The ground is not the sky
Here’s a big big flaw that is easy for anyone to understand, yet has lain at the core of the climate models since at least 1984. Indeed, you’ll wonder why we all haven’t been chuckling at this simplistic caricature of our atmosphere for 31 years.
The theory underlying the alarm about CO2 is built around a bizarre idea that blocking outgoing energy in the CO2 pipe is equivalent to getting an increase in sunlight. The very architecture of all the mainstream climate models assumes that the Earth’s climate responds to all radiation imbalances or “forcings” as if they were all like extra sunlight. (We call that extra absorbed solar radiation (ASR) to be more precise. It’s all about the sunlight that makes it through to the surface.)
Extra sunlight adds heat directly to the Earth’s surface, and maybe the climate models have correctly estimated the feedbacks from clouds and evaporation and what-not to surface warming. But it is obvious, in a way even a child could comprehend, that this is not the same as blocking outgoing radiation in the upper atmosphere, which is the effect of increasing CO2. Why would the Earth’s climate respond to this in an identical way? Why would we think that evaporation, humidity, winds and clouds would all change in the same direction and by the same magnitude, whether the warming occurred by adding heat to the ground or by blocking heat from escaping to space from the upper atmosphere?
Computation diagrams like this expose the architecture of climate models much better than a bunch of equations.
The climate modelers have viewed Earth as a baby-simple energy-in energy-out diagram — but in reality, for starters, there is one path in, and four main paths out. Blocking the one solo path that energy comes in on is not the same as blocking one of the four exits, where energy escaping to space can reroute and flow out a different pipe. This is not a symmetric or reversible flow. Also, the energy flowing out is at different wavelengths to the energy flowing in; they don’t have the same effect as they travel through the air.
In short, the ground is not the sky, yet conventional climate models treat warming on the ground as the same as blocking outgoing radiation in the sky — they say they have cause the same radiation imbalance, so they have the same “forcing”, so they have the same effect.
Establishment scientists have been touting this simplicity as a feature for years, e.g. right in the abstract of James Hansen’s landmark 1984 paper
“Our 3-D global climate model yields a warming of 4°C for either a 2 percent increase of [total solar irradiance] or doubled C02.”
And on page 138:
The patterns of temperature change are remarkably similar in the [total solar irradiance] and C02 experiments [i.e. the answers his models give him], suggesting that the climate response is to first order a function of the magnitude of the radiative forcing. The only major difference is in the temperature change as a function of altitude; increased C02 causes substantial stratospheric cooling [due to sunlight on the way in interacting with ozone]. This similarity suggests that, to first order, the climate effect due to several forcings including various tropospheric trace gases may be a simple function of the total forcing.
This is Hansen saying that experiments based on his computer models show extra sunlight and extra CO2 have the same effect (once the effect of incoming sunlight on ozone is stripped out). His models are based on the basic climate model, which treats all forcings the same. It’s circular all the way down.
This over-simplification is the inevitable result of an architecture based only on a simple radiation balance. There is more to the climate than balancing radiation! Any radiation imbalance, no matter what the source, has the same effect in the conventional basic climate model, including all the feedbacks to the imbalance (and its very nearly the same in the GCMs; the differences are second order). If some climate phenomenon (such as the rerouting feedback of post 7) isn’t a response to sunlight then it does not — cannot — exist in the conventional basic climate model, and basically doesn’t exist in a GCM.
Because of this architecture, the models keep making predictions that don’t work. Modelers are so sure that this is “basic physics” and the models are right that they assume the equipment needs correction — but really it is the models that need rebuilding. What’s more likely, the models are right, or all the radiosondes, satellites, Argo buoys, and ground thermometers need adjustment in the same direction?
Years from now people will wonder how such a simple mistake could have diverted so many lives and so much money — Jo
9. Error 3: All Radiation Imbalances Treated the Same
Dr David Evans, 4 October 2015, Project home, Intro, Previous, Nomenclature.
We call the response of a climate model to increased absorbed solar radiation (ASR) its “solar response”. Due to its architecture, the conventional basic climate model applies its solar response to the radiation imbalance caused by any influence on climate, even a radiation imbalance due to increased CO2 — one size fits all. This causes clashes with certain physical realities, which we explore in this post with the dual aim of developing a more realistic model for estimating sensitivity to increased CO2.
While no model is perfectly realistic, these clashes are sufficiently severe as to make it difficult to take the conventional architecture seriously. This architecture, based only on a radiation balance, is the foundation for both the basic climate model and the big computerized climate models (GCMs). Something more than a radiation balance is going to be required to more realistically model the effect of increased CO2.
Increased ASR primarily heats the surface, which could explain why the conventional model neglects feedbacks other than to surface warming (post 5), thereby excluding the possibility of a CO2-specific feedback such as the rerouting feedback (post 7). The conventional model considers only forcings (radiation imbalances due to influences on climate) and “feedbacks” (but only in response to surface warming), so it has a blindspot for feedbacks other than in response to surface warming. Due to the possibility of CO2-specific feedbacks that do not apply to increased ASR, climate model obviously needs a specific response to increased CO2. There is no place for a CO2 response distinct from the solar response in the conventional architecture, but there is in the alternative model developed later in the series.
Following the conventional architecture, the GCMs apply the solar response to all radiation balances to first order, where as we argue that the actual response to increasing CO2 is very different from the solar response.
Good news, a spot of media coverage.
Perth Edition, The Sunday Times
Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate
A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says…
The series of posts flows under the tag: “Climate Research 2015″
Australians have voted against a carbon tax twice. Liberals threw out Turnbull over the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in 2009, yet here he is, barely leader for two weeks and already they are floating a timeframe for the introduction of emissions trading.
I did warn that the Turnbull agreement with the Nationals to keep Tony Abbott’s climate policies means almost nothing. It’s easy for him to keep the “target” and shift towards an Emissions Trading scheme (ETS) and he and Greg Hunt are suggesting that already.
Indeed, some of the fine print Turnbull probably wanted was already written in Abbott’s plan. Thanks to Al Gore and Clive Palmer, the possibility of emissions trading was left in the Direct Action legislation.Why else would Gore fly out here to stand next to a coal miner? And what did he offer Clive in return we wonder? Suddenly, Palmer demanded an ETS for his vote, but finally settled for a clause saying an ETS should be “reviewed” if our main trading partners brought one in. So Turnbull can technically keep the Abbott “plan” but entirely break the spirit of it. The Nationals (and 54 pro-Turnbull Liberals) will look like fools if they have inadvertently given a green light to force Australians to pour money into corrupt pointless foreign carbon trading schemes. It’s money for nothing. The EU will get to decide how much a carbon credit (and your electricity) costs in Australia.
Our main trading partners — like China — are bringing in token trading plans. China is going to keep increasing emissions for at least ten to fifteen years (which it was always going to do). But these symbolic plans are enough for Turnbull to pretend that bringing in an emissions trading scheme is what the Abbott plan does, and what Australian voters “want”.
Australians have voted against a carbon tax twice. Liberals threw out Turnbull over the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in 2009, yet here he is, barely leader for two weeks and already they are floating a timeframe for the introduction of emissions trading.
A forced payment to a “trading scheme” is a kind of tax, and it’s the worst kind where the money goes direct to financial houses rather than the government, creating long-lived commitments that are expensive or difficult to get rid of.
From the Australian Fin Review last weekend:
The purchase of international permits could start as early as mid-2016 with the introduction of the government’s safeguard mechanism regulations for the top 140 biggest polluters. Andrew Meare
Mr Hunt said “the door was open” for international permits to be considered as part of a 2017-18 review of the emissions reduction fund and safeguards.”
The Turnbull government is considering fast-tracking a scheme to allow big emitters of carbon to buy international permits to offset their emissions.
This is the strategic door left open by Clive Palmer when Al Gore came in June 2014:
The Abbott government left the door open for review of the purchase of international permits in 2017-18 as part of its Direct Action scheme to tackle climate change.
But the departure of Tony Abbott – who was not a fan of international permits – has cleared the way for a reshaping of the federal government’s climate change policies including bringing forward the date for the purchase of permits as well as the survival of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
The purchase of international permits could start as early as mid-2016 with the introduction of the government’s safeguard mechanism regulations for the top 140 biggest polluters.
Under the possible changes, international permits could also be used by companies in the $2.5 billion Emissions Reduction Fund to meet their obligations. That option was supported by Environment Minister Greg Hunt when the fund was first proposed and blocked by Mr Abbott.
There has been no direct discussion about the international permits being moved forward, but it is strong possibility given the support for the scheme, including from Mr Hunt and senior Nationals MPs.
But the review will be carried out by the Climate Change Authority, and we can guess what they will say. It will be the excuse. Abbott stymied Palmer (and Gore) as much as he could, but the door was still left open. An ETS was not ruled out.
From October 2014:
Wednesday’s deal also represents a concession by Mr Palmer because he has secured no commitment to adopt an ETS even if the review finds one is required to meet Australia’s international obligations.
Fairfax Media first revealed on Sunday that an agreement was imminent after Mr Palmer appeared to soften his position by calling for a review of an ETS, rather than a straight commitment.
Here’s a detail we need to pay attention too in the Fin Review last weekend:
Under the Coalition’s safeguard mechanism policy – which is supposed to stop rogue emitters from negating reductions in other parts of the economy – companies will be penalised for exceeding emissions baselines. The purchase of international permits would allow them to offset any potential rise in their emissions.
Hunt said there has been “no decision” or even a discussion on bringing in international permits. The second auction for the Direct Action plan happens next month.
Keep your eyes on the “Safeguard mechanism”…
This may force some of our companies (and hence Australian consumers or stockholders) to buy emissions permits:
Some have criticised the federal government’s carbon rules as “all gums, no teeth”, which would allow big polluters to increase their emissions without penalty. They said the emissions baselines should be lowered to force companies to change their behaviour and cut emissions.
A study by Melbourne-based carbon consultancy RepuTex in August found that only 30 of the largest 150 polluters will be required to reduce their carbon emissions under the existing safeguard mechanism rules.
The “Safeguard Mechanism” is a basis for an ETS, it gave hope to Alan Pears, Sustainable Energy and Climate researcher at RMIT, Nov 4, 2014:
The fine print on Xenophon’s proposed “safeguard” mechanism to prevent emissions blowouts under the Direct Action scheme will be critical. If this is weak, as envisioned by the government, we are wasting time we no longer have. If an effective framework is introduced, it could form a basis for a “baseline and credit” emissions trading scheme, which could be run by industry if the government doesn’t want to be accused of a backflip, having promised never to return to what it views as the dark days of carbon pricing.
Sadly, Pears resorts to namecalling in the rest of his confused article, but then, if CO2 has a minor role, he doesn’t have a job.
Greg Hunt has been given the role of “greening cities” and working with state and local government
The ICLEI and Agenda 21 people will like the direction this is going.
The new government has beefed-up Mr Hunt’s responsibilities ahead of crucial international climate talks in Paris later this year.
Although Mr Hunt, a Victorian, backed Mr Abbott in last week’s leadership ballot, he has emerged from the cabinet reshuffle with greater powers, including overall responsibility for the new Cities and Built Environment portfolios being taken on by junior minister Jamie Briggs.
The yet-to-be-finalised cities agenda is expected to focus on long-term planning for cities up to 2050, transport – including a greater focus on public transport and road design to deal with congestion – and the “greening” of cities.
The new role is expected to involve close cooperation with state and local governments …
Read more: Australian Fin Review (paywalled).
…. Grand Final game in Australia today.
Psychological projection anyone?
Remember how some climate scientists wanted to give up debating science and potentially jail skeptics instead? These were the 20 “scientists” who reasoned by looking for “tobacco tactics” in opponent’s arguments. They called for a RICO investigation — a the kind of racketeering investigation done on the mafia. I pointed out their team used more “tobacco tactics” against skeptics than anything the skeptics did, but looks like that may have been only the minor part of their projection of their own flaws.
It turns out that the scientist driving the letter, along with his wife and daughter, has made over $5m above his university salary, and now questions are being raised in Congress about his “double dipping”. The National Science Foundation is very unhappy about scientists who blur the line between their university and their outside consulting, and earn twice for doing the same job. I hear people have been jailed for this sort of thing.
Have a look at how well the leader of the group-of-20 has been doing: meet Jagadish Shukla, professor of climate dynamics at George Mason University, who must now be wishing he hadn’t called for an investigation.
Their letter was posted on the website of Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES), a non-profit, tax-exempt research institute led by Shukla. Oddly, after the media attention, the RICO request letter suddenly disappeared off the website in late September, with a note saying it was “inadvertantly posted“. Oops? This is about the same time the investigation he requested turned around to bite him. Roger Pielke Jr investigated Shukla’s 990 filings and the odd way a Prof at a public university was also earning millions on the side. That was reported and expanded upon by Steve McIntyre.
Ian Tuttle at the National Review picks up their story:
The curious disappearance set several people inquiring. It turns out that heading up IGES is nice work if you can get it. The Washington Free Beacon reports that since 2001 the organization has received more than $63 million — 98 percent of its total revenue — from taxpayers, mainly in the form of grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. And an astonishing amount of that money has ended up in Dr. Shukla’s pocket.
Not only did a lot end up in Dr Shukla’s pocket, but a lot ended up in his wife’s and daughter’s pockets too. His family has gained some $5.6million in compensation from IGES since 2001, plus his daughter’s salary (whatever that was). Shukla also earned a salary from George Mason University, a nice $314k last year.
This “double-dipping” — receiving compensation from a research organization on top of academic compensation — is prohibited by the federal agencies from which IGES receives money, as well as by George Mason University, as detailed by Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre. Yet IGES officially joined the university, as part of the College of Science, in 2013.
Over the years, as Shukla earned more from his university, he and his wife earned more from the non-profit too. Too much is never enough?
As Steve McIntyre reported:
“Despite the various changes in grant structure, one constant (or rather steadily increasing amount) has been the several sources of compensation to Shukla and his wife.
Keep reading →
Energy is emitted to space from many different heights in the atmosphere, depending on the wavelength (not to scale, suggestive only).
One more quick post of mostly uncontroversial foundation for the math-and-physics-heads among us. But it’s a must for anyone who wants to talk Stefan-Boltzmann and follow the details of the next posts. My intro here, just has the gist without the equations.
Mostly the IPCC will agree with this post, but they might be a bit snooty that David thinks their “effective temperature” is too much of an approximation conceptually, and the slightly more complicated idea of a “radiating temperature” is needed. Strictly, the effective temperature idea treats Earth like it is a black-body at infrared, which it isn’t really. Earth is almost a black-body, but not quite.
There is no single layer that radiates to space, instead emissions come from many different heights, depending on the wavelength. We could average the emissions into “one layer”, but doing that would lose detail that matters when computing sensitivity to increasing CO2.
Technically the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not supposed to be applied to Earth, because there is no single physical radiating surface to which to apply it. So this is where David introduces and defines the concept of “radiating temperature”, so it can effectively be applied.
As David says: “This linearizes the otherwise highly non-linear Stefan-Boltzmann law, giving us a simple result: the increase in radiating temperature is equal to λSB times the increase in OLR, where λSB is the slope of the Stefan-Boltzmann curve where the Earth is.”
8. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth
Dr David Evans, 2 October 2015, Project home, Intro, Previous, Next, Nomenclature.
Before discussing the third error in the conventional basic climate model (next post), we will review the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law to Earth. This is the last of the foundational posts, predominately reviews to ensure readers can get up to speed on background topics.
It’s not quite straightforward, because the Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to the emissions of a body with a single surface for all wavelengths, whereas the Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) comes from multiple emission layers (see post 6).
Keep reading →
Conventional models assume increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the surface, then apply the feedbacks to the surface warming. But if feedbacks start up in the atmosphere instead, everything changes.
This is a post with big potential. A feedback the other climate models miss?
All the establishment models assume carbon dioxide warms the sky, which leads to the surface warming*, and the feedbacks then apply to the surface warming. It’s in the model architecture, the models can’t do it any other way. But what if the feedbacks don’t wait — what if the feedbacks start right away, up in the atmosphere? What if, say, CO2 warms the air, and that affects humidity and or clouds right then and there? These would be feedbacks operating on tropospheric warming, and they can reroute that energy.
Potentially, this blows everything away. If the energy blocked by increasing CO2 is merely escaping Earth through emissions from another gas in the atmosphere, like say, the dominant greenhouse gas, water-vapor, then could this explain why the effect of Co2 has been exaggerated in the conventional models?
We call this the “rerouting feedback” because when it’s harder for energy to escape to space through the CO2 pipe, this feedback would reroute it out through the water vapor pipe instead.
Put another way, as Earth emits (relatively) less energy through carbon dioxide’s favorite wavelengths, some of that blocked heat, possibly transferred through kinetic collisions, just reroutes out to space on the water vapor wavelengths instead.
No matter how many thousands of runs someone does on a conventional climate simulation, this outcome could never occur.
If this feedback is real and significant, it could explain why CO2 is not as potent as the IPCC supposes.
We will be expanding on this hypothesis in the future. It explains some anomalous observations. There are serious implications and tests we will develop.
7. The Rerouting Feedback
Guest post by Dr David Evans, 30 September 2015, Project home, Intro, Previous, Next, Nomenclature.
In post 5 we noted that the architecture of the conventional model only allows feedbacks that are responses to surface warming, thereby omitting any feedbacks that are primarily in response to climate drivers. In post 6 we discussed where outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) is emitted from, and introduced the “pipes” terminology. Now we build on both.
This post proposes the existence of the “rerouting feedback”, a feedback in response to an increase in the CO2 concentration, where the action takes place high in the atmosphere. It is omitted from the basic sensitivity calculation because it is not a response to surface warming, and it is also omitted from the large computer models (GCMs). Represented by fC in Fig. 1 of post 5, it reduces the radiation imbalance ultimately caused by an increase in CO2 and thus the warming influence of rising CO2.
For this discussion, let us suppose that all heat escapes the Earth through the four main pipes: the CO2 pipe, the water vapor pipe, the cloud top pipe, or the surface pipe (see Fig. 3 of post 6).
“How does the outgoing radiation rearrange itself among the four pipes?”
Increasing the CO2 concentration impedes the flow of OLR (or heat) through the CO2 pipe, so there is less OLR emitted on the CO2 wavelengths. The heat backs up a little, warming the atmosphere, but when steady state is resumed the total OLR is the same as it was originally because the absorbed solar radiation (ASR) is the same (ignoring the minor albedo feedbacks to surface warming).
The crucial question is: in light of the lowered OLR in the CO2 pipe, how does the OLR rearrange itself among the four pipes?
A pipe’s OLR is solely determined by the temperature of its emitting layer — the OLR in the surface pipe is determined by the surface temperature, the OLR in the water vapor pipe is determined by the average temperature of the water vapor emissions layer (WVEL) which in turn is determined by its average height and the lapse rate, and so on. Knowing the rearrangement of OLR between the pipes would allow us to know the change in OLR in the surface pipe, and thus the surface warming and the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).
In the conventional model, increasing the CO2 concentration causes a sympathetic decrease in OLR in the water vapor pipe, due to amplification by water vapor feedbacks — the influence of extra CO2 is represented as a forcing, equivalent to extra ASR, which warms the surface, causing more evaporation and more water vapor, which presumably causes the WVEL to ascend because there is more water vapor in the atmosphere, whereupon the WVEL is cooler, which reduces the OLR in the water vapor pipe. So, in the conventional model, the surface and cloud top pipes must compensate for decreases in OLR in both the CO2 and water vapor pipes, by increasing their combined OLR by a matching amount. Obviously this requires much more surface warming than if the water vapor pipe also increased its OLR in response to the decreased OLR in the CO2 pipe.
Sketch of the Mechanism
Increased CO2 causes a decrease in OLR in the CO2 pipe. Now consider how it might also trigger a feedback that increases OLR in the water vapor pipe, by way of partial compensation (as if fC in Fig. 1 of post 5 was negative).
From the point of view of heat in the upper troposphere, increased CO2 makes it harder to escape to space in photons fired from CO2 molecules, and therefore relatively easier to escape in photons fired from water vapor molecules. Increased CO2 thus increases the relative propensity of OLR to come from water vapor molecules. The energy has to escape to space somehow, the relative attractiveness of the CO2 pipe has decreased compared to the water vapor pipe, and the heat is essentially available to all molecules because they swap energy back and forth by thermal collisions. Furthermore, the changes in the CO2 spectrum with increased CO2 occur in the wings of the CO2 “well” (see for instance the last diagram on this page of Barrett Bellamy), at heights around 8 km, which is about the average height of the WVEL.
“…when increasing CO2 makes it more difficult for heat to radiate to space on the wavelengths at which carbon dioxide absorbs and emits, some of the blocked heat simply reroutes out to space on the water vapor wavelengths instead.”
If more OLR comes from the water vapor molecules, the population of water vapor molecules would be less energetic and would thus tend not to ascend quite so high in the Earth’s gravitational field — so the WVEL would descend slightly (which would be compatible with the non-observation of the “hotspot”; more on that in later posts). Although the population is less energetic, the top of the population is in a lower and therefore warmer place compared to it where was before the increased CO2 caused it to descend. Thus the WVEL is warmer, emitting more OLR.*
Note that it is possible for the WVEL to descend despite increased evaporation from the surface, if the extra water vapor is mainly confined to the lower troposphere and the consequent greater stability at low altitudes leads to less overturning and less transport of water vapor to the upper troposphere — indeed this seems to be happening, as reported by Paltridge et. al in 2009 , from study of the better radiosonde data from 1973.
We call it the “rerouting feedback” because some fraction of the OLR that is blocked from escaping to space out the CO2 pipe by rising CO2 levels is instead rerouted out the water vapor pipe.
“It is not a response to surface warming, but to CO2 enrichment.”
In other words, when increasing CO2 makes it more difficult for heat to radiate to space on the wavelengths at which carbon dioxide absorbs and emits, some of the blocked heat simply reroutes out to space on the water vapor wavelengths instead. This feedback takes place high in the atmosphere, far from the surface, so there is no place for it in the conventional climate model — which only contains feedbacks in response to surface warming.
This proposed feedback is contained within fC in Fig. 1 of post 5. It is not a response to surface warming, but to CO2 enrichment. It all occurs within the higher atmosphere, so it responds more strongly to variables describing the upper atmosphere and radiation than to the surface temperature. (Perhaps a suitable variable to describe the strength of the feedback is the height of the CO2 emission layer plus the height of the WVEL.)
The rerouting feedback might offset a substantial portion of the reduction in OLR in the CO2 pipe due to an increasing CO2 concentration. If it exists, the rerouting feedback would lower our estimates of the sensitivity of surface temperature to rising CO2 levels.
A Negative Feedback?
The rerouting feedback reduces the ultimate radiation imbalance due to extra CO2, so it is a negative feedback in terms of its effect on the CO2 forcing, so fC is negative. Applying the feedback diagram in Fig. 1 of post 3 with a equal to DR,2X and b to fC, the rerouting feedback changes the radiation imbalance due to increasing CO2
For example, if fC was −0.6 then
and the influence of increasing the CO2 concentration would be reduced by 70%.
Semantic point: Although the rerouting feedback reduces the sensitivity of the surface temperature to changes in CO2, and although fC is negative, it is not a feedback in response to surface warming so it is not a “negative feedback” as that term is understood in the conventional paradigm.
Consider how the climate might adjust to a decrease in OLR in the CO2 pipe. The blocked OLR has to find its way to space somehow. The resistance of the surface pipe to carrying more OLR is exceptionally high in the tropics, where most of the heat is, because heat loss from the surface via evaporation rises exponentially with surface temperature (Kininmonth 2010  elaborates on this). The resistance of the water vapor pipe to carrying more OLR might be relatively low, because it requires only that the average height of the WVEL (~8 km) ascends or descends by a few tens of meters. Like the WVEL, the cloud tops might ascend or descend slightly with little apparent energy requirement.
The energy required to warm the surface on a sustained basis, with the ocean warming that would entail, might be much greater than the energy required to change the average height of the WVEL or cloud tops sufficiently to change OLR by the same amount. (More research is needed to get the figures to assess this.) This would suggest that the bulk of the response to the decrease in OLR escaping via the CO2 pipe would come as more OLR from the WVEL or cloud tops, rather than from the surface — which is consistent with the proposed rerouting feedback and with a lower ECS.
Figure 1: Electrical analogy for heat escaping to space. The zig-zags are electrical resistors; the current (a la heat) mainly flows through the paths of least resistance — the current in a resistor is inversely proportional to its resistance. Increasing CO2 increases RC, so some current reroutes from flowing through RC to flowing through the other resistors, mainly through the other resistor with the lowest resistance.
Keep reading →
Carbon markets = corruption
Fake markets are easy to scam, because no one really wants or cares about “the product”. Fake markets are dangerous tools. Judging by the way people act, the point of carbon markets is to feed bureaucrats and bankers, not to change the weather. If that’s true, it’s entirely predictable that yet another scandal has run for years, and no one “noticed” or acted to stop it. Not only were diesel cars scamming the lab tests for pollution, but other cars were built to exploit loopholes (that may be legal) in the lab tests for fuel economy as well. The audacity is remarkable — real car CO2 emissions are often a gobsmacking 40- 50% higher than reported, even in top brand, expensive cars.*
As much as two-thirds of CO2 cuts since 2008 may have been imaginary and made by cars that were only fuel efficient in the lab. CO2 “pollution” doesn’t hurt anyone, but misleading fuel economy figures may have cost owners €450 a year more in fuel to run. The companies known to get suspiciously good results on fuel economy (so far) are BMW, Mercedes, Renault and Peugeot. Companies using software to get around other pollution tests now include VW, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Seat, and Skoda. (VW owns Audi, Skoda, and apparently Porsche, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini as well.) South Korea, Britain, France and Japan are all ordering their car makers to answer questions. Though, hypocritically, governments of UK, France and Germany have all lobbied to keep in the loopholes in the emissions tests. Everywhere we look, “seeming” is important, but few really care about CO2 or pollution. The market is fake, the numbers are fake, and the “concern” is fake too.
Date: 28/09/15 Energy Post
“On average, two-thirds of the claimed gains in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption since 2008 have been delivered through manipulating tests with only 13.3 g/km of real progress on the roads set against 22.2 g/km of ‘hot air’” according to the T&E report.
New cars, including the Mercedes A, C and E class, BMW 5 series and Peugeot 308, are now swallowing around 50% more fuel than their lab test results reveal, according to new on-the-road results compiled by NGO Transport & Environment (T&E). T&E calls for a comprehensive investigation into both air pollution and fuel economy tests across Europe and a complete overhaul of the testing system.
“The gap between official and real-world performance found in many car models has grown so wide that it cannot be explained through known factors including test manipulations. While this does not constitute proof of ‘defeat devices’ being used to fiddle fuel economy tests, similar to that used by Volkswagen, EU governments must extend probes into defeat devices to CO2 tests and petrol cars too,” says T&E in a press release.
T& notes: “The gap between official test results for CO2 emissions/fuel economy and real-world performance has increased to 40% on average in 2014 from 8% in 2001, according to T&E’s 2015 Mind the Gap report, which analyses on-the-road fuel consumption by motorists and highlights the abuses by carmakers of the current tests and the failure of EU regulators to close loopholes. T&E said the gap has become a chasm and, without action, will likely grow to 50% on average by 2020.”
Greens create real pollution — the VW, and now BMW, Audi, Mercedes, software scandal
All up, the carnage is pretty impressive. In Europe, the Greens played tax games and encouraged people to buy diesels to “cut CO2″. Once, there were hardly any diesel cars, then there were lots — thanks to green-government incentives. Meanwhile the companies cheated on software which produced good results in lab tests, but spewed out noxious gas the rest of the time. Eleven million VW’s maybe affected. Nearly half a million VWs and Audis have already been recalled. Those US cars would make made 10,000 – 40,000 tons of NOx, which is 10 – 40 times as much as they were supposed too if they met EPA standards.
The global warming zealots are to blame for the deadly diesel fiasco, writes STEPHEN GLOVER
Keep reading →
Big news: A new endogenous forcing found for climate change — sharks. For millions of years you thought predator-prey relationships were just about big fish having dinner, but not so, they are climate forcings. Sharks cool the planet, and stop storms, floods, droughts and malaria. Crabs, on the other hand, pollute like a coal company. It’s a miracle that the planet made it through the last billion years without the EPA managing the shark-crab numbers thing. This ABC interview inspired me to channel the spirit of neolithic science.
The dusken-shark doth smite the naughty fishies and give us nice weather
New research has found that sharks play an important role in preventing climate change, warning that overfishing and culling sharks is resulting in more carbon being released from the seafloor.
“Sharks, believe it or not, are helping to prevent climate change,” said Dr Peter Macreadie, an Australian Research Council Fellow from Deakin University and one of the paper’s authors.
Sharks: Good. Crabs and Turtles: Bad. Kill those turtles!
“Turtles, crabs, certain types of worms, stingrays — these animals that are overabundant to do with loss of predators used to keep their numbers in check,” Dr Macreadie said.
Someone send a note to Greenpeace — those turtle eggs are killing the planet.
The researchers used Cape Cod in Massachusetts as an example of where this process had been observed.
“There had been overfishing in the region, so a lot of the big fish had been removed and then what we saw was an increase — a remarkable increase, a huge increase — in the number of crabs that bury and borrow down in the system, in the salt marsh which sequestered all this carbon,” Dr Macreadie said.
“And we’d found that in an area there, the crabs had become so abundant that they had pretty much destroyed the salt marsh, and it was a small area, it was only 1.5 square kilometres, but it liberated 250,000 tonnes of carbon that had been stored in the ground.”
So the evil crabs release a quarter of a million tonnes of carbon? I say, save the planet with Chilli Crab Linguine!
Ooh. Look. There’s an Australian version: Chilli Crab Linguine With Vodka.
But don’t kill the turtles. They can buy carbon credits instead.
PS: This is going to be hard for big-chief climate modelers — tricky feedbacks ahead. In 2008 global warming was blamed for causing shark attacks. Now shark attacks are saving us from global warming.
Cue jokes now about how climate change jumped the shark…
h/t Brian, Michael Kile.
UPDATE: Leo G in comments: Critics say large-scale Cooked Crab Sequestration deployment is unproven and decades away from being commercialised.
UPDATE: Sophocles — What we really need to know is what effect [sharks] have on earth quakes…
The national conversation is all about “seeming” and “confidence”. Greg Hunt (Environment Minister) boasted that he stopped an investigation into the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), and prevented “due diligence” being a part of a one-day wonder “forum”.
“In doing this, it is important to note that public trust in the Bureau’s data and forecasts, particularly as they relate to bushfires and cyclones, is paramount,” [Greg Hunt] said.
It used to be that public trust occurred when organizations were fully investigated, accountable, and found clean. Now “Public Trust” is apparently increased when there are no investigations, or only weak whitewashes. Either the public has got a lot stupider, or the media and ministers have.
Plenty of the self anointed (those who know more than the dumb punters) thought Hunt’s boast was a big achievement. Anthony Sharwood, News Corp journalist (oh for a “reporter”!), wondered if the government was paranoid for wanting to check the BOM. Perhaps next he’ll be calling for global corporates to figure out their own tax bill; who needs professional auditing, right — it’s just “paranoid”?
But the bad news for Hunt and the Bureau (and Sharwood) is that the Truth will out, the genie can’t be put back in the bottle, and word is spreading. Who wants to be caught covering up the gross errors, inexplicable adjustments, major changes, and bizarre hot-records in cold-places, all done with mystery methods? You don’t need a PhD to know that maximum temperatures are meant to be higher than minimums. Nor does it take many brains to recognize that there are strange repetitive patterns and errors in the oldest “quality” data that obviously didn’t come from any thermometer and are not real. Are those who cover it up gullible fools, or deceptive cheats?
Jennifer Marohasy has a great response, at On Line Opinion and in a shorter version in The Australian:
By jennifer on September 28, 2015 in Information
According to media reports last week, a thorough investigation of the Bureau’s methodology was prevented because of intervention by Environment Minister Greg Hunt. He apparently argued in Cabinet that the credibility of the institution was paramount. That it is important the public have trust in the Bureau’s data and forecasts, so the public know to heed warning of bushfires and cyclones.
This is the type of plea repeatedly made by the Catholic Church hierarchy to prevent the truth about paedophilia, lest the congregation lose faith in the church.
Sometimes the minority are right:
Contrast this approach with that by poet and playwright Henrik Ibsen who went so far as to suggest ‘the minority is always right’ in an attempt to have his audience examine the realities of 18th Century morality. Specifically, Ibsen wanted us to consider that sometimes the individual who stands alone is making a valid point which is difficult to accept because every culture has its received wisdoms: those beliefs that cannot be questioned, until they are proven in time to have been wrong. British biologist, and contemporary of Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley was trying to make a similar point when he wrote, “I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of anything.”
At one time, Charles Darwin was in a bit of a minority.
Sharwood the journalist wants to understand temperature sets by studying “motivations”:
News Corp Australia journalist Anthony Sharwood got it completely wrong in his weekend article (“Does the weather Bureau Tweak Data”) defending the bureau’s homogenisation of the temperature record. I tried to explain to him on the phone last Thursday how the bureau didn’t actually do what it said when it homogenised temperature time series for places such as Rutherglen.
Sharwood kept coming back to the issue of “motivations”. He kept asking me why on earth the bureau would want to mislead the Australian public.
Jennifer M quotes ClimateGate emails, which is very apt, but let’s turn his question back on Sharwood: ask him which university or public institution in Australia would offer a job to a skeptical meteorologist? Any BOM staff who reported that Australia was always hot and dry, and climate change was natural, would be unemployable. (Lomborg accepted the science, just doubts the economics, and he’s treated like a leper.) Perhaps Sharwood can explain how more funding or status would arrive at the Bureau of Meteorology if it turned out that the climate was controlled by the Sun, that most long term climate modelling was useless, and that the BOM had been wrong for years? Rephrasing Sharwood: Why on Earth would the BOM want to show that its past predictions were wrong, and that it had mislead the public?
The BOM spoke too soon and unscientifically pegged their colors to the mast of climate change panic. What incentive is there for them to expose that?
This issue is only going to get worse until there is a real review, done by skeptical scientists (because there is no other kind of scientist):
It is so obvious that there is an urgent need for a proper, thorough and independent review of operations at the Bureau. But it would appear our politicians and many mainstream media are set against the idea. Evidently they are too conventional in their thinking to consider that such an important Australian institution could now be ruled by ideology.
This article was first published at A shorter versions was subsequently published at The Australian, with the wonderful cartoon of Greg Hunt by Eric Lobbecke.
Send your letters in to The Australian, and to Greg Hunt
19 contributors have published
2039 posts that generated