed that CFC’s peaked in about 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ozone_cfc_trends.png
#214 Rod B
Not sure which John you are referring to but I’m with Bob on this. It’s the whole story that counts, being the sum of the understanding of the parts inclusive. Building the story through the supporting lines of evidence from multiple disciplines is what leads one to what can reasonably be called an unequivocal reality.
It’s like looking at the Arctic Ice. I don’t think you will find an ice researcher that does not agree with the evidence that we are losing the ice. The current consensus that I seem to be reading from the various comments would put confidence that we are simply losing the Arctic around 95% to 99.9%. Virtual certainty. Unequivocal. Both seem to capture the general understanding.The time range seems to be between 10 to 30 years. I’m still thinking that we will lose a very large portion of ice volume earlier, rather than later.
—
Fee & Dividend: Our best chance – Learn the Issue – Sign the Petition
A Climate Minute: The Natural Cycle – The Greenhouse Effect – History of Climate Science – Arctic Ice Melt
Bob @208
HR, JPR, RL
Leaving Dr. Trenberth for awhile, but continuing to address regional CS, I am curious as to your views on Dr V.Ramanathan’s work, a prolifically published CS researcher. I find his papers very easy reading – probably because they often also relate to his CS more directly to a physical science.
For a hopefully less contentious examination of the meaning of terms applied to CS (unequivocal, incontrovertible, settled, et al), I would be interested in any views you would care to share as to where you would position science such as: http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/Project%20Surya/References/Ram-Feng-AE-2009.pdf .
Basically, I am asking about dimming. Does this work unsettle CS as a science or does it simply represent stored warming that will come back to haunt us later? Or both? Or something else?
I would recommend as a level-set, The Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change:
A Test by an Inadvertent Global Experiment V. RAMANATHAN at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/240/4850/293.pdf
Although more than 22 years old, you should find it an interesting read.
#218 the anonymous John
Is the anonymous John the same as the anonymous John Peter?
I really wish people would just use their real FULL names. it would make life much easier and certainly gives the impression that one is willing to stand publicly by their claims. It’s an integrity thing.
AGAIN I ask. Screwed up on what specifically? I was merely saying I screwed up on my typing. What are you talking about?
What specific piece of information do you think I screwed up on?
You see, what I write can have opinions reflected in it, but generally speaking, I’m representing something I read form the scientific understanding. So what is it specifically from my post that you disagree with and I will do my best to address it from the science perspective.
—
Fee & Dividend: Our best chance – Learn the Issue – Sign the Petition
A Climate Minute: The Natural Cycle – The Greenhouse Effect – History of Climate Science – Arctic Ice Melt
#221 the anonymous John Peter
Global dimming has already been worked into the radiative forcing assessments.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-2.html
Unequivocal has already been reported in the ‘very’ conservative IPCC AR4 WG I Physical Science Basis
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
No need to dig further than the SPM
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html
read the first tan colored box.
—
Fee & Dividend: Our best chance – Learn the Issue – Sign the Petition
A Climate Minute: The Natural Cycle – The Greenhouse Effect – History of Climate Science – Arctic Ice Melt
#221 the anonymous John Peter (by the way, my name is John Peter also)
As to your last questions. RC has done some articles on this subject as well.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/
The first subject is Aerosols
These are very good pieces and will give you a handle on the dimming discussion.
I have alluded to this in the past as the Sword of Damocles. We have put ourselves in a rather precarious position, that of if the aerosol pollutants begin to cause serious damage in the system in relation to human reality, then we may have to remove some of that. In doing so we actually allow more of the positive radiative forcing potential to warm the planet.
Of course this is only one of the many swords we have chosen to hang over our heads hoping none if not one or more of the horses hairs will break.
I believe our arrogance considering the risk ratios to be profoundly unsettling.
—
Fee & Dividend: Our best chance – Learn the Issue – Sign the Petition
A Climate Minute: The Natural Cycle – The Greenhouse Effect – History of Climate Science – Arctic Ice Melt
221 (John Peter),
I’ll read the PDF (skimmed it, for now), although I don’t know if I can get to it today (deadlines, paying work, etc.), but before I answer, what do you mean by:
What element in the paper appears to “unsettle” anything? I don’t see much that is contentious there… just a study of the details and importance of ABCs.
Bob (Sphaerica) (215), it seems to me you are the one playing word games. “Unequivocal” is about as close to “proves to be true” as there is, especially when supported with, “no reason in the universe to doubt it” and “incontrovertible.” When you say ‘never ever proves” it can’t be unequivocal, for any reasonable purpose, unless you customize the definition so you can make a hopefully accepted claim but later deny such. So when called to task on “unequivocal” you can claim you really mean the 2nd statement in your earlier post (which seems to me to be what you really mean from your other comments, BTW).
I was simply expressing the thought, contrary to yours, the climate science as a whole is not unequivocal. Some aspects of climatology is quite distant from unequivocal, though, to be sure, some other aspects, I would agree, are unequivocal (such as your point #1 in post #68.) You say, “The science is unequivocal and must be treated as such unless and until someone succeeds in proving otherwise.” I have no idea how that works. Something is absolutely unequivocal until it becomes…, well, equivocal??
You might say I am being nit-picky and you might be right. But frankly the loose semantics and wording that gives license for hyperbole hurts your credibility, IMO.
226 (Rod B)
Okay, so when I say “unequivocal” what I mean is “as unequivocal as any science that you currently believe in.”
Do you take ibuprofen for pain relief? Fly in planes and assume they won’t fall from the sky? Expect the sun to rise tomorrow?
Stop nitpicking over the definition of unequivocal. The point is that the science is solid beyond any assault by things like an arbitrary, hopeful and irrational belief in the Medieval Warm Fantasy or other children’s tales.
In deference to the terminology used in AR4, if you prefer, when I say “unequivocal” you can hear “very likely.”
226 Rod B, unequivocal is an absolute, and like all absolutes in real life it comes with a caveat– that nothing can be proven. The vanishingly small difference gets entirely too much attention.
Bob@227
It’s possible that the difference of opinions is over the meaning (extent) of “climate science” rather than the equivocal/unequivocal state.
For example “CS” could mean anything done by any climate scientist anytime. It could mean the concept of radiative forcings (many different values, many different combinations, but unequivocal concept and theory and exclude say, the concept of climate sensitivity climate.
This distinction might help, who knows?
Bob@227
It’s possible that the difference of opinions is over the meaning (extent) of “climate science” rather than the equivocal/unequivocal statement.
For example “CS” could mean anything done by any climate scientist anytime. Or it could mean the concept of radiative forcings, many different values, many different combinations, but unequivocal concept and theory – but, exclude say, the concept of climate sensitivity climate.
This distinction might help, who knows?
(corrected for typos)
Bob and JP: I really like the legal phrasing “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Of course there are unreasonable doubts! There are many unreasonable people in the world, prepared to equivocate about the silliest things. Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty.
Note that “beyond reasonable doubt” is a verdict reached after careful probing of the evidence. It does not exclude genuine sceptical enquiry.
I hope this is an end to these word-games. When one starts arguing over definitions, it usually means one has lost sight of the issue at hand.
Didactylos wrote: “I really like the legal phrasing ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.”
I agree.
I wince every time a scientist says, in the course of explaining the scientific evidence for AGW, “there are no proofs in science” — where by “proof” the scientist means mathematical, axiomatic “proof” that follows necessarily and indisputably from abstract premises and pure logic, as in Euclidean geometry.
No proof. And yet, every day of the week, all across America, juries convict accused persons of crimes, and sentence them to years or decades in prison, or even sentence them to death, because they conclude that a prosecutor has shown the jury proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.
When a scientist says “there is no proof”, the ordinary listener doesn’t think about mathematical axioms and how clever the scientist is to distinguish between abstract, logical proof and evidential proof. The ordinary listener thinks “not guilty”.
And the carbon polluter in the dock is free to go.
As far as I can tell, \incontrovertible\ and \unequivocal\ are sometimes used to describe or debate about warming. Here on RC and elsewhere.
The only examples using such extreme terms to refer to climate science has been here on RC. Even here such usage, when questioned, has been discarded.
Such extreme adjectives have little or no meaning applied to climate science or, FWIW, any science.
JP 233,
Let’s put it this way. Doubting that AGW is 1) real, 2) anthropogenic, and 3) a deadly threat to civilization is in the same intellectual category as believing that aliens built the pyramids or NASA faked the Moon landings. Capiche?
233 (John Peter),
In the context of this thread, and other similar threads, “unequivocal” is generally used somewhat casually by some parties here in response to expressions of denial of the overall concept that the globe is warming, perhaps to a dangerous degree, due to the effect of CO2.
General ideas like “climate science” (as a whole) or every single detail of climate science are not included in such statements, weren’t meant to be, and there’s no reason to infer that they are. Obviously it’s all far more complex than that.
In a very narrow sense, unequivocal does apply, in that the science is sound, and the two overarching concepts, that CO2 is the problem, and that there is a fair chance that the warming will be frighteningly dangerous before we get it under control, are undeniable. You may find serious scientists like Spencer and Lindzen who claim that clouds will fly in with superman capes and save us, but they don’t deny CO2 or its effects. You may find scientists like Pielke Sr. who minimize the overall effect of CO2 by trying to shift most of the blame to “land use,” but to him warming (and CO2) is still a problem.
[And, as a side note, I’d think that he’d be jumping up and down in extreme panic if he really believed that he’s right, because if land use is a big part of the problem… how the hell are we going to control the land use required by industrialization, with 6 billion people on the planet, and growing? Has he ever quantified the effects, to determine how many people we must cull or force into starvation to keep from turning the world into a huge desert?]
And you don’t see anyone but people like Monckton, Watts and Nova saying the really, really silly stuff… which is then mindlessly parroted here, which draws a reaction of “oh, please, it’s unequivocal…”
Or maybe we should be saying, “oh, please, it’s undeniable…”
#235–I wish we could say “it’s undeniable.” But since it is, in fact, very frequently denied, that would be counterfactual, too.
Unfortunately, the phenomenon of denial is not constrained by logic–within its own psychological realm, the “magic” works.
Also unfortunately, as far as we can tell the physical world doesn’t care what we–any of us–think. So the physical realm will, we may confidently expect, be quite a different story.
Denial does not prevent–and may in fact facilitate.
#233 John Peter
Your statement:
I pointed you to the IPCC AR4 above. Did you read it?
First you need to realize that the IPCC process is very conservative science. I think some or even many here would agree that they are overly conservative, generally speaking, up to this point. This is because if you want to get a reasonable consensus among a very large group of scientists, then what passes muster is generally the most conservative view. This is why the cutting edge assessment work shows that we have likely locked in at least 2 meters of sea level rise, while the IPCC is still looking at centimeters.
Re unequivocal: Here is the IPCC statement:
Do you also think that the notion that gravity holds things down here on earth is equivocal? Or that the crazy idea that the earth is round, not flat is equivocal, or the bizarre theory that the earth revolves around the sun is equivocal?
Or would you possibly consider those to be settled science?
—
Fee & Dividend: Our best chance – Learn the Issue – Sign the Petition
A Climate Minute: The Natural Cycle – The Greenhouse Effect – History of Climate Science – Arctic Ice Melt
BPL, your 234 comment is hand waving (which may be acceptable in other environs) and does not refute John Peter’s 233 comment.
“Such extreme adjectives have little or no meaning applied to climate science or, FWIW, any science.” states John Peter unequivocally with incontrovertible authority.
Bob (Sphaerica) your 235 comment has a logical basic thread of thought but unfortunately breaks apart with the tap dancing around the use of \unequivocal.\
You say it is O.K. to use extreme terms in response to extreme arguments. That may be true, even recommended, in debating and political discussions, but not in scientific discussions. Beyond that you claim you are responding to John Peter’s extreme position of total denial of AGW (which, BTW, is a common meme to demonize a skeptic), which, as best I recall, he never did.
2nd, you say ‘unequivocally…. there is a fair chance that the warming…’ This is a clear contradiction in terms. There is a possibility that it is undeniable??? That’s true for everything in every physical and social science.
Maybe you can define \unequivocal\ down, but IMO, as precision is important in scientific discussion, I think it hinders and muddies the discussion.
John Peter, you’re doing something you may think is novel and interesting, but it’s a very familiar old pattern.
Someone comes in and says “what about this, doesn’t it mean the science is uncertain?” and people point out how it’s been considered.
Then the person comes up with something else. “What about this?”
And the history of work on that is pointed out.
Then it’s “but this, over here? Surely it casts doubt?”
And what about “dimming. Does this work unsettle CS as a science …?”
Shorter form: “Anything, anything at all but the IPCC!”
Now that may not be what you’re trying to do, or you may be going through the material one chunk at a time innocently.
But it’s a pattern often seen from people who are sure there has to be something wrong with the science, somewhere, and they seem to come in with whatever they find somewhere else, where someone’s claiming these are flaws, and bringing them up one after another, instead of reading the FAQs. If you’d say you’d read the material at least in the Start Here link at the top, and ask questions about that — you’d likely get answers from more of the real scientists who watch the thread.
Unequivocal means simply: not ambiguous, plain, clear. I looked it up. Calling the term extreme doesn’t make it so, as it is clearly and plainly a qualitative and moderate term, especially in this context.
I’ve got another word. Equivocate: to use equivocal terms in order to deceive. Example: Badgering adults over the use of the word ‘unequivocal’ in order to equivocate is ironic.
240 (Rod B),
Let’s see, from his post #70, only:
(The six points being a simple breakdown of AGW).
1) GHGs hinder the escape of energy (through IR) from the planet
2) We are introducing too much CO2, so the planet is heating as a result
3) The temperature change causes positive (mostly) and negative feedbacks
4) The planet heats further
5) The climate changes in complex ways
6) The world we know (as in our own localities, perceptions, and life style influences) changes
6 points all not “as evident” as I would claim.
Denial.
“Probably agree?” Subtle but it looks like denial to me.
Oops, okay, that’s clear denial in the form of equivocation (“oh, well, yeah, sure, it could be, but what if it’s an angry liberal gremlin elite, did you ever think of that? We have to consider the possibility!”).
Let’s try for more…
“Probably” again. More denial.
“We don’t know.” More denial.
So far, he’s refuted firm belief in the greenhouse gas effect, whether we are actually putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere, and whether we know enough to evaluate whether or not it’s too much.
But there’s more…
Okay, so “unquantified” for points 3 and 4.
Then he finishes with:
So he agrees, but says that they’re meaningless statements because it has happened, killing of thousands of species of animals, many times in the past, so it doesn’t matter that we’re triggering it ourselves.
All in one post. All of it. And this doesn’t sound like “denial” to you? Let’s drop the definition of unequivocal and go back to that of denial.
Quick show of hands… how many people get this? And don’t? Okay, you can sit down now, Mr. Rod B. We all know that you don’t get it.
RH@242
Agree. Read this http://scentofpine.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/aps/
Or this from 50,000 adults http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
240 (Rod B),
By the way, you’ve done this to me before…
I said this (emphasis mine, here):
Which you then misrepresented as this (emphasis mine, again):
You do realize that other people in the world besides yourself can actual read, don’t you?
HR@241
Thanks for the helpful analysis. Taxonomy is a guy’s tool.
The answer should be. No, sorting out “dimming” is part of the natural progress of Climate Science. Unequivocally.
JPR
Another success for the look almost alike. Hurray!
Thanks for your numerous high quality references. Most I already know about, many I have already read, but a few are very important to me and I will work my way through them – albeit slowly.
To repeat myself, all of them are high quality. Keep them coming, I can sort them out. It’s well worth my time.
Oh, and thanks again for the “guys” id. I agree that it can be useful
JP
Cautionary note; beware the temptation to reply when offered:
“an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, … insult to the readers …, or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings.”
You know what that’s about.
Bob@243
So he agrees, but says that they’re meaningless statements because it has happened, killing of thousands of species of animals, many times in the past, so it doesn’t matter that we’re triggering it ourselves.
I thought THC was the Dryas trigger.
flxible@239
You got it right! APS Climate Change Policy ref backs you up
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm