I’m sure you know this, but there is no contradiction whatever between the reported low emissions in the UK and the continuing rise of global concentrations, since as of 2015 UK was only the 15th largest national emitter (not counting the EU as a nation), and accounting for just over 1% of the global total.
So, the question stands. I’m wondering how the models calculate the temperature increases. I understand the general principle that more atmospheric CO2 reflects more IR radiation back to earth making earth warmer, but I want to know how do the models calculate the temperature rise.
A single post wouldn’t do it for you. You need to start with the basics.
The following book is available as open access, you can download it for free:
Demystifying Climate Models: A Users Guide to Earth System Models by Gettelman, Andrew, Rood, Richard B.
The book thoroughly covers the subject of climate modeling but does not go into the actual details of the mathematics of calculating the atmospheric radiative flux. For that, I would recommend the Science of Doom website linked below:
193
Ray Ladbury says:
11 Mar 2018 at 8:24 AM “Despite what some here contend, Tamino’s experiment with listening to the denialati was not a failure.
That’s an opinion Ray.
Despite what some here contend, this is what Tamino contends and I’ll quote again for you now Ray:
tamino | March 3, 2018 at 12:22 pm | “It’s time for this thread to come to an end. I don’t regret the attempt to communicate, but it was not successful.”.
Here is a little linguistics, grammar and etmology (what-have-you) fwiw Ray.
Now Ray, YMMV, but as I said above it is only your non-expert *opinion*.
What you believe *words mean* versus what the experts know what they mean is clearly different. I defer to the *experts*. It’s that simple, and that’s why my word choices are what they are. It’s based on true knowledge and not false beliefs.
About the false claim (Libel) by intimation in your text of Sheldon supposedly afflicted with *Narcissism*.
Ray you are totally out of your depth. Sheldon is not a narcissist. Not even close to one. Though I cannot say the same about some who were there egregiously failing to have a sane and rational discussion with him. I suggest if you still *insist you are right*, then please seek further input from an expert on the subject if such persuasion were possible in your case.
If not, then please do not take it up with me because *I can’t fix stupid* either.
V 158: The so-called “physics of climate change” is purely theoretical.
BPL: Just because you’re not aware of the mountains of evidence for it doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist.
V: See below . . .
190 CCHolley says:
V: The so-called “physics of climate change” is purely theoretical. Sure, there have been many results produced from relatively simple lab-based experiments, but projections of something as complex as the climate of both land and sea on this Earth are another matter entirely. So the idea that “the physics” can be regarded as, in itself, irrefutable with respect to long term climate change is hopelessly naive.
CC: Here in lies the complete ignorance of Victor. This has been discussed so many times that either Victor does not have the intellectual capacity to understand the physics, or he is unwilling to make the effort to learn what the science actually tells us. Victor makes an argument from personal incredulity while accusing others of using logical fallacies.
V: Nothing personal about it. I am certainly not alone in this assessment.
CC: The greenhouse effect is based on physical laws.
V: We’re not talking about the greenhouse effect, which is widely accepted. We’re talking about climate change on planet Earth over the last several hundred years, a topic of enormous complexity. Just the problem of measuring the temperature of the entire Earth at any given time is already fraught with tremendous difficulties. Same goes for measuring sea level, not to mention sea ice extent, glacial melt, etc.
CC: The radiative properties of substances under multiple conditions determined in the lab are irrefutable. Such properties of substances are confirmed by quantum mechanics and they do not change in the “real world” from what was determined in the laboratory.
V: Certain basic laws may not change, but methods of assessing their impact on the real world over long time periods are fraught with difficulties of the sort you won’t find in any lab.
CC: Likewise for our understanding of thermodynamics. We have the First, Second, Third, and Zeroth LAWS of thermodynamics. How we apply these laws to to greenhouse gas theory is not questioned. Beyond thermodynamics, we also have a thorough understanding of the mechanisms of heat transfer. The how of heat transfer is irrefutable. Stefan-Botzmann Law, Wien’s Displacement Law, Planck’s Law, Fourier’s Law, and Newton’s Law of Cooling are examples. How we apply these laws to greenhouse gas theory is irrefutable. Physical laws are physical laws.
V: Yes, but when we apply these laws to help us understand real world situations, the laws in themselves are not sufficient. If they were, there would be no need for climate science, we could simply base everything on “the physics?” per se and act on that basis alone.
CC: . . . Contrary to Victor’s statements, the result of the application of physics to the greenhouse gas theory has been confirmed through direct observations.
V: Yes. Confirmed under controlled laboratory conditions.
Look, I appreciate your taking the trouble to explain certain technical aspects of this issue in some detail and I am perfectly willing to accept most if not all of what you’ve written. I am not a physicist, but I do know enough about scientific method to know that ANY theory, even the most convincing, can only be confirmed through experiment and/or the assessment of evidence. Well, the climate of the real world can’t be reduced to a laboratory so the possibilities for experiment are very limited. There IS a great deal of evidence out there, but that evidence is extremely difficult, not only to interpret, but even to collect. And the evidence I’ve seen, after years of researching this topic, has raised some very serious questions.
We are informed that there has been a long term rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century, in tandem with a similar long term rise in CO2 levels. But when I examine the many graphs depicting worldwide temperatures during this period I do not see the gradual rise I would expect to see, but more of a roller coaster, some times going up, some times going down and some times leveling off. And as for sea level rise, yes, there has been a gradual rise since the 19th century, but it began some time before fossil fuels became a significant factor and has continued at a more or less steady rate until the present time. According to the most recent study, the expected acceleration of sea level rise was, to the researcher’s embarrassment, not evident in the satellite data, so it was necessary to introduce a fudge factor to make everything come out as expected.
Indeed, the introduction of fudge factors has become a very common practice among certain climate scientists. To explain a steep rise in temperatures early in the 20th century, prior to the period where fossil fuel emissions became a major factor, a relative lack of volcanic activity has been invoked — strange but true. To explain the drop in temps from 1940, aerosols from the burning of fossil fuels have been invoked — also strange, since fossil fuel burning is supposed to be the principal cause of global warming. To explain away the leveling off of temperatures during most of the current century, as compared to the 20 years previous, all sorts of explanations have been offered — a long list of over 50 is currently available via the Internet. Not to mention the most recent effort, based on a “correction” of the data itself. Never mind that this correction has rendered all the other explanations as invalid, since they were supposedly based on inaccurate data.
So no, I’m sorry, but I can’t go along with the notion that certain predictions and/or models based on “the physics” must be accepted as irrefutable. Theories requiring fudge factors introduce the sort of complications that led Occam to formulate his razor. One can’t help but be reminded of the complexities introduced by the epicycles of Earth-centered astronomy.
CC: Naivety is believing that there is some other magical explanation for the current warming trend and that AGW won’t have significant impact on society.
V: There have been a great many warming, and cooling, trends over the entire history of the Earth and if you want to claim you can explain each and every one on the basis of “the physics” forgive me if I’m skeptical.
Mel Reasonersays
Victor 192: “Is that literally what he said? It would help to have an exact quote, and a reference.”
If you check my post @ 106, you’ll see that I provided an exact quote and reference.
Here it is again: The Telegraph, Christopher Booker, May 6, 2017. Another Arctic ice panic over as world temperatures plummet. “the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years.”
This statement provides a very good indication of Booker’s understanding of climate science. I’m sorry Victor but I’m not going to waste my time reading anything written by someone with zero credibility on the subject.
I again encourage the moderators to raise the bar on the standard of comments here. Victor is still peddling an ‘essay’ written by a journalist with a record of publishing erroneous statements about climate science in the media.
An analogy would be a forum dedicated to serious discussion about professional hockey considering essays written by somebody who claims Wayne Gretzky was a goalie.
Thomassays
re 199 jb,
PS I have a right to defend myself publicly against false accusations, egregious insults and trolling blather.
When those that do so stop it, my post count will decrease by over 50% immediately. Ball’s in your court.
Victor 192: “it does seem clear that the steep warming trend over the last 20 years of the 20th century has not been continued into the 21st.”
I just downloaded the Berkeley Earth data for the last 50 years. I suggest you do the same and have a look.
I like Berkeley earth because it is consistent with other records (including RSS and RATPACK 850-300mb) and because Steven Mosher is on the Berkeley team.
Mosher is co-author of “Climategate: The Crutape Letters” so I imagine you might be reluctant to suggest that he may be dealing with some ‘groupthink’ issues.
Turns out that the trends from 1975 to 1998 and from 1998 to 2017 are essentially identical.
Of course, there are shorter intervals with higher and lower trends but so what? For example, the rate of warming over 16 years from 1990 and 2006 was significantly higher than model projections at 0.33 deg C/decade.
This elevated rate of warming was noted by scientists working in the field and in a 2007 paper published in Science (vol 316 4, May 2007) Rahmstorf et al., state that “The first candidate reason is intrinsic variability within the climate system”.
nigeljsays
Mr KIA @191
“What is the general methodology used in climate science models to calculate the future rise in temperature due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Mathematically, how do the models work.”
Why dont you buy a book on the subject? Are you poor or something? Heres a list of books, took me three seconds to google:
“For that, I would recommend the Science of Doom website linked below:”
I wouldn’t recommend the Science of Doom blog, as it’s way too muddled to provide any insight.
Instead, pick up Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate”
nigeljsays
A proposed formal categorisation of climate denialists:
The low intelligence denialist.
The intelligent but mental block denialist who just doesn’t think scientifically.
The vested interests denialist worried about job security or money.
The addicted denialist in love with his V8 car
The ideological denialist scared of big government.
The conservative denialsit scpetical of science and the change that comes from science.
The psychological denialist suffering from narcissism attention seeking (pinched that one from Ray Ladbury), dunning kruger, confirmation bias, head in sand syndrome, cognitive bias etcetera.
The religious denialist. God wont let it happen.
The lack of future foresight denialist.
I propose that strong climate denialism requires more than one form of denial. The total level of denialism in an individual is proportional to the number of different denialist attributes they have and the strength of each particular attribute.
nigeljsays
Of course my climate denialism rule is approximate. It’s more complicated. Some factors cause climate denialism, and others multiply the effect. But its a start.
Victor the Troll @157.
From what you set out there, I think we can usefully kick Munshi’s non-anthropogenic CO2 increases argument & also his tropical storms argument into the bin marked ‘toxic nonsense’ and his SLR argument will follow close behind them if it is dis-entangled. This perhaps leaves to be explained only my assertion that he employs his own ‘circularity of argument’.
The circularity of argument adopted by his SLR thesis stems from his SLR start point being “Climate models that relate warming to sea level rise by way of ice melt suggest that the appropriate metric is the acceleration of sea level rise.“ and he develops this, almost to the point of saying that identifying acceleration in SLR is being set out by proponents of AGW as fundamental to the establishment of the existence of AGW. (Of course, I see no evidence of such talk within, say, IPCC AR5 SPM or anywhere else for that matter.) He argues that such a thesis includes an error because the SLR may have other causes than AGW. (No actual alternative is described but, for instance, he makes incidental mention of the Little Ice Age.) He then attempts to demonstrate that there is no simple acceleration of SLR and that there is no correlation between SLR and annual FF CO2 emissions (in the process doing a neat job of cherry-picking his data so as not to show that SLR appears to have been pretty-much zero prior to 1800*). However he shies away from a direct conclusion that there is no correlation between AGW & SLR (it would be ill-founded had he done so) instead saying “This relationship may be supported by climate models” but (here the circularity) he then insists that these models only include AGW ‘theory’ so that their use would prove nothing, except Munshi manages to conclude saying ”The validity of the anthropogenic nature of global warming and climate change and that of the effectiveness of proposed measures for climate action may therefore be questioned solely on this basis.”
Of course whether or not a fool like Munshi employs ‘circularity of argument’ is not really at issue. None of this will satisfy you, Victor the Troll. I note the position you set out @158. ”Regardless of whether or not (Munshi) was wrong, his focus is on the nature of the methodologies employed, not the results obtained.” As one who is in denial over AGW (as Munshi also appears to be), to you the idea of AGW being all smoke-&-mirrors does need an explanation and the misuse of the concept ‘circularity of argument’ probably is as good as your misuse a of the concept of Occam’s Razor.
(*His lack of use of the full data from Jevrejava et al (2014) and from Kemp et al (2011) and from Church & White (2011) is not satisfatorily explained, indeed is not explained at all, being not even mentioned.)
Thomas is now wearing his scienciness on his sleeve, branding his recent contributions to the March UV thread as ”AGW/CC Science”. This includes an update of an earlier March UV comment, one which would have been a contender a a useful contribution to the thread (@68) except it was un-referenced and wrong. The update @187 is now referenced (to ChArctic) but still wrong and now doubly so. ChArctic is not the easiest set of data to access numerically but there have been 9 not 6 NSIDC ChArctic days of 2018 which are not Arctic SEI record minimums (and as ‘minimums’ of ‘Sea Ice’ not exactly ”skyrocketry”) the same number as in JAXA SIE (altough since the Thomas comment, the last two days’ JAXA SIE are so so close to the previous record to be probably not meriting the record) with NSIDC tabulated daily SIE showing 13 non-record days. And note this is not ”unprecidented” as such long runs of record-breaking low SIE were longer in 2016, twice.
However, the advice “hold on to your hats” remains as we reach this years maximum (JAXA maximum-so-far set yesterday, 11th March, still 98K sq km inside last years record) and start the melt season.
A later Thomas comment – I can but assume that the 300 words of cherry-picked comment by Thomas @198 is meant as response to the challenge I set @173 to ”justify the 12,900 words he has smeared down this thread.” The five referenced comments are in total not 300 words but 1,500 words-worth of the 9,000 words he inflicted on the January 2018 UV thread (9,000 being 25% of the whole thread). And to the best of my knowledge, January is not March.
Mr Know-It-All @191.
You told us @142 that you ”had some reading to do” and since that time your ”meat” course you set out @62 now grows cold having been shown up-thread to be rather thin on trollish menu options. Now @191 you ask of how climate models operate. CarbonBrief have a post entitled ”How do climate models work”, the first of a series of five posts describing the design, development & output of climate models. So a bit more reading for you.
V 206: CC: . . . Contrary to Victor’s statements, the result of the application of physics to the greenhouse gas theory has been confirmed through direct observations.
V: Yes. Confirmed under controlled laboratory conditions.
BPL: No, confirmed by direct observation of the environment. Back-radiation has increased in just the absorption lines of greenhouse gases. That’s the absolute smoking gun, of all the six or so smoking guns that confirm AGW. Here are some references:
Evans, W.F.J., and E. Puckrin 2006. “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate.” 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change, P1.7
“The earth’s climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth’s surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
Philipona, R., B. Du”rr, C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild 2004. “Radiative Forcing–Measured at Earth’s Surface–Corroborate the Increasing Greenhouse Effect.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L03202
“…Here we show that atmospheric longwave downward radiation significantly increased (+5.2(2.2) Wm 2) partly due to increased cloud amount (+1.0(2.8) Wm 2) over eight years of measurements at eight radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase (+4.2(1.9) Wm 2) to be in due proportion with temperature (+0.82(0.41) C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m 3) increases, but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm 2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.”
So stop saying it’s “only in the laboratory,” Victor.
I certainly do not see any real sign of a meaningful 21st century decrease in warming rate.
For example, a while back I made this graph to visualize the difference between the behaviors of the temperature record during the last 50 years, and during 50 years of the 19th century. It uses the HadCRU data (version 4), and shows both the anomaly values and a retrospective 10-year mean as a smooth (an unusual choice, I know, but I had my reasons).
Now, it’s true that if you compare the red smoothed line to the linear trend line for the period, you see that the last few years of the previous century are slightly above it, while the most recent years are slightly below. Presumably this difference is what Victor is looking at. But what does it mean, if anything?
The deviation has pretty much closed up by 2017 (despite the timelag induced by the retrospective mean methodology), and one can also see a pretty comparable deviation back in the early 1990s which turned out to mean exactly nothing in terms of the long term.
Moreover, much larger deviations are visible in the 19th century curve. (Not surprisingly in one respect at least–there were several large volcanic eruptions during that period, famously including Krakatoa.) Just for fun, compare Crowley and Unterman (2013) volcanic aerosol data, which I graphed here:
All of which is to say that there’s little if any reason to expect the latest couple of ‘wobbles’ to be any more meaningful than the ‘slowdown’ in the early 90s turned out to be.
Mel Reasonersays
Victor 206: “We are informed that there has been a long term rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century, in tandem with a similar long term rise in CO2 levels. But when I examine the many graphs depicting worldwide temperatures during this period I do not see the gradual rise I would expect to see, but more of a roller coaster, some times going up, some times going down and some times leveling off.”
This is precisely what is expected of a noisy system responding to an added forcing – the added forcing will not make the variability go away.
Try plotting the Berkeley Earth annual temperature data against Mauna Loa CO2 and you’ll see a robust correlation.
Mel Reasonersays
Victor 206:
“CC: . . . Contrary to Victor’s statements, the result of the application of physics to the greenhouse gas theory has been confirmed through direct observations.
V: Yes. Confirmed under controlled laboratory conditions.”
CC is right – confirmed through direct observations. See for example Feldman et al., 2015 (Nature vol 519. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010).
Mel Reasonersays
Victor 206: In this post you firstly claim that the temperature records are inaccurate and “fraught with tremendous difficulties” and a few sentences later you state with confidence that there has been a “leveling off of temperatures during most of the current century”.
I’m not a psychologist but I imagine that mitigating the cognitive disonance of holding both of these ideas simultaneously in one brain requires a pattern of
reasoning that is supported by more than just a bit of motivation. My limited understanding is that motivated reasoning is a common identity-protective mechanism linked with ‘groupthink’ issues.
Mel Reasonersays
Victor 206: “There have been a great many warming, and cooling, trends over the entire history of the Earth and if you want to claim you can explain each and every one on the basis of “the physics” forgive me if I’m skeptical.”
OK Victor, if not physics, what would you go with then?
Mr. Know It Allsays
210 – nigelj
There may be books describing the actual way the temperature rise is calculated in the CC models, but I don’t know which book that would be. There are many books on the general topic of CC which say things like “CO2 prevents IR radiation from the surface of the earth from escaping to space”, and talking about effects of increased temperature like SLR, drought, famine, etc. I’m not interested in that.
I want to know generally what is the math used in the models. These models I think are the basis of the CC argument – surely, someone on this website can give a general description of the math used in a couple short paragraphs? OR provide a link to such a description. Believe it or not, if you can explain how it works with math you might convert some skeptics.
Victorsays
209 Mel Reasoner says:
MR: I just downloaded the Berkeley Earth data for the last 50 years. I suggest you do the same and have a look. . . Turns out that the trends from 1975 to 1998 and from 1998 to 2017 are essentially identical.
V: Including 2016 is misleading, since we had an unusually extreme El Nino event that year. One time events such as that mean little when assessing long term trends. Based on results up to the beginning of 2015 (thus excluding any part of the El Nino), gleaned from the Skeptical Science trend calculator (https://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php), here’s what I found:
Berkeley:
1975-1999 trend is: .181
1999 -2015 trend is: .105
UAH6:
1975-1999 trend is: .164
1998-2015 trend is: -.039
RSS 4:
1975-1999: .168
1998-2015 .018
GISTEMP:
1975-1999: .182
1998-2015: .109
HADCRUT 4:
1975-1999: .189
1998-2015: .112
Since it looks as though the calculator takes us from the beginning of the first year to the beginning of the last year, I chose 1999 to include all of 1998 — the year you chose as the limit.
CCHolleysays
Victor @206
Nothing personal about it. I am certainly not alone in this assessment.
Your assessment is still wrong. And I’d like to know who in particular of any credibility agrees with your assessment.
The physics behind climate change is well understood. You make all kinds of claims that it is too complex, but that does not make your claims true. Physics is physics. And you can spout your nonsense ad infinitum and it will still not be true. The climate must conform to the known laws of physics.
We’re not talking about the greenhouse effect, which is widely accepted. We’re talking about climate change on planet Earth over the last several hundred years, a topic of enormous complexity. Just the problem of measuring the temperature of the entire Earth at any given time is already fraught with tremendous difficulties. Same goes for measuring sea level, not to mention sea ice extent, glacial melt, etc.
NO, we are talking about how the anthropogenic addition of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will effect global temperatures and hence climate. No matter how complex *climate* is, it is the energy balance of the earth system that determines temperatures and those temperatures in turn determine climate. The physics and factors behind what drives the energy balance of the earth are well understood. Some of the details of how the change in heat is redistributed and how long the system will take to regain energy equilibrium in response to changes may be complex, but that does not mean that we cannot predict the long term warming or cooling resulting in changes in the drivers of thermal equilibrium. That’s physics. Greenhouse gases and solar irradiance play the most important roles in the energy balance of the planet. You cannot discuss climate without discussing greenhouse gases. Changes in CO2 levels change the energy balance and those changes can be determined through physics. Again, a doubling of CO2 will result in a minimum of 2 degrees of warming and your claims of climate complexity does not change that reality.
Measuring the temperature of the entire Earth at any given time is easy enough to show that the planet is warming. Satellite altimetry along with tide gauges are good enough to show us seas are rising. Sea ice extent measurements by satellites are good enough to tell us that the ice is declining. Satellite gravimetric analysis along with direct observations are enough to tell us glaciers are declining. Although I disagree with your assessment, regardless, we know the earth is warming, we know sea levels are rising, we know ice is melting, we know CO2 causes warming. You want to wallow in the mud of *climate is complex* therefore the science isn’t settled, but the complexity does not change the basic facts–it is warming, CO2 causes warming.
Certain basic laws may not change, but methods of assessing their impact on the real world over long time periods are fraught with difficulties of the sort you won’t find in any lab.
The laws of physics are the laws of physics. The climate system must conform to the laws of physics regardless of our ability to assess and observe their application in the real world. Changing the energy imbalance of the planetary system by inhibiting the escape of radiant heat to space WILL result in warming, no matter whether or not you can observe it accurately.
Yes, but when we apply these laws to help us understand real world situations, the laws in themselves are not sufficient. If they were, there would be no need for climate science, we could simply base everything on “the physics?” per se and act on that basis alone.
Only in certain cases where our observations are not sufficient to define the initial state of the system we are attempting to understand. The system still must conform to the physical laws and any hypothesis used to explain the phenomena we are studying must conform. Physical laws narrow the possibilities.
Yes. Confirmed under controlled laboratory conditions.
And by real world surface measurements and satellite observations.
I am not a physicist, but I do know enough about scientific method to know that ANY theory, even the most convincing, can only be confirmed through experiment and/or the assessment of evidence. Well, the climate of the real world can’t be reduced to a laboratory so the possibilities for experiment are very limited. There IS a great deal of evidence out there, but that evidence is extremely difficult, not only to interpret, but even to collect. And the evidence I’ve seen, after years of researching this topic, has raised some very serious questions.
The serious questions raised by you are due to your ignorance of the science. There is significant evidence ignored by you. Some of the evidence may be difficult to collect and to interpret, but much isn’t. Probably most of what you call difficult isn’t, it is just part of your bias. The complexity of the climate system does not mean we cannot understand what drives the temperatures of the planetary system because we do. It is based on physical laws.
We are informed that there has been a long term rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century, in tandem with a similar long term rise in CO2 levels. But when I examine the many graphs depicting worldwide temperatures during this period I do not see the gradual rise I would expect to see, but more of a roller coaster, some times going up, some times going down and some times leveling off. And as for sea level rise, yes, there has been a gradual rise since the 19th century, but it began some time before fossil fuels became a significant factor and has continued at a more or less steady rate until the present time. According to the most recent study, the expected acceleration of sea level rise was, to the researcher’s embarrassment, not evident in the satellite data, so it was necessary to introduce a fudge factor to make everything come out as expected.
Just a rehash of items you’ve posted before that have been thoroughly discussed and explained. Your interpretation of graphs is amateurish at best to the point of being laughable.
Acceleration of sea level rise is well documented. I suggest you do more research.
Indeed, the introduction of fudge factors has become a very common practice among certain climate scientists. To explain a steep rise in temperatures early in the 20th century, prior to the period where fossil fuel emissions became a major factor, a relative lack of volcanic activity has been invoked — strange but true. To explain the drop in temps from 1940, aerosols from the burning of fossil fuels have been invoked — also strange, since fossil fuel burning is supposed to be the principal cause of global warming. To explain away the leveling off of temperatures during most of the current century, as compared to the 20 years previous, all sorts of explanations have been offered — a long list of over 50 is currently available via the Internet. Not to mention the most recent effort, based on a “correction” of the data itself. Never mind that this correction has rendered all the other explanations as invalid, since they were supposedly based on inaccurate data.
Again, your interpretation of the early 20th century and the explanations was shown to be inaccurate, but you keep rehashing the same garbage. I suggest you go back and reread my posts on the subject. Your incredulousness is only a sign of ignorance. When are you going to attempt to understand the science and the physics? Apparently you are not capable.
As for the so called pause, if the warming in that period did not conform to what was expected through known science, then scientists would be expected to propose reasons. That is how science works. Those explanations would have to stand on their own merits like any science, some becoming accepted and some thrown in the trash bin. The fact is, it is still warming, pause or no pause.
So no, I’m sorry, but I can’t go along with the notion that certain predictions and/or models based on “the physics” must be accepted as irrefutable. Theories requiring fudge factors introduce the sort of complications that led Occam to formulate his razor. One can’t help but be reminded of the complexities introduced by the epicycles of Earth-centered astronomy.
The physics of greenhouse gas law is irrefutable and the changes in the radiative profile resulting in thermal imbalance has been measured. The result of that imbalance will be heating. That’s irrefutable. If CO2 levels continue to rise, that heating will continue. The rest is window dressing. Your denial will not change that physical reality.
There have been a great many warming, and cooling, trends over the entire history of the Earth and if you want to claim you can explain each and every one on the basis of “the physics” forgive me if I’m skeptical.
Remember, folks, Victor comes here for help knocking the bizarre rough edges off his claims, to make them sound more sciency.
Then he can go and post them elsewhere — remember, there’s a credulous audience willing to be fooled.
Heck, he could be elected President based on his performance.
Victorsays
229 Hank Roberts says:
“Remember, folks, Victor comes here for help knocking the bizarre rough edges off his claims, to make them sound more sciency.
Then he can go and post them elsewhere — remember, there’s a credulous audience willing to be fooled.
Heck, he could be elected President based on his performance.”
LOL. You got me. I confess. The Russians made me do it. :-)
James McDonaldsays
jgnfld@194
Thank you for the response, but I think you’re missing the essence of my question. (I also assume that this is almost entirely my fault for not being clearer in posing it.)
The number of stations needed is not merely a statistical argument but also depends on the underlying physical situation. To see this, consider a thought experiment where you only have two choices (A or B) for a thermometer location.
Now produce some peculiar climate change where A consistently warms by 1C per century while B cools by exactly the same amount. It’s pretty clear that you need both A and B to get a valid global result. Reducing to just one station would be plausible from a purely statistical sampling argument, but in this case the reality would not match your assumptions about dependence and the result you got would be wildly wrong.
On earth for example, ocean measurements are not going to change the same way that Arctic land or tropical land measurements will, and it would seem dubious (to me at least) to presume that all of them would change in lockstep, especially since we know the poles heat faster.
Given that hand-waving argument, I felt out of my depth to presume to make a purely statistical argument as you did, and was asking for an opinion from someone “in the know” about climate data with all its warts and idiosyncrasies.
Mel Reasonersays
Victor 226: “Including 2016 is misleading, since we had an unusually extreme El Nino event that year…. Based on results up to the beginning of 2015…”
You can’t exclude 2015 and 2016 just because you don’t like the numbers. One could also argue that it would be misleading to include 2010-2012 because they were the strongest La Nina years since 1975. No?
The data is not misleading – it is what it is.
It is abundantly clear that the rise in temperature over the last 50 years has not been monotonic and there is no reason to expect it to have been. There have been relatively short periods where the warming rates have exceeded the long-term trend (e.g. 1990-2006) and there have been relatively short periods where the rates have been below the long-term trend (e.g 1999-2015). Again, so what? That’s the variability.
It seems that you really, really, really want the 1999-2015 interval of slower warming to be significant and are happy to ignore the 1990-2006 interval of more rapid warming.
Mel Reasonersays
Victor 226: “One time events such as that mean little when assessing long term trends.”
You must be aware that for the better part of a decade we had to endure a seemingly endless parade fake skeptics claiming that there has been no global warming since 1998 and they cherry-picked 1998 as the starting point because it was an extreme El Nino year and if chosen as the starting point you would get a lower trend in subsequent years and now you want to exclude the El Nino years of 2015 & 2016 because they increase the rate of warming during the so-called pause? Really?
nigeljsays
MR KIA @225
I gave you a list of books specifically on the maths used in the models!
I know what you want. How do we get from the absorption of a certain quantity of energy by CO2 to how this causes a certain increment of temperature rise and the related maths.This intrgues me as well, but is complicated stuff, that probably cannot be reduced to a couple of paragraphs. Its not a case of a+b=c because there are numerous factors and feedbacks. The earth warms more than expected if you calculate the effect of the sun, and this is part of the basis of it.
BPL might know of a very brief maths description. If anyone would he would. I would be interested myself.
However for a relatively simple model used to predict temperatures just read the original paper by Arrhenius below. Its still pages long and has all the maths.
Im not a climate scientist, and I can only get a rough idea of what hes doing I admit. As you can see its specialised, and its not just the maths you need specific understanding of advanced atmospheric physics. I have done some basic meterology but not atmospheric physics.
Sorry but you dont get to exclude a year or two years data when computing a trend. The very idea of a trend is based on using all the available data. This shows your fundamental lack of ability to understand how basic science works, as I have pointed out several times. You have to use all the years, warm or cool, el nino, la nina, xyz,abc.
nigeljsays
What Victor and KIA cant seem to work out is Arrhenius modeled climate change right back in 1895 before CO2 had significantly increased and did the maths and predicted about 1 degree c over the 20th century. We have already seen 1 degree and counting. Do you sceptics seriously think he got lucky or something?
The guy was a theoretical chemist who spent a year doing the calculations. The best single test of any theory is its ability to make long term predictions. Arrenhius has been proven right in essence, and so his work alone is strong proof of agw theory and it has been vastly refined since then. Wake up!
CCHolleysays
Victor @226
Including 2016 is misleading, since we had an unusually extreme El Niño event that year. One time events such as that mean little when assessing long term trends.
Then why do proponents of *the pause* start with an extreme el Niño event, but not end with one?
Why not compare the 1998-1999 el Niño to the recent el Niño?
Why not include 2017 which was not an el Niño year in your analysis?
If you throw out the last el Niño in your trend study shouldn’t you throw out all el Niños?
In brief, I start with the Milne-Eddington approximation, which relates surface and radiative equilibrium temperatures through the longwave optical thickness of the atmosphere:
Ts = Te (1 + 0.75 tau)^0.25
For Earth, Te = 255 K and tau is about 1.85, which leads to Ts = 317 K, way too high. This is because other processes are at work which cool the surface at the expense of the atmosphere, mostly latent heat (evaporation of seawater and surface water from animals and plants), but also pure convection and a small amount due to conduction.
Better estimates are made with radiative-convective models, which are column models–they divided the atmosphere up into several stacked layers, plus a layer of ground, and then use band methods to estimate the influence of assorted greenhouse gases. A “convective adjustment” takes care of the cooling issues.
The big global climate models usually use parameterizations obtained from the RCMs, or simplified column models of their own. Gavin or somebody can correct me on that if I’ve got it wrong. I’ve only ever written semigray models and RCMs.
A good reponse. For me, it served to point up the following irony:
Victor on climate:
“Really, really difficult. Tremendously complex! Fraught with difficulty!”
Victor on climate models:
“Too complicated! Fudge factors! Occam!”
jgnfldsays
If one is interested in an unbiased measure of a physical property, randomly selected measurement sites are the best statistical way to go. It introduces no bias even with an N of 1. One needn’t have complete coverage either. You may be falling for the old “how can 1800 people give a good national polling estimate” canard. The fact is, with random selection they very well can. Random sampling actually DOES measure the underlying situation. The only caveat is that if the underlying situation is highly variable, then more sites will be needed to bring the standard errors down in order to be able to see the signal within the noise.
Barring random selection of sites, setting up a complete grid that samples all subareas equally will be unbiased as well.
The situation with temp series is intermediate. People and stations are neither randomly placed nor do stations comprise an equal area grid. (BTW: This is equally true of the satellite series which are affected by such things as time of day, latitude, and mountains.) Such issues do, in fact introduce bias and scientists have spent immense amounts of time on the problem (see reference to Jones, Osborn, & Briffa linked in item #194 above for a goodly amount of info).
jgnfldsays
@233
You forget the cardinal strategy of denierism: Cherrypicked factoids are only allowed when they support denial.
Starting a series at a strong el Nino year is perfectly fair if one wants to show a “pause”. Ending a series at a strong el Nino is “cheating” if one want to show there is an upward trend.
March 4 – 10, 2018 409.84 ppm
March 4 – 10, 2017 406.56 ppm
spikey week, noisy number. Imagine a scenario where we might have a spikey number that shows a lower number in current year in comparison to past year. Boy, that would be a welcome sight.
Thomas @228,
Your title “WORLD RECORD ESRL CO2 PPMV Weekly Readings” is not the best of choices. As a for-instance, the ESRL CO2 readings for Barrow Alaska are currently provided to end-2016, a year which saw the annual cycle with a weekly-reading peak in May at 410.52ppm (w/e 14/5/16), a value which exceeds your 410.36ppm 1st-place record MLO readings. Of course, the May value at Barrow will have subsequently been topped by the May peak of 2017 and indeed is already shown topped by the final week of 2016 (w/e 31/12/16) which yields a value of 411.24ppm. So the May 2017 peak week at Barrow would be perhaps 413ppm and almost certainly now exceeded by early 2018 values.
Victorsays
Well good. Looks like our discussion has morphed from the insults and ad hominems typical of group think to a serious treatment of scientific issues, centering on the physics of climate change. I welcome this development, which makes things much more interesting, despite the very real challenges it poses. But before I get into a consideration of “the physics” I’d like to address some relatively minor points.
203 Hank Roberts says:
“Victor scores ten points!
V 158: The so-called “physics of climate change” is purely theoretical.
HR: 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is “only a theory”, as if this were somehow a point against it.”
Darwin’s theory of evolution has been dismissed as “only a theory” and this seems to be the context in which my statement is being evaluated. Well, I have news for you Hank. The current mainstream theory of climate change (aka AGW) is very far from being in the same league as Darwinian evolution and it is pretentious to claim otherwise. The basic concepts behind Darwin’s thinking have been tested and verified time and again over a very long period indeed, and no serious scientist doubts their validity. That is NOT true of AGW, where many perfectly legitimate doubts as to its viability have been raised by many highly trained and respected scientists. As they see it, and as I see it, AGW remains “only a theory.”
223 Mel Reasoner says:
MR: Victor 206: In this post you firstly claim that the temperature records are inaccurate and “fraught with tremendous difficulties” and a few sentences later you state with confidence that there has been a “leveling off of temperatures during most of the current century”.
V: I see no contradiction, Mel. It should go without saying that the leveling off to which I referred is based on data that’s been accepted by many mainstream climate scientists, despite the “tremendous difficulties” in collecting and verifying such data that are, in fact, widely acknowledged.
224 Mel Reasoner says:
Victor 206: “There have been a great many warming, and cooling, trends over the entire history of the Earth and if you want to claim you can explain each and every one on the basis of “the physics” forgive me if I’m skeptical.”
Mr: OK Victor, if not physics, what would you go with then?
V: Contingency.
232mMel Reasoner says:
Victor 226: “Including 2016 is misleading, since we had an unusually extreme El Nino event that year…. Based on results up to the beginning of 2015…”
MR: You can’t exclude 2015 and 2016 just because you don’t like the numbers. One could also argue that it would be misleading to include 2010-2012 because they were the strongest La Nina years since 1975. No?
V: By the same token, you should not insist on including 2015 and 2016 simply because they produce the trend you are looking for. Without them there is no such trend.
MR: It is abundantly clear that the rise in temperature over the last 50 years has not been monotonic and there is no reason to expect it to have been. There have been relatively short periods where the warming rates have exceeded the long-term trend (e.g. 1990-2006) and there have been relatively short periods where the rates have been below the long-term trend (e.g 1999-2015). Again, so what? That’s the variability.
It seems that you really, really, really want the 1999-2015 interval of slower warming to be significant and are happy to ignore the 1990-2006 interval of more rapid warming.
V: Bottom line: as should be evident from our exchange, there is no way to establish a trend of any kind without a certain amount of cherry picking. The fact that the choice of endpoints can make such a difference is in itself a strong argument against the validity of a strictly statistical approach.
233 Mel Reasoner says:
Victor 226: “One time events such as that mean little when assessing long term trends.”
MR: You must be aware that for the better part of a decade we had to endure a seemingly endless parade fake skeptics claiming that there has been no global warming since 1998 and they cherry-picked 1998 as the starting point because it was an extreme El Nino year and if chosen as the starting point you would get a lower trend in subsequent years and now you want to exclude the El Nino years of 2015 & 2016 because they increase the rate of warming during the so-called pause? Really?
V: 1998 was the year YOU chose, which is why I used it. You are free to choose some other year if you like — but the real problem lies with the notion of a statistically determined trend, which will always be dependent on pre-selected endpoints which can so easily be chosen to produce a given result.
235 nigelj says:
Victor @226
nj: Sorry but you dont get to exclude a year or two years data when computing a trend. The very idea of a trend is based on using all the available data. This shows your fundamental lack of ability to understand how basic science works, as I have pointed out several times. You have to use all the years, warm or cool, el nino, la nina, xyz,abc.
V: Well, what do you mean by “all the years”? Beginning when, with the Big Bang? Ending with the apocalypse? In every case, endpoints must be chosen and different endpoints will invariably produce different results.
Victorsays
218 Barton Paul Levenson says:
V 206: CC: . . . Contrary to Victor’s statements, the result of the application of physics to the greenhouse gas theory has been confirmed through direct observations.
V: Yes. Confirmed under controlled laboratory conditions.
BPL: No, confirmed by direct observation of the environment. Back-radiation has increased in just the absorption lines of greenhouse gases. That’s the absolute smoking gun, of all the six or so smoking guns that confirm AGW. Here are some references:
V: OK, thank you very much, BPL, for taking the trouble to track down these very interesting references and provide some useful quotations. I’m not a physicist (are you?) so not in a position to evaluate any of this as physics per se, but it is certainly well worth considering. Before doing so, however, let me backtrack a bit:
V: Yes. Confirmed under controlled laboratory conditions.
BPL: No, confirmed by direct observation of the environment.
V: I’m not a physicist but I have been active in other branches of science and I do think I know something about scientific method. So, with all due respect, I must insist that there is no such thing as “direct observation of the environment.” Observations conducted in the field require special equipment and also protocols for interpreting the interaction between that equipment and the objects under study, protocols that are often far from obvious and possibly erroneous. Nor are observations drawn from the study of the real-world environment, where conditions may vary greatly from one observation to the next, subject to the sort of controls readily available in the laboratory.
Now as far as your references are concerned, naturally I am in no position to evaluate the physics involved, but I could not help but notice that the bottom line in each case seems a bit equivocal:
“This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
Looks suspiciously like a straw man. I don’t know of any skeptics who would argue that there is no such connection. It’s the degree to which the connection matters where the disagreement lies.
“However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm 2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.”
Again, no one doubts that radiative forcing is at work in the atmosphere and it’s the DEGREE of enhancement that’s at issue.
My impression, which could be totally off base, is that it’s been much easier to demonstrate the fact that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 have a warming effect than to establish the degree to which that warming effect makes a difference, both in determining the temperature of the Earth and producing conditions that could become dangerous at some future date. From what I’ve read, a great deal hangs on the interpretation, and significance, of various feedbacks, both positive and negative, a topic that would appear to be highly debatable. The clearest discussion of climate feedbacks that I’ve been able to find is this paper by Gerard Roe: http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Publications/Roe_FeedbacksRev_08.pdf
An excerpt:
“When the net feedbacks are substantially negative, the system response to a forcing can be well characterized even though the individual feedbacks may be quite uncertain. However, when the net feedbacks are substantially positive, a high degree of uncertainty in the system response is inevitable as a fundamental and inescapable consequence of the amplification by the system dynamics . . . Unfortunately, it is often the positive feedback systems (i.e., a large response for a small forcing) that are of most interest both scientifically and societally. In these cases, the most important implication is that, rather than trying to solve for the specific system response to a given forcing, it may be that characterizing the feedbacks and their uncertainties is the better and more tractable scientific goal.”
KM at 202: Yes, I believe that the UK reports are probably true as you suggest. I meant/hoped to be clear that in the sense of providing a happy news story and a not-so-happy news story, that there was no significant equivalence between the story of UK falling emissions and the story of continuing rise in CO2 and CO2e.
I am routinely dismissive of the falling emission reports because the reductions are so inadequate as to be trivial when compared to the changes that we need to make to stop the rise of CO2(e) in the atmosphere and oceans.
It’s like the 97% versus 3% of scientists story on AGW. If you carry one newsy story from each group, you get a sense that there is a lot of wiggle room, if you carry 97 AGW stories and 3 stories disputing AGW, then you have produced a journal that is more representative and informative about our situation. Falling emission reports are of no interest to me unless they are linked to data/timelines etc. when we should be able to see the falling emissions translate into falling levels of CO2 in ocean and atmosphere.
Otherwise, they are kind of like reports from the guy who fell off a 100 story building: passing the 90th story, great view, so far so good.
Trolls are getting fattened nicely at Real Climate these days.
Warm regards,
Mike
Thomassays
231
James McDonald says: “The number of stations needed is not merely a statistical argument.”
1000% Wrong. You need to be silent and listen James.
Statistics are also the ONLY thing used to determine which stations are included in the shortlist.
nigeljsays
K McKinney @239 regarding Victor. Cognitive dissonance, together with lack of self awareness / self analysis to pick this up.
nigeljsays
BPL @238, thanks, appreciated.
Thomassays
Now that the nth. hemisphere winter chill and freezing season is nearly over, it might be a good time to look at the 180-day global temperature anomaly:
The Huge Climate State March Fundraiser http://climatestate.com/2018/03/11/march-fundraiser
Mike #182–
I’m sure you know this, but there is no contradiction whatever between the reported low emissions in the UK and the continuing rise of global concentrations, since as of 2015 UK was only the 15th largest national emitter (not counting the EU as a nation), and accounting for just over 1% of the global total.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
So feel free to ‘bite’ away.
Victor scores ten points!
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Mr. KIA @191
A single post wouldn’t do it for you. You need to start with the basics.
The following book is available as open access, you can download it for free:
Demystifying Climate Models: A Users Guide to Earth System Models by Gettelman, Andrew, Rood, Richard B.
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783662489574
The book thoroughly covers the subject of climate modeling but does not go into the actual details of the mathematics of calculating the atmospheric radiative flux. For that, I would recommend the Science of Doom website linked below:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/
193
Ray Ladbury says:
11 Mar 2018 at 8:24 AM
“Despite what some here contend, Tamino’s experiment with listening to the denialati was not a failure.
That’s an opinion Ray.
Despite what some here contend, this is what Tamino contends and I’ll quote again for you now Ray:
tamino | March 3, 2018 at 12:22 pm |
“It’s time for this thread to come to an end. I don’t regret the attempt to communicate, but it was not successful.”.
Here is a little linguistics, grammar and etmology (what-have-you) fwiw Ray.
Not successful = unsuccessful
Synonyms for unsuccessful
adj failing
abortive, disastrous, doomed, failed, foiled, fruitless, futile, ill-fated, ineffective, ineffectual, losing, thwarted, useless, (in) vain, defeated.
Now Ray, YMMV, but as I said above it is only your non-expert *opinion*.
What you believe *words mean* versus what the experts know what they mean is clearly different. I defer to the *experts*. It’s that simple, and that’s why my word choices are what they are. It’s based on true knowledge and not false beliefs.
Consider Tamino’s response here as well where he uses the word *Discussion* a one step removed Synonym for *Communication*; for proper context see:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/02/18/consequences/#comment-100621
See: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/discussion?s=t
—|—
About the false claim (Libel) by intimation in your text of Sheldon supposedly afflicted with *Narcissism*.
Ray you are totally out of your depth. Sheldon is not a narcissist. Not even close to one. Though I cannot say the same about some who were there egregiously failing to have a sane and rational discussion with him. I suggest if you still *insist you are right*, then please seek further input from an expert on the subject if such persuasion were possible in your case.
If not, then please do not take it up with me because *I can’t fix stupid* either.
For alternative strategies and a commentary that builds positively on Tamino’s failed attempt, and the endless mistakes of fruitless misguided communications with AGW/CC D’s in general go here:
Title: AGW/CC Consequences 2.0 https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/03/forced-responses-mar-2018/comment-page-2/#comment-696044
I have no issue if it is TL;DNR for people here. I am not constrained by other people’s limitations and blind spots.
Or try this:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/03/forced-responses-mar-2018/comment-page-2/#comment-696099 and the next one.
Or try this from a 3rd party lurker:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/03/forced-responses-mar-2018/comment-page-2/#comment-696098
Or try this from Prof Benjamin P. Horton
Associate Chair (Faculty), Asian School of the Environment – College of Science
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/climate-change-global-warming-communication-better-storytelling-10028864
And reconsider your decades long approach Ray.
—|—
RE: 199 jb.
I defer to those in Authority on this website – Gavin et al – no one else.
Unfortunately *I can’t fix stupid* let alone WGS aka Weapons Grade Stupid :-)
Repeat Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension
(shrug)
—|—
180 Barton Paul Levenson says:
V 158: The so-called “physics of climate change” is purely theoretical.
BPL: Just because you’re not aware of the mountains of evidence for it doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist.
V: See below . . .
190 CCHolley says:
V: The so-called “physics of climate change” is purely theoretical. Sure, there have been many results produced from relatively simple lab-based experiments, but projections of something as complex as the climate of both land and sea on this Earth are another matter entirely. So the idea that “the physics” can be regarded as, in itself, irrefutable with respect to long term climate change is hopelessly naive.
CC: Here in lies the complete ignorance of Victor. This has been discussed so many times that either Victor does not have the intellectual capacity to understand the physics, or he is unwilling to make the effort to learn what the science actually tells us. Victor makes an argument from personal incredulity while accusing others of using logical fallacies.
V: Nothing personal about it. I am certainly not alone in this assessment.
CC: The greenhouse effect is based on physical laws.
V: We’re not talking about the greenhouse effect, which is widely accepted. We’re talking about climate change on planet Earth over the last several hundred years, a topic of enormous complexity. Just the problem of measuring the temperature of the entire Earth at any given time is already fraught with tremendous difficulties. Same goes for measuring sea level, not to mention sea ice extent, glacial melt, etc.
CC: The radiative properties of substances under multiple conditions determined in the lab are irrefutable. Such properties of substances are confirmed by quantum mechanics and they do not change in the “real world” from what was determined in the laboratory.
V: Certain basic laws may not change, but methods of assessing their impact on the real world over long time periods are fraught with difficulties of the sort you won’t find in any lab.
CC: Likewise for our understanding of thermodynamics. We have the First, Second, Third, and Zeroth LAWS of thermodynamics. How we apply these laws to to greenhouse gas theory is not questioned. Beyond thermodynamics, we also have a thorough understanding of the mechanisms of heat transfer. The how of heat transfer is irrefutable. Stefan-Botzmann Law, Wien’s Displacement Law, Planck’s Law, Fourier’s Law, and Newton’s Law of Cooling are examples. How we apply these laws to greenhouse gas theory is irrefutable. Physical laws are physical laws.
V: Yes, but when we apply these laws to help us understand real world situations, the laws in themselves are not sufficient. If they were, there would be no need for climate science, we could simply base everything on “the physics?” per se and act on that basis alone.
CC: . . . Contrary to Victor’s statements, the result of the application of physics to the greenhouse gas theory has been confirmed through direct observations.
V: Yes. Confirmed under controlled laboratory conditions.
Look, I appreciate your taking the trouble to explain certain technical aspects of this issue in some detail and I am perfectly willing to accept most if not all of what you’ve written. I am not a physicist, but I do know enough about scientific method to know that ANY theory, even the most convincing, can only be confirmed through experiment and/or the assessment of evidence. Well, the climate of the real world can’t be reduced to a laboratory so the possibilities for experiment are very limited. There IS a great deal of evidence out there, but that evidence is extremely difficult, not only to interpret, but even to collect. And the evidence I’ve seen, after years of researching this topic, has raised some very serious questions.
We are informed that there has been a long term rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century, in tandem with a similar long term rise in CO2 levels. But when I examine the many graphs depicting worldwide temperatures during this period I do not see the gradual rise I would expect to see, but more of a roller coaster, some times going up, some times going down and some times leveling off. And as for sea level rise, yes, there has been a gradual rise since the 19th century, but it began some time before fossil fuels became a significant factor and has continued at a more or less steady rate until the present time. According to the most recent study, the expected acceleration of sea level rise was, to the researcher’s embarrassment, not evident in the satellite data, so it was necessary to introduce a fudge factor to make everything come out as expected.
Indeed, the introduction of fudge factors has become a very common practice among certain climate scientists. To explain a steep rise in temperatures early in the 20th century, prior to the period where fossil fuel emissions became a major factor, a relative lack of volcanic activity has been invoked — strange but true. To explain the drop in temps from 1940, aerosols from the burning of fossil fuels have been invoked — also strange, since fossil fuel burning is supposed to be the principal cause of global warming. To explain away the leveling off of temperatures during most of the current century, as compared to the 20 years previous, all sorts of explanations have been offered — a long list of over 50 is currently available via the Internet. Not to mention the most recent effort, based on a “correction” of the data itself. Never mind that this correction has rendered all the other explanations as invalid, since they were supposedly based on inaccurate data.
So no, I’m sorry, but I can’t go along with the notion that certain predictions and/or models based on “the physics” must be accepted as irrefutable. Theories requiring fudge factors introduce the sort of complications that led Occam to formulate his razor. One can’t help but be reminded of the complexities introduced by the epicycles of Earth-centered astronomy.
CC: Naivety is believing that there is some other magical explanation for the current warming trend and that AGW won’t have significant impact on society.
V: There have been a great many warming, and cooling, trends over the entire history of the Earth and if you want to claim you can explain each and every one on the basis of “the physics” forgive me if I’m skeptical.
Victor 192: “Is that literally what he said? It would help to have an exact quote, and a reference.”
If you check my post @ 106, you’ll see that I provided an exact quote and reference.
Here it is again: The Telegraph, Christopher Booker, May 6, 2017. Another Arctic ice panic over as world temperatures plummet. “the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years.”
This statement provides a very good indication of Booker’s understanding of climate science. I’m sorry Victor but I’m not going to waste my time reading anything written by someone with zero credibility on the subject.
I again encourage the moderators to raise the bar on the standard of comments here. Victor is still peddling an ‘essay’ written by a journalist with a record of publishing erroneous statements about climate science in the media.
An analogy would be a forum dedicated to serious discussion about professional hockey considering essays written by somebody who claims Wayne Gretzky was a goalie.
re 199 jb,
PS I have a right to defend myself publicly against false accusations, egregious insults and trolling blather.
When those that do so stop it, my post count will decrease by over 50% immediately. Ball’s in your court.
Here is some basic information on *Self-Control*
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/03/forced-responses-mar-2018/comment-page-2/#comment-696100
Victor 192: “it does seem clear that the steep warming trend over the last 20 years of the 20th century has not been continued into the 21st.”
I just downloaded the Berkeley Earth data for the last 50 years. I suggest you do the same and have a look.
I like Berkeley earth because it is consistent with other records (including RSS and RATPACK 850-300mb) and because Steven Mosher is on the Berkeley team.
Mosher is co-author of “Climategate: The Crutape Letters” so I imagine you might be reluctant to suggest that he may be dealing with some ‘groupthink’ issues.
Turns out that the trends from 1975 to 1998 and from 1998 to 2017 are essentially identical.
Of course, there are shorter intervals with higher and lower trends but so what? For example, the rate of warming over 16 years from 1990 and 2006 was significantly higher than model projections at 0.33 deg C/decade.
This elevated rate of warming was noted by scientists working in the field and in a 2007 paper published in Science (vol 316 4, May 2007) Rahmstorf et al., state that “The first candidate reason is intrinsic variability within the climate system”.
Mr KIA @191
“What is the general methodology used in climate science models to calculate the future rise in temperature due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Mathematically, how do the models work.”
Why dont you buy a book on the subject? Are you poor or something? Heres a list of books, took me three seconds to google:
https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=books+on+climate+modelling&rlz=1C1CHBD_enNZ744NZ744&oq=books+on+climate+modelling&aqs=chrome..69i57.7112j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Arrg – ambiguous sentence in my last post. Just to be clear, the rate of warming between 1990 and 2006 was 0.33 deg C/decade.
“For that, I would recommend the Science of Doom website linked below:”
I wouldn’t recommend the Science of Doom blog, as it’s way too muddled to provide any insight.
Instead, pick up Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate”
A proposed formal categorisation of climate denialists:
The low intelligence denialist.
The intelligent but mental block denialist who just doesn’t think scientifically.
The vested interests denialist worried about job security or money.
The addicted denialist in love with his V8 car
The ideological denialist scared of big government.
The conservative denialsit scpetical of science and the change that comes from science.
The psychological denialist suffering from narcissism attention seeking (pinched that one from Ray Ladbury), dunning kruger, confirmation bias, head in sand syndrome, cognitive bias etcetera.
The religious denialist. God wont let it happen.
The lack of future foresight denialist.
I propose that strong climate denialism requires more than one form of denial. The total level of denialism in an individual is proportional to the number of different denialist attributes they have and the strength of each particular attribute.
Of course my climate denialism rule is approximate. It’s more complicated. Some factors cause climate denialism, and others multiply the effect. But its a start.
Victor the Troll @157.
From what you set out there, I think we can usefully kick Munshi’s non-anthropogenic CO2 increases argument & also his tropical storms argument into the bin marked ‘toxic nonsense’ and his SLR argument will follow close behind them if it is dis-entangled. This perhaps leaves to be explained only my assertion that he employs his own ‘circularity of argument’.
The circularity of argument adopted by his SLR thesis stems from his SLR start point being “Climate models that relate warming to sea level rise by way of ice melt suggest that the appropriate metric is the acceleration of sea level rise.“ and he develops this, almost to the point of saying that identifying acceleration in SLR is being set out by proponents of AGW as fundamental to the establishment of the existence of AGW. (Of course, I see no evidence of such talk within, say, IPCC AR5 SPM or anywhere else for that matter.) He argues that such a thesis includes an error because the SLR may have other causes than AGW. (No actual alternative is described but, for instance, he makes incidental mention of the Little Ice Age.) He then attempts to demonstrate that there is no simple acceleration of SLR and that there is no correlation between SLR and annual FF CO2 emissions (in the process doing a neat job of cherry-picking his data so as not to show that SLR appears to have been pretty-much zero prior to 1800*). However he shies away from a direct conclusion that there is no correlation between AGW & SLR (it would be ill-founded had he done so) instead saying “This relationship may be supported by climate models” but (here the circularity) he then insists that these models only include AGW ‘theory’ so that their use would prove nothing, except Munshi manages to conclude saying ”The validity of the anthropogenic nature of global warming and climate change and that of the effectiveness of proposed measures for climate action may therefore be questioned solely on this basis.”
Of course whether or not a fool like Munshi employs ‘circularity of argument’ is not really at issue. None of this will satisfy you, Victor the Troll. I note the position you set out @158. ”Regardless of whether or not (Munshi) was wrong, his focus is on the nature of the methodologies employed, not the results obtained.” As one who is in denial over AGW (as Munshi also appears to be), to you the idea of AGW being all smoke-&-mirrors does need an explanation and the misuse of the concept ‘circularity of argument’ probably is as good as your misuse a of the concept of Occam’s Razor.
(*His lack of use of the full data from Jevrejava et al (2014) and from Kemp et al (2011) and from Church & White (2011) is not satisfatorily explained, indeed is not explained at all, being not even mentioned.)
Thomas is now wearing his scienciness on his sleeve, branding his recent contributions to the March UV thread as ”AGW/CC Science”. This includes an update of an earlier March UV comment, one which would have been a contender a a useful contribution to the thread (@68) except it was un-referenced and wrong. The update @187 is now referenced (to ChArctic) but still wrong and now doubly so. ChArctic is not the easiest set of data to access numerically but there have been 9 not 6 NSIDC ChArctic days of 2018 which are not Arctic SEI record minimums (and as ‘minimums’ of ‘Sea Ice’ not exactly ”skyrocketry”) the same number as in JAXA SIE (altough since the Thomas comment, the last two days’ JAXA SIE are so so close to the previous record to be probably not meriting the record) with NSIDC tabulated daily SIE showing 13 non-record days. And note this is not ”unprecidented” as such long runs of record-breaking low SIE were longer in 2016, twice.
However, the advice “hold on to your hats” remains as we reach this years maximum (JAXA maximum-so-far set yesterday, 11th March, still 98K sq km inside last years record) and start the melt season.
A later Thomas comment – I can but assume that the 300 words of cherry-picked comment by Thomas @198 is meant as response to the challenge I set @173 to ”justify the 12,900 words he has smeared down this thread.” The five referenced comments are in total not 300 words but 1,500 words-worth of the 9,000 words he inflicted on the January 2018 UV thread (9,000 being 25% of the whole thread). And to the best of my knowledge, January is not March.
Mr Know-It-All @191.
You told us @142 that you ”had some reading to do” and since that time your ”meat” course you set out @62 now grows cold having been shown up-thread to be rather thin on trollish menu options. Now @191 you ask of how climate models operate. CarbonBrief have a post entitled ”How do climate models work”, the first of a series of five posts describing the design, development & output of climate models. So a bit more reading for you.
V 206: CC: . . . Contrary to Victor’s statements, the result of the application of physics to the greenhouse gas theory has been confirmed through direct observations.
V: Yes. Confirmed under controlled laboratory conditions.
BPL: No, confirmed by direct observation of the environment. Back-radiation has increased in just the absorption lines of greenhouse gases. That’s the absolute smoking gun, of all the six or so smoking guns that confirm AGW. Here are some references:
Evans, W.F.J., and E. Puckrin 2006. “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate.” 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change, P1.7
“The earth’s climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth’s surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
Philipona, R., B. Du”rr, C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild 2004. “Radiative Forcing–Measured at Earth’s Surface–Corroborate the Increasing Greenhouse Effect.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L03202
“…Here we show that atmospheric longwave downward radiation significantly increased (+5.2(2.2) Wm 2) partly due to increased cloud amount (+1.0(2.8) Wm 2) over eight years of measurements at eight radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase (+4.2(1.9) Wm 2) to be in due proportion with temperature (+0.82(0.41) C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m 3) increases, but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm 2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.”
So stop saying it’s “only in the laboratory,” Victor.
TH 208: Here is some basic information on *Self-Control*
BPL: He did it again! Physician, heal thyself.
#192, #209–
I certainly do not see any real sign of a meaningful 21st century decrease in warming rate.
For example, a while back I made this graph to visualize the difference between the behaviors of the temperature record during the last 50 years, and during 50 years of the 19th century. It uses the HadCRU data (version 4), and shows both the anomaly values and a retrospective 10-year mean as a smooth (an unusual choice, I know, but I had my reasons).
http://s1108.photobucket.com/user/brassdoc/media/Early%20vs.%20modern%20HadCRUT4%20raw%20%2010-year%20retrospective.png.html?o=2
Now, it’s true that if you compare the red smoothed line to the linear trend line for the period, you see that the last few years of the previous century are slightly above it, while the most recent years are slightly below. Presumably this difference is what Victor is looking at. But what does it mean, if anything?
The deviation has pretty much closed up by 2017 (despite the timelag induced by the retrospective mean methodology), and one can also see a pretty comparable deviation back in the early 1990s which turned out to mean exactly nothing in terms of the long term.
Moreover, much larger deviations are visible in the 19th century curve. (Not surprisingly in one respect at least–there were several large volcanic eruptions during that period, famously including Krakatoa.) Just for fun, compare Crowley and Unterman (2013) volcanic aerosol data, which I graphed here:
http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h402/brassdoc/Volcanic%20aerosol%20annual%20values.png
The data is taken from here:
https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/volcanic_aerosols/crowley2013/crowley2013aod-reff.txt
All of which is to say that there’s little if any reason to expect the latest couple of ‘wobbles’ to be any more meaningful than the ‘slowdown’ in the early 90s turned out to be.
Victor 206: “We are informed that there has been a long term rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century, in tandem with a similar long term rise in CO2 levels. But when I examine the many graphs depicting worldwide temperatures during this period I do not see the gradual rise I would expect to see, but more of a roller coaster, some times going up, some times going down and some times leveling off.”
This is precisely what is expected of a noisy system responding to an added forcing – the added forcing will not make the variability go away.
Try plotting the Berkeley Earth annual temperature data against Mauna Loa CO2 and you’ll see a robust correlation.
Victor 206:
“CC: . . . Contrary to Victor’s statements, the result of the application of physics to the greenhouse gas theory has been confirmed through direct observations.
V: Yes. Confirmed under controlled laboratory conditions.”
CC is right – confirmed through direct observations. See for example Feldman et al., 2015 (Nature vol 519. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010).
Victor 206: In this post you firstly claim that the temperature records are inaccurate and “fraught with tremendous difficulties” and a few sentences later you state with confidence that there has been a “leveling off of temperatures during most of the current century”.
I’m not a psychologist but I imagine that mitigating the cognitive disonance of holding both of these ideas simultaneously in one brain requires a pattern of
reasoning that is supported by more than just a bit of motivation. My limited understanding is that motivated reasoning is a common identity-protective mechanism linked with ‘groupthink’ issues.
Victor 206: “There have been a great many warming, and cooling, trends over the entire history of the Earth and if you want to claim you can explain each and every one on the basis of “the physics” forgive me if I’m skeptical.”
OK Victor, if not physics, what would you go with then?
210 – nigelj
There may be books describing the actual way the temperature rise is calculated in the CC models, but I don’t know which book that would be. There are many books on the general topic of CC which say things like “CO2 prevents IR radiation from the surface of the earth from escaping to space”, and talking about effects of increased temperature like SLR, drought, famine, etc. I’m not interested in that.
I want to know generally what is the math used in the models. These models I think are the basis of the CC argument – surely, someone on this website can give a general description of the math used in a couple short paragraphs? OR provide a link to such a description. Believe it or not, if you can explain how it works with math you might convert some skeptics.
209 Mel Reasoner says:
MR: I just downloaded the Berkeley Earth data for the last 50 years. I suggest you do the same and have a look. . . Turns out that the trends from 1975 to 1998 and from 1998 to 2017 are essentially identical.
V: Including 2016 is misleading, since we had an unusually extreme El Nino event that year. One time events such as that mean little when assessing long term trends. Based on results up to the beginning of 2015 (thus excluding any part of the El Nino), gleaned from the Skeptical Science trend calculator (https://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php), here’s what I found:
Berkeley:
1975-1999 trend is: .181
1999 -2015 trend is: .105
UAH6:
1975-1999 trend is: .164
1998-2015 trend is: -.039
RSS 4:
1975-1999: .168
1998-2015 .018
GISTEMP:
1975-1999: .182
1998-2015: .109
HADCRUT 4:
1975-1999: .189
1998-2015: .112
Since it looks as though the calculator takes us from the beginning of the first year to the beginning of the last year, I chose 1999 to include all of 1998 — the year you chose as the limit.
Victor @206
Your assessment is still wrong. And I’d like to know who in particular of any credibility agrees with your assessment.
The physics behind climate change is well understood. You make all kinds of claims that it is too complex, but that does not make your claims true. Physics is physics. And you can spout your nonsense ad infinitum and it will still not be true. The climate must conform to the known laws of physics.
NO, we are talking about how the anthropogenic addition of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will effect global temperatures and hence climate. No matter how complex *climate* is, it is the energy balance of the earth system that determines temperatures and those temperatures in turn determine climate. The physics and factors behind what drives the energy balance of the earth are well understood. Some of the details of how the change in heat is redistributed and how long the system will take to regain energy equilibrium in response to changes may be complex, but that does not mean that we cannot predict the long term warming or cooling resulting in changes in the drivers of thermal equilibrium. That’s physics. Greenhouse gases and solar irradiance play the most important roles in the energy balance of the planet. You cannot discuss climate without discussing greenhouse gases. Changes in CO2 levels change the energy balance and those changes can be determined through physics. Again, a doubling of CO2 will result in a minimum of 2 degrees of warming and your claims of climate complexity does not change that reality.
Measuring the temperature of the entire Earth at any given time is easy enough to show that the planet is warming. Satellite altimetry along with tide gauges are good enough to show us seas are rising. Sea ice extent measurements by satellites are good enough to tell us that the ice is declining. Satellite gravimetric analysis along with direct observations are enough to tell us glaciers are declining. Although I disagree with your assessment, regardless, we know the earth is warming, we know sea levels are rising, we know ice is melting, we know CO2 causes warming. You want to wallow in the mud of *climate is complex* therefore the science isn’t settled, but the complexity does not change the basic facts–it is warming, CO2 causes warming.
The laws of physics are the laws of physics. The climate system must conform to the laws of physics regardless of our ability to assess and observe their application in the real world. Changing the energy imbalance of the planetary system by inhibiting the escape of radiant heat to space WILL result in warming, no matter whether or not you can observe it accurately.
Only in certain cases where our observations are not sufficient to define the initial state of the system we are attempting to understand. The system still must conform to the physical laws and any hypothesis used to explain the phenomena we are studying must conform. Physical laws narrow the possibilities.
And by real world surface measurements and satellite observations.
The serious questions raised by you are due to your ignorance of the science. There is significant evidence ignored by you. Some of the evidence may be difficult to collect and to interpret, but much isn’t. Probably most of what you call difficult isn’t, it is just part of your bias. The complexity of the climate system does not mean we cannot understand what drives the temperatures of the planetary system because we do. It is based on physical laws.
Just a rehash of items you’ve posted before that have been thoroughly discussed and explained. Your interpretation of graphs is amateurish at best to the point of being laughable.
Acceleration of sea level rise is well documented. I suggest you do more research.
Again, your interpretation of the early 20th century and the explanations was shown to be inaccurate, but you keep rehashing the same garbage. I suggest you go back and reread my posts on the subject. Your incredulousness is only a sign of ignorance. When are you going to attempt to understand the science and the physics? Apparently you are not capable.
As for the so called pause, if the warming in that period did not conform to what was expected through known science, then scientists would be expected to propose reasons. That is how science works. Those explanations would have to stand on their own merits like any science, some becoming accepted and some thrown in the trash bin. The fact is, it is still warming, pause or no pause.
The physics of greenhouse gas law is irrefutable and the changes in the radiative profile resulting in thermal imbalance has been measured. The result of that imbalance will be heating. That’s irrefutable. If CO2 levels continue to rise, that heating will continue. The rest is window dressing. Your denial will not change that physical reality.
If not physics what then? Magic?
WORLD RECORD ESRL CO2 PPMV Weekly Readings
1st 2017 5 14 2017.3658 410.36
2nd 2017 5 21 2017.3849 409.96
3rd 2017 4 23 2017.3082 409.92
4th 2018 3 4 2018.1712 409.84
5th 2017 6 4 2017.4233 409.65
6th 2017 4 16 2017.2890 409.61
Remember, folks, Victor comes here for help knocking the bizarre rough edges off his claims, to make them sound more sciency.
Then he can go and post them elsewhere — remember, there’s a credulous audience willing to be fooled.
Heck, he could be elected President based on his performance.
229 Hank Roberts says:
“Remember, folks, Victor comes here for help knocking the bizarre rough edges off his claims, to make them sound more sciency.
Then he can go and post them elsewhere — remember, there’s a credulous audience willing to be fooled.
Heck, he could be elected President based on his performance.”
LOL. You got me. I confess. The Russians made me do it. :-)
jgnfld@194
Thank you for the response, but I think you’re missing the essence of my question. (I also assume that this is almost entirely my fault for not being clearer in posing it.)
The number of stations needed is not merely a statistical argument but also depends on the underlying physical situation. To see this, consider a thought experiment where you only have two choices (A or B) for a thermometer location.
Now produce some peculiar climate change where A consistently warms by 1C per century while B cools by exactly the same amount. It’s pretty clear that you need both A and B to get a valid global result. Reducing to just one station would be plausible from a purely statistical sampling argument, but in this case the reality would not match your assumptions about dependence and the result you got would be wildly wrong.
On earth for example, ocean measurements are not going to change the same way that Arctic land or tropical land measurements will, and it would seem dubious (to me at least) to presume that all of them would change in lockstep, especially since we know the poles heat faster.
Given that hand-waving argument, I felt out of my depth to presume to make a purely statistical argument as you did, and was asking for an opinion from someone “in the know” about climate data with all its warts and idiosyncrasies.
Victor 226: “Including 2016 is misleading, since we had an unusually extreme El Nino event that year…. Based on results up to the beginning of 2015…”
You can’t exclude 2015 and 2016 just because you don’t like the numbers. One could also argue that it would be misleading to include 2010-2012 because they were the strongest La Nina years since 1975. No?
The data is not misleading – it is what it is.
It is abundantly clear that the rise in temperature over the last 50 years has not been monotonic and there is no reason to expect it to have been. There have been relatively short periods where the warming rates have exceeded the long-term trend (e.g. 1990-2006) and there have been relatively short periods where the rates have been below the long-term trend (e.g 1999-2015). Again, so what? That’s the variability.
It seems that you really, really, really want the 1999-2015 interval of slower warming to be significant and are happy to ignore the 1990-2006 interval of more rapid warming.
Victor 226: “One time events such as that mean little when assessing long term trends.”
You must be aware that for the better part of a decade we had to endure a seemingly endless parade fake skeptics claiming that there has been no global warming since 1998 and they cherry-picked 1998 as the starting point because it was an extreme El Nino year and if chosen as the starting point you would get a lower trend in subsequent years and now you want to exclude the El Nino years of 2015 & 2016 because they increase the rate of warming during the so-called pause? Really?
MR KIA @225
I gave you a list of books specifically on the maths used in the models!
I know what you want. How do we get from the absorption of a certain quantity of energy by CO2 to how this causes a certain increment of temperature rise and the related maths.This intrgues me as well, but is complicated stuff, that probably cannot be reduced to a couple of paragraphs. Its not a case of a+b=c because there are numerous factors and feedbacks. The earth warms more than expected if you calculate the effect of the sun, and this is part of the basis of it.
BPL might know of a very brief maths description. If anyone would he would. I would be interested myself.
However for a relatively simple model used to predict temperatures just read the original paper by Arrhenius below. Its still pages long and has all the maths.
Im not a climate scientist, and I can only get a rough idea of what hes doing I admit. As you can see its specialised, and its not just the maths you need specific understanding of advanced atmospheric physics. I have done some basic meterology but not atmospheric physics.
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Victor @226
Sorry but you dont get to exclude a year or two years data when computing a trend. The very idea of a trend is based on using all the available data. This shows your fundamental lack of ability to understand how basic science works, as I have pointed out several times. You have to use all the years, warm or cool, el nino, la nina, xyz,abc.
What Victor and KIA cant seem to work out is Arrhenius modeled climate change right back in 1895 before CO2 had significantly increased and did the maths and predicted about 1 degree c over the 20th century. We have already seen 1 degree and counting. Do you sceptics seriously think he got lucky or something?
The guy was a theoretical chemist who spent a year doing the calculations. The best single test of any theory is its ability to make long term predictions. Arrenhius has been proven right in essence, and so his work alone is strong proof of agw theory and it has been vastly refined since then. Wake up!
Victor @226
Then why do proponents of *the pause* start with an extreme el Niño event, but not end with one?
Why not compare the 1998-1999 el Niño to the recent el Niño?
Why not include 2017 which was not an el Niño year in your analysis?
If you throw out the last el Niño in your trend study shouldn’t you throw out all el Niños?
How about La Niñas?
Nigel,
I published an article on estimating planet surface temperatures in Advances in Space Research in 2011. It’s available on-line:
http://saspcsus.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/64696386/planet%20temperatures%20with%20surface%20cooling%20parameterized.pdf
In brief, I start with the Milne-Eddington approximation, which relates surface and radiative equilibrium temperatures through the longwave optical thickness of the atmosphere:
Ts = Te (1 + 0.75 tau)^0.25
For Earth, Te = 255 K and tau is about 1.85, which leads to Ts = 317 K, way too high. This is because other processes are at work which cool the surface at the expense of the atmosphere, mostly latent heat (evaporation of seawater and surface water from animals and plants), but also pure convection and a small amount due to conduction.
Better estimates are made with radiative-convective models, which are column models–they divided the atmosphere up into several stacked layers, plus a layer of ground, and then use band methods to estimate the influence of assorted greenhouse gases. A “convective adjustment” takes care of the cooling issues.
The big global climate models usually use parameterizations obtained from the RCMs, or simplified column models of their own. Gavin or somebody can correct me on that if I’ve got it wrong. I’ve only ever written semigray models and RCMs.
#227, CCHolley–
A good reponse. For me, it served to point up the following irony:
Victor on climate:
“Really, really difficult. Tremendously complex! Fraught with difficulty!”
Victor on climate models:
“Too complicated! Fudge factors! Occam!”
If one is interested in an unbiased measure of a physical property, randomly selected measurement sites are the best statistical way to go. It introduces no bias even with an N of 1. One needn’t have complete coverage either. You may be falling for the old “how can 1800 people give a good national polling estimate” canard. The fact is, with random selection they very well can. Random sampling actually DOES measure the underlying situation. The only caveat is that if the underlying situation is highly variable, then more sites will be needed to bring the standard errors down in order to be able to see the signal within the noise.
Barring random selection of sites, setting up a complete grid that samples all subareas equally will be unbiased as well.
The situation with temp series is intermediate. People and stations are neither randomly placed nor do stations comprise an equal area grid. (BTW: This is equally true of the satellite series which are affected by such things as time of day, latitude, and mountains.) Such issues do, in fact introduce bias and scientists have spent immense amounts of time on the problem (see reference to Jones, Osborn, & Briffa linked in item #194 above for a goodly amount of info).
@233
You forget the cardinal strategy of denierism: Cherrypicked factoids are only allowed when they support denial.
Starting a series at a strong el Nino year is perfectly fair if one wants to show a “pause”. Ending a series at a strong el Nino is “cheating” if one want to show there is an upward trend.
Last Week
March 4 – 10, 2018 409.84 ppm
March 4 – 10, 2017 406.56 ppm
spikey week, noisy number. Imagine a scenario where we might have a spikey number that shows a lower number in current year in comparison to past year. Boy, that would be a welcome sight.
Cheers
Mike
Thomas @228,
Your title “WORLD RECORD ESRL CO2 PPMV Weekly Readings” is not the best of choices. As a for-instance, the ESRL CO2 readings for Barrow Alaska are currently provided to end-2016, a year which saw the annual cycle with a weekly-reading peak in May at 410.52ppm (w/e 14/5/16), a value which exceeds your 410.36ppm 1st-place record MLO readings. Of course, the May value at Barrow will have subsequently been topped by the May peak of 2017 and indeed is already shown topped by the final week of 2016 (w/e 31/12/16) which yields a value of 411.24ppm. So the May 2017 peak week at Barrow would be perhaps 413ppm and almost certainly now exceeded by early 2018 values.
Well good. Looks like our discussion has morphed from the insults and ad hominems typical of group think to a serious treatment of scientific issues, centering on the physics of climate change. I welcome this development, which makes things much more interesting, despite the very real challenges it poses. But before I get into a consideration of “the physics” I’d like to address some relatively minor points.
203 Hank Roberts says:
“Victor scores ten points!
V 158: The so-called “physics of climate change” is purely theoretical.
HR: 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is “only a theory”, as if this were somehow a point against it.”
Darwin’s theory of evolution has been dismissed as “only a theory” and this seems to be the context in which my statement is being evaluated. Well, I have news for you Hank. The current mainstream theory of climate change (aka AGW) is very far from being in the same league as Darwinian evolution and it is pretentious to claim otherwise. The basic concepts behind Darwin’s thinking have been tested and verified time and again over a very long period indeed, and no serious scientist doubts their validity. That is NOT true of AGW, where many perfectly legitimate doubts as to its viability have been raised by many highly trained and respected scientists. As they see it, and as I see it, AGW remains “only a theory.”
223 Mel Reasoner says:
MR: Victor 206: In this post you firstly claim that the temperature records are inaccurate and “fraught with tremendous difficulties” and a few sentences later you state with confidence that there has been a “leveling off of temperatures during most of the current century”.
V: I see no contradiction, Mel. It should go without saying that the leveling off to which I referred is based on data that’s been accepted by many mainstream climate scientists, despite the “tremendous difficulties” in collecting and verifying such data that are, in fact, widely acknowledged.
224 Mel Reasoner says:
Victor 206: “There have been a great many warming, and cooling, trends over the entire history of the Earth and if you want to claim you can explain each and every one on the basis of “the physics” forgive me if I’m skeptical.”
Mr: OK Victor, if not physics, what would you go with then?
V: Contingency.
232mMel Reasoner says:
Victor 226: “Including 2016 is misleading, since we had an unusually extreme El Nino event that year…. Based on results up to the beginning of 2015…”
MR: You can’t exclude 2015 and 2016 just because you don’t like the numbers. One could also argue that it would be misleading to include 2010-2012 because they were the strongest La Nina years since 1975. No?
V: By the same token, you should not insist on including 2015 and 2016 simply because they produce the trend you are looking for. Without them there is no such trend.
MR: It is abundantly clear that the rise in temperature over the last 50 years has not been monotonic and there is no reason to expect it to have been. There have been relatively short periods where the warming rates have exceeded the long-term trend (e.g. 1990-2006) and there have been relatively short periods where the rates have been below the long-term trend (e.g 1999-2015). Again, so what? That’s the variability.
It seems that you really, really, really want the 1999-2015 interval of slower warming to be significant and are happy to ignore the 1990-2006 interval of more rapid warming.
V: Bottom line: as should be evident from our exchange, there is no way to establish a trend of any kind without a certain amount of cherry picking. The fact that the choice of endpoints can make such a difference is in itself a strong argument against the validity of a strictly statistical approach.
233 Mel Reasoner says:
Victor 226: “One time events such as that mean little when assessing long term trends.”
MR: You must be aware that for the better part of a decade we had to endure a seemingly endless parade fake skeptics claiming that there has been no global warming since 1998 and they cherry-picked 1998 as the starting point because it was an extreme El Nino year and if chosen as the starting point you would get a lower trend in subsequent years and now you want to exclude the El Nino years of 2015 & 2016 because they increase the rate of warming during the so-called pause? Really?
V: 1998 was the year YOU chose, which is why I used it. You are free to choose some other year if you like — but the real problem lies with the notion of a statistically determined trend, which will always be dependent on pre-selected endpoints which can so easily be chosen to produce a given result.
235 nigelj says:
Victor @226
nj: Sorry but you dont get to exclude a year or two years data when computing a trend. The very idea of a trend is based on using all the available data. This shows your fundamental lack of ability to understand how basic science works, as I have pointed out several times. You have to use all the years, warm or cool, el nino, la nina, xyz,abc.
V: Well, what do you mean by “all the years”? Beginning when, with the Big Bang? Ending with the apocalypse? In every case, endpoints must be chosen and different endpoints will invariably produce different results.
218 Barton Paul Levenson says:
V 206: CC: . . . Contrary to Victor’s statements, the result of the application of physics to the greenhouse gas theory has been confirmed through direct observations.
V: Yes. Confirmed under controlled laboratory conditions.
BPL: No, confirmed by direct observation of the environment. Back-radiation has increased in just the absorption lines of greenhouse gases. That’s the absolute smoking gun, of all the six or so smoking guns that confirm AGW. Here are some references:
V: OK, thank you very much, BPL, for taking the trouble to track down these very interesting references and provide some useful quotations. I’m not a physicist (are you?) so not in a position to evaluate any of this as physics per se, but it is certainly well worth considering. Before doing so, however, let me backtrack a bit:
V: Yes. Confirmed under controlled laboratory conditions.
BPL: No, confirmed by direct observation of the environment.
V: I’m not a physicist but I have been active in other branches of science and I do think I know something about scientific method. So, with all due respect, I must insist that there is no such thing as “direct observation of the environment.” Observations conducted in the field require special equipment and also protocols for interpreting the interaction between that equipment and the objects under study, protocols that are often far from obvious and possibly erroneous. Nor are observations drawn from the study of the real-world environment, where conditions may vary greatly from one observation to the next, subject to the sort of controls readily available in the laboratory.
Now as far as your references are concerned, naturally I am in no position to evaluate the physics involved, but I could not help but notice that the bottom line in each case seems a bit equivocal:
“This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
Looks suspiciously like a straw man. I don’t know of any skeptics who would argue that there is no such connection. It’s the degree to which the connection matters where the disagreement lies.
“However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm 2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.”
Again, no one doubts that radiative forcing is at work in the atmosphere and it’s the DEGREE of enhancement that’s at issue.
My impression, which could be totally off base, is that it’s been much easier to demonstrate the fact that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 have a warming effect than to establish the degree to which that warming effect makes a difference, both in determining the temperature of the Earth and producing conditions that could become dangerous at some future date. From what I’ve read, a great deal hangs on the interpretation, and significance, of various feedbacks, both positive and negative, a topic that would appear to be highly debatable. The clearest discussion of climate feedbacks that I’ve been able to find is this paper by Gerard Roe: http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Publications/Roe_FeedbacksRev_08.pdf
An excerpt:
“When the net feedbacks are substantially negative, the system response to a forcing can be well characterized even though the individual feedbacks may be quite uncertain. However, when the net feedbacks are substantially positive, a high degree of uncertainty in the system response is inevitable as a fundamental and inescapable consequence of the amplification by the system dynamics . . . Unfortunately, it is often the positive feedback systems (i.e., a large response for a small forcing) that are of most interest both scientifically and societally. In these cases, the most important implication is that, rather than trying to solve for the specific system response to a given forcing, it may be that characterizing the feedbacks and their uncertainties is the better and more tractable scientific goal.”
KM at 202: Yes, I believe that the UK reports are probably true as you suggest. I meant/hoped to be clear that in the sense of providing a happy news story and a not-so-happy news story, that there was no significant equivalence between the story of UK falling emissions and the story of continuing rise in CO2 and CO2e.
I am routinely dismissive of the falling emission reports because the reductions are so inadequate as to be trivial when compared to the changes that we need to make to stop the rise of CO2(e) in the atmosphere and oceans.
It’s like the 97% versus 3% of scientists story on AGW. If you carry one newsy story from each group, you get a sense that there is a lot of wiggle room, if you carry 97 AGW stories and 3 stories disputing AGW, then you have produced a journal that is more representative and informative about our situation. Falling emission reports are of no interest to me unless they are linked to data/timelines etc. when we should be able to see the falling emissions translate into falling levels of CO2 in ocean and atmosphere.
Otherwise, they are kind of like reports from the guy who fell off a 100 story building: passing the 90th story, great view, so far so good.
Trolls are getting fattened nicely at Real Climate these days.
Warm regards,
Mike
231
James McDonald says:
“The number of stations needed is not merely a statistical argument.”
1000% Wrong. You need to be silent and listen James.
Statistics are also the ONLY thing used to determine which stations are included in the shortlist.
K McKinney @239 regarding Victor. Cognitive dissonance, together with lack of self awareness / self analysis to pick this up.
BPL @238, thanks, appreciated.
Now that the nth. hemisphere winter chill and freezing season is nearly over, it might be a good time to look at the 180-day global temperature anomaly:
Fri Sept 15 2017 through to Tues March 13 2018
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2141.0;attach=98271;image