JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Head of Australian Science Academy issues decree from Pagan Chieftans of Science

An interesting story quietly slipped into the news last week during the election campaign. It crosses several new lines, none of which it acknowledges.

Not only are the Western Climate Establishment sitting up and paying attention to skeptics, they’re slowly getting the hang of having the climate debate, and they have finally realized they can’t pretend the “science is settled” on climate feedbacks.

Australian Academy of Science

Australian Academy of non-Science

Humans affect climate change

* From: The Australian (my emphasis added)
* August 18, 2010

THE Australian Academy of Science has pitted its expertise against the greenhouse sceptics in a report stating that humans are changing our climate.

Good news. They finally admit (by inference) that there is a debate. Since we amateurs are beating them in the debates and asking questions they can’t answer, they have finally acknowledged that they need to try to answer the questions, and they need to call us skeptics. (They can hardly pit expertise against “deniers” eh?)

The statement expresses for the first time the consensus among Australia’s top climate scientists on the evidence for human-caused global warming.

Oh ha-de-ha… after all the other versions of the anti-science fake consensus didn’t win the crowd, do they really think that a petty Australian rendition looks any more convincing?

In it, nine eminent climate scientists declare that global average temperatures has risen during the past century, and that increased greenhouse gas levels due to human activity are mostly to blame. The academy issued the statement, The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers, in Canberra on Monday as part of National Science Week.

The document sets out the evidence for human impact on climate and outlines the possible consequences of failure to make deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.

It synthesises the latest peer-reviewed research and identifies areas of scientific uncertainty, such as regional impacts and tipping points: thresholds that, if crossed, could send the climate system awry.

Kurt Lambeck, immediate past president of the academy and a professor at the Australian National University’s research school of earth sciences, initiated work on the document to clear up common misconceptions.

“Clear up common misconceptions”… they make it sound so easy, as if people at bus stops are asking for empirical evidence about upper tropospheric water vapor and discussing Paltridge et al 2009.

“I was getting frustrated with the level of the debate on climate change, and the general confusion it was creating in the broader community,” he said. “One of the reasons that was occurring was that the science was getting so complex.

Ah yes. The science is too complex for the dumb masses of PhD’s, engineers, doctors, and lawyers who are skeptics. “Complexity” is the classic witchdoctor fall-back. “Trust me!”

Lambeck, don’t treat us like we are stupid, just explain why you are right. Present any evidence. Convince us.

“A lot of the genuine scientific debate is about issues that are largely second order things, and they do not impinge on our principal understanding of climate change.”

This is his coded way of saying CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we understand the basic spectroscopy, but since most skeptics don’t disagree, this is a whatever-whatever point acknowledging a non-issue. Too  bad he doesn’t have the honesty to also say that this basic understanding only suggests the direct effect from carbon in the event of CO2 levels doubling is 1.2 degrees or less.

He admits there is a debate:

He said the fundamental principles of climatology, such as the role of carbon dioxide in global warming, were beyond dispute. But scientists were still arguing about the complex Earth systems feedback mechanisms, such as the possible cooling effect of clouds.

He admits there could be a negative feedback, and they don’t know how much it is:

“If temperatures go up, there is going to be more evaporation, and that will produce more clouds,” Professor Lambeck said. “That could produce a negative feedback, but to quantify that is a very difficult thing.

Then he either doesn’t understand climate science in a numerical way, or he is being deceptive:

“How do we put that cloud cover into the models? That’s where uncertainty comes in, but that’s not going to change the basic outcomes.”

Not going to change the basic outcomes? Clouds chuck about a quarter of all the light that hits the planet back out to space. They transform our climate and weather. If they provide negative feedback then instead of amplifying the direct effect of carbon, they dampen it. Instead of pushing us towards 3 or 4 degrees, they hold us back below one degree.

But if he thinks half a degree of warming is not a different outcome from three and a half degrees, we have to wonder what having a PhD means these days. If we cut his public funding by a factor of 7 instead, would he still say “that’s not going to change the basic outcome”.

Among the authors of the academy’s report are David Karoly, of the University of Melbourne; Matthew England, of the University of NSW; Michael Bird, of James Cook University; and the CSIRO’s Mike Raupach.

“They have identified the questions,” Professor Lambeck said. “They’ve debated the answers. Here is the best advice you can get from the scientific community by real experts in their fields in climate science.”

A seven-member committee of experts reviewed the document, which concluded: “Decisions will need to be made before we have absolute certainty about the future.”

Right, so that document is the best that money can buy? I will be discussing it in more detail as soon as I get the chance, but suffice it to say, they still haven’t answered the question about the evidence that I asked in The Skeptics Handbook two years ago and with more detail on Jan 1st 2010.

Thanks to Joe for the point about 1.7th funding…

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
Head of Australian Science Academy issues decree from Pagan Chieftans of Science, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3abp4fr

224 comments to Head of Australian Science Academy issues decree from Pagan Chieftans of Science

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    It makes a refreshing change to have the climate guru’s admitting that they don’t understand what drives the climate. I’m just puzzled how the IPCC can assign a precise probability to a mechanism they clearly don’t comprehend???

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Not going to change the basic outcomes? Clouds chuck about a quarter of all the light that hits the planet back out to space. They transform our climate and weather. If they provide negative feedback then instead of amplifying the direct effect of carbon, they dampen it. Instead of pushing us towards 3 or 4 degrees, they hold us back below one degree.

    The problem with your argument is that climate sensitivity is constrained by past climate change–e.g. the ice ages or the PETM. The forcings for glaciations are already small and if CS is below a degree then ice ages just can’t happen (assuming no major unknown factor).

    But of course the uncertainty is already included in the published numbers–climate sensitivity is between 1.5C and 4.5C with a best guess of 3C.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    Boris, you are assuming that CO2 has been the driving force for climate change in the past. There is no evidence of that.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “(assuming no major unknown factor)” a number of important factors are known Boris: most importantly albedo feedback (from ice extent changes) and cosmic ray flux. The figures you quote rely on assuming all glacial cycle variations are due to GHG-related feedbacks.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The AAS base their pamphlet on four basic principals all of which are dealt with in your Skeptics handbook. The AAS pamphlet is so bad that even a satirical comic is enough to rip the official arguments to shreds. This pamphlet, that ends up resting on the precautionary principal, took more than 9 months to cobble together and it’s already debunked. What a shambles!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    cementafriend

    Not one of these so called scientists has any expertise in thermodynamics, heat transfer or fluid dynamics. They have no understanding of the complex technology (which is more than science as the three mentioned subjects are engineering disciplines) involved in climate assessment. Further, (butterflies)Karoly at least has no grasp of statistics, mathematics or economics.
    All these people are good at is self aggrandizement including getting research grants and overseas trips from gullible politicians.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    One good thing; the temperature graph didn’t look like a hockey stick!

    Seriously, I found their choices for photographs interesting. Propaganda all around……..


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I have become increasingly fascinated as to why these, presumably responsible human beings – just like ourselves can come up with this stuff and am unable to believe in conspiracies. Then I came across this blog and its comments:

    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=322

    I strongly recommend this for a very cool and rational discussion of what is driving the AGW ‘movement’ We are seeing a manifestation of the links in the network under increasing strain from the likes of Jo Nova – may she continue to flourish!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Brett said:

    Boris, you are assuming that CO2 has been the driving force for climate change in the past. There is no evidence of that.

    I make no such assumption. CO2 certainly affected climate during the ice ages.

    The figures you quote rely on assuming all glacial cycle variations are due to GHG-related feedbacks.

    This isn’t true. Ice age temp change was ~5C and CO2 rise was far less than a doubling. If you assumed all glaciation changes were CO2 related you’d get a sensitivity of around 12C.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Sorry, I meant to attribute the second quote in my previous post to David Stockwell.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “That’s where uncertainty comes in, but that’s not going to change the basic outcomes.”

    Ah — so, the science *is* settled, after all.

    Or at least the models are…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I have only just found this site. When we get some open debate happening the scam will be shown for what it is. I was also a carbon dioxide equivalentor of everything until I too discovered the fraud that is behind it.
    Cheers
    StuE
    http://stuartedwards.bigblog.com.au
    http://www.youtube.com/cooliobossman
    http://stuartedwards001.wordpress.com


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David, UK

    “Decisions will need to be made before we have absolute certainty about the future.”

    Ah yes. The old ‘precautionary principle’. How original.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    It synthesises the latest peer-reviewed research and identifies areas of scientific uncertainty, such as regional impacts and tipping points: thresholds that, if crossed, could send the climate system awry.

    What uncertainty? We know that the billion-year old complexly homeostatic nonlinear system sometimes called Gaia is so fragile that a few hundred parts per million of a common “pollutant” sends the whole kit careening off a cliff every second super volcano. The tipsy awry-ness of Earth’s climate threshold is why intelligent life has been unable to evolve on this hostile planet.

    He said the fundamental principles of climatology, such as the role of carbon dioxide in global warming, were beyond dispute. But scientists were still arguing about the complex Earth systems feedback mechanisms, such as the possible cooling effect of clouds.

    So we understand everything but the role of clouds (water) in climate? Oh, that and the complex network of the biosphere feedback mechanisms. Uh, tell me the definition of climate again?

    “How do we put that cloud cover into the models? That’s where uncertainty comes in, but that’s not going to change the basic outcomes.”

    That’s because complex nonlinear systems behave predictably just like simple clock-like machines. You can adjust one minor factor like cloud cover and it won’t chaotically cascade into all other realms of the model. Professor Lambeck is channelling the latest thinking in steam locomotive engineering here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Boris, and others,

    CO2 is the emission of carbon based lifeforms – it is essentially an “effect” and not a causation of environmental change.

    The problem can be separated into 2 arguments – that from physical experiment, and that not, the latter being Platonic in essence and reliant on verbal virtuosity.

    Get a Petri dish, fill it with some bacteria (life form etc) and subject it to varying temperature. Higher temperature results, everything else being equal, in a proliferation of living things in the petri dish, and emission of CO2. Lower temperatures reverse this.

    How to disprove? Figure a way to get the bacteria in the Petri dish to multiply at constant temperature would be one possibility, but in a closed system that presents some serious problems in terms of energy sources since, in terms of AGW, all causative forces for climate change reside in humanity itself, (hence closed system). And how a closed system is then able to affect its own environment in the absence of an external force becomes another problem.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce Cunningham

    Boris,

    Many scientists consider Milankovitch Cycles to be the primary driver of the ice ages, not GHGs.

    Bruce


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    I was hoping you would address this Jo and look forward to your further post. Does anyone have a link to the actual booklet?

    I was amused to read the quote from the booklet:

    “It synthesises the latest peer-reviewed research and identifies areas of scientific uncertainty, such as regional impacts and tipping points: thresholds that, if crossed, could send the climate system awry.”

    That means they have completed the IPCC’s job so there is no need for the IPCC and it can be disbanded.

    On a serious note I have noticed a new strategy used by the climate alarmists. With the assistance of main stream media they are making press releases and producing booklets reiterating the AGW alarmist claims without specifically addressing any of the many relevant criticisms which have been of their beliefs. They are deceptively implying to the public and policy makers that they have looked at all the latest research in light of the sceptics arguments and have satisfied themselves that their position is correct. As pointed out by Jo, this is all done without offering any real evidence. What they are also doing where they can get away with it, in their blogs and in places like ‘The Drum Unleashed’ they allow coverage of the AGW alarmist position, pretend they are having an open debate, but ‘moderate’ and censor most if not all of the relevant criticisms of their position. I have personally experienced this on RealClimate and The ABC The Drum Unleashed multiple times to the point where I have given up writing in. This gives readers the unwarranted impression there are no good arguments against what the alarmists have written, and at the same time it allows the alarmists to avoid addressing the valid criticisms.

    They are hoping if they repeat their message often enough, people will assume they must be right. Unfortunately this strategy does work as we see regularly in politics. We need more people in main stream media who are prepared to insist the AHW alarmist are required to answer the hard questions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Boris,

    Yes, the 3C +/- 1.5C ‘sensitivity’ forced by the IPCC does include uncertainty. But it’s not enough uncertainty. The theoretical and measured results from skeptics put the sensitivity at closer to 0.9C +/- 0.3C. What I noticed about this is that there is absolutely no overlap in the estimates. This is about as far away from settled science as you can get.

    BTW, to put this uncertainty in perspective we can start with a baseline surface power emission of 385 W.m^2 at 287K. The emitted surface power difference between an effect of 1.5C (393 W/m^2) and 4.5C (409 W/m^2) is between 8 W/m^2 and 24 W/m^2 representing a 300% range in the difference. It certainly is a lot of uncertainty, but for some reason, all of the uncertainty is in the wrong direction. To put this into a more refined perspective, all of this warming starts with 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental forcing, which is amplified by a minimum of about 2 up to a maximum of about 8 in order to get the required surface power for the predicted temperature rise. The IPCC acknowledges this (but clearly doesn’t understand) and claims that this amplification comes from positive feedback. If solar power was similarly amplified with similar uncertainty, the estimated surface temperature range would be between 331K and 468K. Since the average surface temperature is only about 287K, something is horribly broken with the IPCC estimates of sensitivity to forcing.

    The difference is actually a rather small technical point, that is, the direction and magnitude of the net feedback acting on the climate system. The problem is that the CAGW’ers have built a trillion dollar house of cards on the assumption that the net feedback is positive and the consequences of being wrong are worse for the CAGW’ers than the consequences on the rest of us if they were right. With all that’s at stake, do you really think that they will embrace the scientific truth when to do so means that everything that they hold dear collapses around them?

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    1DandyTroll

    I wonder if the heads of the AAS would stand for a show of force so to speak. If you ask them I bet they’ll say they have the proof and will join to battle our minds so to speak, because they’re so full of themselves. However would they show up if the people they’re trying to fool gets to kick them in nuts if their proof really isn’t any kind of actual scientific proof?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    CO2 is the emission of carbon based lifeforms – it is essentially an “effect” and not a causation of environmental change.

    Louis,

    CO2 is also a greenhouse gas and, thus, if its concentrations are changed it can certainly cause climate change. Most skeptics agree implicitly with this conclusion since they argue that CO2′s effect is small.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    If solar power was similarly amplified with similar uncertainty, the estimated surface temperature range would be between 331K and 468K. Since the average surface temperature is only about 287K, something is horribly broken with the IPCC estimates of sensitivity to forcing.

    George,

    I’m not sure where you get this idea or how you calculated these numbers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Boris,

    I suspected that you wouldn’t be able to see where these numbers come from. Basic sanity checking is not a tool commonly employed by CAGW alarmists. If it was, CAGW would have been dead decades ago. Here’s the math.

    The solar constant is about 1366 W/m^2 which is an average of 341.5 W/m^2 across the surface. If 341.5 W/m^2 is amplified by a factor of 2, we get 683 W/m^2, which corresponds to an average temperature of 331K (a trivial application of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law). If we multiply by 8 we get 2732 W/m^2 corresponding to a surface temperature of 468K.

    To understand where the amplification of 2-8 comes from, consider that a 3C rise in surface temperature increases the power emitted by the surface by about 16 W/m^2 (again according to SB). The IPCC claims that doubling CO2 results in 3.7 W/m^2 of additional forcing and that this is amplified into the predicted surface emitted energy (temperature) rise by positive feedback. At 3C, this is an amplification factor of about 4, which is midway between the factors of 2 and 8 at the 1.5C and 4.5C limits.

    What part of this do you dispute? That the solar constant is 1366 W/m^2, that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is wrong or that Watts of solar forcing and Watts of GHG forcing power arriving at the surface must have the same heating effect?

    The way you have been deceived is by climate science adopting the ratio of temperature to energy as a way to quantify sensitivity. If instead, it had been quantified as dimensionless gain (a more relevant metric relative to feedback systems) even you would see the inconsistencies in the pseudo science supporting CAGW.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Alexander Davidson

    The evidence against the CAGW hypothesis already exists. When in 1996 the modellers realised predicted temperature rise was always far higher than reality, instead of revisiting their assumptions they bet the farm on the ‘Twomey Effect’, a belief that polluted clouds reflect more solar energy thus cooling the Earth. This was a mistake because the theory and the apparent experimental proof only applied to thin clouds: there is no experimental proof for thick clouds. Indeed, recent result for monsoon clouds suggest an ‘anti-Twomey effect’, ‘polluted cloud heating’.

    The experimentalists are trying to explain the discrepancy. In 2004 there was a claim that polluted clouds had less water. Lindzen reckons they freeze earlier. They’re wrong. This is because the theory, increased optical depth with more smaller droplets, is only part of the explanation. Not only does it predict a maximum cloud albedo of 0.5, it should obey Lambert’s Law and be independent of observation angle. Real cloud albedo can reach 0.9 and show considerable angular dependence. So, there’s a second optical effect. I’ve worked out what it is: others are also having a go.

    What’s really interesting is that if you read NASA publications on the Twomey effect, they give a false scientific explanation, ‘greater reflectivity for larger surface area from more, smaller droplets’. This is either deliberate deception or appallingly sloppy science. To summarise, by late 2004 it was known that the predictions of CAGW to be published in AR4 were based on a false assertion. So far, we’ve paid between three and five times the real cost of the Manhattan Project for this. It’s time the programme management was sacked.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    “consensus among Australia’s top climate scientists”

    “In it, nine eminent climate scientists declare that ”

    Does this mean there are only 9 climate scientists left in Australia that can form the consensus ??


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    …nine eminent climate scientists declare that global average temperatures has risen during the past century, and that increased greenhouse gas levels due to human activity are mostly to blame.

    That’s right Ross, we’ve gone from a consensus of thousands to just nine eminences! From bandwagon science to appeal to authority science. The eminences produced a “declaration” rather than a rational examination of the evidence both pro and con…an encyclical decree rather than a reasoned dispassionate inquiry into natural phenomena. We must have missed the memo that science was now going to be determined by eminent declaration.

    The document sets out the evidence for human impact on climate and outlines the possible consequences of failure to make deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.

    Oh, Thank Lord, they present evidence for AGW. I thought maybe they were going to put it all down to Divine Mystery. Don’t suppose they’ll bother listing the evidence contrary. Nah, if they cited all the evidence pro and con there is the danger of enabling people to fairly evaluate the science for themselves. An informed citizenry is a dangerous citizenry. Might induce informed casting of ballots… Good to see the apocalyptic prophecy is still in there to frighten the children though… Classy biblical touch.

    “Decisions will need to be made before we have absolute certainty about the future.”

    Classic sleazy sales pitch. One Day Only Offer! Wanna bet that if we don’t Save The Planet today, it will still be here next year to be saved at a new rock bottom price. Second Planet Free with Every One Saved! SAVE! SAVE! SAVE! This whole article smells like a going out of business sale.

    Remember that Bob Brown was saying in 2008, that if we didn’t cut CO2 emissions by 50% by 2020 “we will lose the planet.” Well, we’re all gonna die now fer sure. At least we can be absolutely certain about that!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    The statement expresses for the first time the consensus among Australia’s top climate scientists on the evidence for human-caused global warming.

    Yet more manufactured consensus. It’s like just saying “speed kills” makes it true, when speed cameras actually prove the exact opposite – they expect you to survive the next 7-10 days while the fine arrives in your letterbox, and then survive the next 28 days in order to pay it.

    I remember when those cover-all-bases words came out: “the science is settled”. It’s simply commanding not to ask any more questions. They still can’t explain how gravity works, however we know it exists.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    The Nine may be abroad, but they still haven’t found their one ring to rule us all.

    Sorry, couldn’t resist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Nine Ring Wraiths perhaps…………


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    One way I use to explain the complexities of cause and effect.
    Is to make the authoritive and seemingly self-evident statement ‘sex causes pregnancy’.
    Everyone in the discussion will agree this is true, I then deadpan “I have sex, what do you think are my chances of getting pregnant” (I’m a man)
    In any group discussion there will almost certainly be at least one couple who have had difficulty getting pregnant.
    In the blink of an eye you go from a seemingly straightforward cause-and-effect to an almost indefinite array of complex variables.
    You then point out the complexities of the global climate system, and the level of variability in something as simple as temperature, and people very quickly ‘get it’.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    George,
    You forgot to account for Albedo in your calculations, but even so you are comparing two very different things. Your argument implies that we can deduce climate sensitivity from surface temperature, but this just can’t be done.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Boris,

    If you account for albedo, then you are ignoring the effects of cloud albedo feedback. It doesn’t really matter though, since instead of a gain of 1.1, the gain is about 1.6, This is still far lower than the 4 required, moreover; the IPCC definition of radiative forcing doesn’t subtract the power absorbed by the atmosphere and radiated out into space, so my factor of 4 is really a factor of 8 if you really want to insist on counting only the power arriving at the surface. No I didn’t forget, but by allowing you to segue into this made you think about it.

    BTW, do you see where the 1.6 comes from? 385/(1366/4 * 0.7), where 385 is the power emitted by the surface based on an average temperature of 287K.

    You also might notice that the gain without the effects of cloud albedo is 1.6, while the gain after cloud albedo is accounted for is only 1.1. This tells me that the net effect of cloud feedback is unambiguously strongly negative.

    You can’t deduce the sensitivity by the absolute temperature alone, but you can deduce it my measuring changes in surface temperature (surface emitted power) and measuring what change in solar power (forcing) caused this temperature change. This is measuring the definition of climate sensitivity to changes in forcing once you apply SB to convert a change in surface emitted power into a change in surface temperature.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Joanne and Cementafriend@ 6

    Joanne, thank you for this post.

    That there is a body of understanding outside of climate science that is able to debate at an elevated level of complexity is inescapable for climate science. It is not a closed system: there are more questions than what they identify on our behalf; they don’t ask the questions, we do.

    What is despicable about The Science of Climate Change Questions and Answers is that it will gain acceptance in the young and pliant minds to be found in the education system. Their argument fails in the face of complex scrutiny so they dumb-down and take it to the children.

    Cementafriend.
    The involvement of those other disciplines to which complexity goes with the territory is the best thing to happen to the climate change debate.

    Experience of the rigour imposed on say, a pharmaceuticals company attempting to gain acceptance of a new drug is causing those other disciplines to look over the fence at climate science in bewilderment. The closed-shop, beyond-reproach attitude has no place in science or public education and obviously the fundamentals of physics or chemistry are transferable across disciplines.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    pity abc didn’t have last nite’s “four corners” on during the election campaign, given it was highly critical of stimulus programs, etc. nevertheless, gerald celente and others were warning the public to beware of inflating new bubbles, YET did not warn of the CO2 bubble that is already in the making:

    21 Aug: AP: JOHN HEILPRIN:UN board could rein in $2.7 billion carbon market
    An obscure U.N. board that oversees a $2.7 billion market intended to cut heat-trapping gases has agreed to take steps that could lead to it eventually reining in what European and U.S. environmentalists are calling a huge scam.
    At a meeting this week that ended Friday, the executive board of the U.N.’s Clean Development Mechanism said that five chemical plants in China would no longer qualify for funding as so-called carbon offset credits until the environmentalists’ claims can be further investigated…
    Rather than cut their own carbon emissions, industrialized nations can buy the credits which then pay developing countries to cut their greenhouse gases instead.
    But environmentalists say rich nations could be wasting billions of dollars on what some are calling “perverse financial incentives,” because some of the largest projects funded by the U.N.-managed CDM are a golden goose for chemical makers without making meaningful cuts in emissions.
    The CDM executive board, based in Bonn, Germany, has asked for a decades’ worth of data on the gases from those five plants in China to study whether the system was manipulated…
    The chemical makers are paid as much as $100,000 or more for every ton they destroy of a potent greenhouse gas, HFC-23. The price for destroying it is based on its being 11,700 times more powerful as a climate-warming gas than carbon dioxide.
    But that gas is a byproduct of an ozone-friendly refrigerant, HCFC-22, which those chemical makers also are paid to produce under the U.N.’s ozone treaty. Environmentalists say there is so much money in getting rid of HFC-23 that the chemical makers are overproducing HCFC-22 to have more of the byproduct to destroy…
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100821/ap_on_bi_ge/un_un_carbon_cutting_scheme


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    You can’t deduce the sensitivity by the absolute temperature alone, but you can deduce it my measuring changes in surface temperature (surface emitted power) and measuring what change in solar power (forcing) caused this temperature change.

    Agreed. And this is what Tung and Camp (2007) did. They found CS to be about 2C to 4C.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Boris @ 20

    There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas – gases cannot trap and store energy, but this is not to confuse the fact that CO2 has a high specific heat capacity and increasing CO2 will raise the temperature more than if it remained constant.

    The greenhouse gas effect was proposed to explain the observed variation in temperature of the Earth’s surface assuming that it was a black body in vacuo with solar radiation as the only source of energy. This physical model of the earth system is plainly wrong, but if this is how one believes it to be, then sure, you have to invent the greenhouse gas effect to explain the temperature anomaly. The science is, however, somewhat incomplete.

    In termps of the physics of the plasma universe, the Earth system is far more complex and the solar radiation effect can be likened to an indicator lamp varying in brightness as a proxy for an underlying variation in total energy, most of it occurring in the dark plasma mode, and hence “invisible” to cursory observers. Think of solar brightness as a speedometer in a car – the AGW camp believe it’s the speedo driving the car when in reality it’s the hidden engine doing it.

    Notice that advocates of AGW use verbal virtuosity to make their points, afterwards pointing to interpreted physical facts to prove their case. This is not science, by the way, but technically sophisticated advocacy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Hey Louis Hissink!

    Bumped into this paper and instantly knew the Plasma Bullwinkle would dig it. ;-)

    http://mercatus.org/publication/postwar-british-socialism-and-fabian-society

    Sorry, OT. As you were.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Born

    Ms. Nova:

    If we cut his public funding by 1/7th instead

    Perhaps you meant “to 1/7th” or “by 6/7th”?

    [Yes! I've changed the sentence... cut his funding by a factor of 7. Thanks --JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Boris:
    August 23rd, 2010 at 11:08 pm
    Brett said:

    Boris, you are assuming that CO2 has been the driving force for climate change in the past. There is no evidence of that.

    Boris replied:

    I make no such assumption. CO2 certainly affected climate during the ice ages….

    Geez Boris…. You say that you, “make no such assumption.”…. Then go and make an assumption! “CO2 certainly affected climate during the ice ages.”…. “certainly affected”?…. You have data for this?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Boris,

    Tung and Camp tried to deduce this from a tiny change in the average global surface temperature caused by variations in solar radiance averaged over it’s 11 year cycles. It seems kind of silly to use a method like this when seasonal change provides the same dynamic range for the measured climate response as would be seen in the transitions between ice ages and interglacial periods, all of which is directly attributable to solar forcing variability. The difference is like being able to tell the color of something by opening your eyes.

    The 2 hemispheres can be independently analyzed as we know that as a percentage of the total flux entering and leaving the system, any transfer of energy across the equator is insignificant. This is a consequence of all the major ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns running mostly parallel to each other at the equator.

    When you examine the hemispheric specific response, the cause and effect between solar power and surface power can be measured over it’s entire dynamic range with enough precision to make meaningful predictions. The Tung and Camp method doesn’t provide near this level of precision or uncertainty, moreover; they must make too many assumptions about what solar related changes (VIS radiance, UV radiance or solar wind) are responsible for measured surface temperature changes.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Ross@ 24

    And the media’s

    “scientists declare that…”

    “scientists say that…”

    has worn very thin.

    This is how the NZ Min. for the Env. Climate Change Office justifies the ETS:

    “Scientists’ concern is that these greenhouse gases will raise global temperatures, increase sea levels and lead to more extreme weather events. The risk to future generations justifies action now to curb our growth in emissions.”

    That and one very contentious graph.

    http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-scheme/about/what-it-means-for-me/brochure-householders/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    http://sppiblog.org/news/from-king-of-the-world-to-chicken-of-the-sea-director-james-cameron-challenges-climate-skeptics-to-debate-and-then-bails-out-at-last-minute

    James Cameron challenges sceptics then reneges on the advice of Joe Romm. Marc Morano subjected to hostile reaction and prevented from making his presentation. Nyaa Nyaa don’t wanna hear this!!!

    How typical of the alarmist mob.

    Report also at WUWT.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    What is weird here is how the argument is going on at so many different levels. You have George and Boris engaged in a reasonably meaningful discussion. I suspect they agree on a lot of things, including that the “greenhouse effect” is real, and that CO2 is part of it. They disagree over climate sensitivity. Hansen provides a good argument for the value of climate sensitivity he uses based on changes to radiative forcing from the last ice age to the current interglacial.

    But this common ground is remarkably lacking in other skeptic comments. That is, they say things which George would disagree with, but out of politeness he is silent. I saw an impassioned plea by Pat Michaels (a skeptic) urging other skeptics not to say stupid things (like it started cooling 8 years ago), for fear of discrediting themselves.

    Could you skeptics please sort out what you do agree on! That is, find a starting point where you say, “We all agree on the following facts….”. Above and beyond this starting point, go ahead and disagree to your hearts content.

    You already know the AGW starting point: We have experienced rapid warming of the atmosphere and oceans in the last 100+ years. CO2 absorbs outgoing infra-red radiation from the earth, thus warming the atmosphere. There are positive and negative feedbacks (principally positive, and mainly due to water vapour, another gas which absorbs infra-red radiation) which amplify the effect of CO2. Humans are responsible for a steadily increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and hence a gradual warming of the atmosphere and oceans. This warming will be “expensive”, so maybe we should stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Clearly, the AGW proponents don’t agree on the amount of feedback, which is why the IPCC gives a possible range of future temperatures.

    What we need from you skeptics is to identify where you agree and disagree with the AGW position, and then focus on the actual evidence at the point where the two positions diverge. Simply arguing the toss on every single bit of the AGW argument is stupid, and yet this is the tactic employed by many. It is why you guys get called “denialists” or “contrarians”.

    Its like people are arguing over the principles of calculus, but some of the argument involves disputing the validity of irrational numbers, and whether the statement 2+2=4 has any meaning. Then you get people like Monckton doing tricks involving dividing by zero and then showing that 1 = 2, and everyone claps.

    I’d almost go as far as to say that some skeptics will do anything to win the argument, and that being right or wrong is of only secondary importance for them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Friend of Boris

    A usual someone likes Boris makes a valid point about climate sensitivity and how Nova fails to cite evidence for a low value and his comments are ‘ hidden’.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

    The science says climate sensitivity is unlikely to be low, yet that is what Nova expects people to believe.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ha, the Australian Academy of non-Science
    Same as: Australian Academy of Nonsense


    Report this

    00

  • #
    scott

    Interesting that if Hanson is so correct on his sensitivity estimates then why are his model predictions against observed temperatures so far out? (p.s. and thats the manipulated up temperatures)

    either his models are wrong and or his sensitivity estimates are wrong.

    I will let you choose which !!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    John Brookes @ 42

    But isn’t it all settled by now?

    You make a good observation but you limit yourself to only the possibilities leaning towards CAGW. You miss that there are a lot of skeptics that simply recognize that WE DO NOT KNOW ANYWHERE NEAR ENOUGH TO SAY WE KNOW! I find it fascinating that warmists think it is a flaw that we don’t all fall lock-step in our dis-agreement. It is truly flawed logic we do not need to agree on all the various failures in the CAGW ideas. They all come up short


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    John,

    Hansen’s estimate fails to properly account for the effects of the ebb and flow of surface ice which is independent of CO2 levels. Instead, he assumes that CO2 is driving temperature and changing temperature is driving surface ice. While it’s correct that changing surface temperature affects the ebb and flow of surface ice, Milankovitch variability is what’s driving temperature. What he neglects is the effects of the asymmetric response of the hemispheres to changes in the incident energy and how this amplifies differences between perihelion and aphelion. He basically ignores the difference between them by defining the average incident energy as the average between them claiming that only the average matters.

    The evidence is clear that whether perihelion is in January or July, the response will be different, which shows how the precession of perihelion can modulate (amplify/attentuate) the absolute differences in average solar power. Currently, perihelion is in January and while the Earth is closest to the Sun, the global average temperature is at it’s minimum, In July, when the Sun us furthest away, the global average temperature is about 4C warmer than in January, while it should be about 4C cooler instead. The reason is that in January, the Northern hemisphere snow coverage kicks in and the surface reflectivity increases to be about the same as clouds for a large portion of the hemisphere. This increase in reflectivity completely explains the power differential required to explain an average temperature difference of 8C. This is close to the 12C range seen between glacial and inter glacial periods, where the remainder is a consequence of average solar power variability and a small increase in seasonal component of the snow/ice pack. The main difference is that rather than being seasonally high, surface reflectivity is persistently high.

    CO2 lags temperature in the ice cores and lags by more as temperatures fall than as they rise. Hansen’s CO2 drives temperature hypothesis can not explain this little inconvenient fact. Biology can, where the delayed response of CO2 and CH4 to temperature reflects changes in the global biomass. Biomass is driven by CO2, water and solar energy and as biomass responds to increasing temperatures and more surface area is amenable to biomass, more biomass is decomposing back into CO2 and CH4 recirculating the carbon through the biosphere increasing the ambient level. Biomass sequesters natural sources of carbon (primarily volcanoes) by recirculating it through photosynthesis and decomposition and this process can take centuries to accumulate atmospheric CO2, but to the extent that biomass is CO2 limited, it’s more permanent sequestration or other loss will take longer as the relative difference between photosynthesis and decomposition increases CO2 as the total biomass is reduced.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Thanks George.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Friend of Boris, the comments are hidden by the result of a democratic process. I am sure you can’t relate to a democratic process. Watch and see your post will also receive the same fate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    John @ 42

    You say

    You already know the AGW starting point: We have experienced rapid warming of the atmosphere and oceans in the last 100+ years.

    There are at least two statements in this quote and I’m not sure there’s evidence for either.

    You already know the AGW starting point:

    Do we? Does this suggest that you have evidence that a global temperature rise over the last 100 years has been due to human influence? You’re not holding out on us are you John? You don’t also have evidence that the warming was harmful or catastrophic, by the way? And how different was ths “catastrophe” to the Medieval Warming Period of 900 – 1300 AD? Which brings us to a second statement:

    We have experienced rapid warming of the atmosphere and oceans in the last 100+ years.

    Have we? Unfortunately the temperature records only go back to the mid-1600′s when the first primative thermometers were invented. (Ahead of Gabriel Fahrenheit’s model of c. 1714) but what we do have shows that climate does change rapidly without any human intervention. (e.g. 1690′s to 1730′s). Another example. We have done nothing to make the climate cooler and yet we have had decadal drops in temperature in the 1890′s, 1940′s and 1970′s. So much so that we had the next ice age as our next climate apocalypse!

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Questions re clouds

    From Dr Clark’s A Null Hypothesis for CO2:

    “Under ideal clear sky conditions, the 70 ppm increase in CO2 increases the downward atmospheric long wave infrared (LWIR) surface flux by ~1.2 W.m-2. This goes up to ~1.7 W.m-2 for the full 100 ppm anthropogenic increase over the last 200 years. These numbers are derived from radiative transfer calculations using the HITRAN database and are used as ‘radiative forcing constants’ in the IPCC climate models.”

    1. In the real world, “ideal clear sky” means no clouds – am I correct? (seems obvious but I need to be 100%)

    2. The presence of clouds in the real world decreases the ‘radiative forcing constants’ of downward atmospheric long wave infrared (LWIR) aka back radiation – am I correct?

    3. The IPCC declaration that a 1 W.m-2 increase in downward LWIR flux due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration produces an increase in meteorological surface air temperature of 2/3 C is a “clear sky” estimate that decreases in the presence of clouds – am I correct?

    4. I am unclear as to whether the 1 W.m-2 figure in 3. is for anthropogenic or total CO2. It is referenced by Dr Clark to: J. Hansen et al, (45 authors), J. Geophys Research 110 D18104 pp1-45 (2005), “Efficacy of climate forcings”. I will search for this paper but in the event that I cannot gain access, can someone please give me clarification?

    It seems to me that the IPCC “radiative forcing constants” are not so constant in the real world that includes clouds.

    The NZ ETS relies on IPCC science so answers would be much appreciated by this Kiwi.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Donald (S.A.)

    “Common misconceptions”. The arrogance, from a bunch of second-raters. It would be doubtful if any of them could list the steps of the Scientific Method without referring to notes. Australia no longer rates a place in the top 170 universities world-wide, and it would appear this pack are doing their level best to maintain that disgrace.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    For what it’s worth, I read Boris’s comment, even though it was filtered. I needed context for the replies. Of course, putting anything in proper context is something else that’s not a part of the CAGW toolbox.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Climate Change has become the catch all for any and every natural disaster. E.g. Here is another story from Climate Spectator.

    Reality for some
    Published 10:29 AM, 24 Aug 2010

    While the rest of the world debates whether or not global warming is playing a part in the extreme weather events that have been wreaking havoc around the world of late, Pakistan seems to be pretty clear on the matter. Or at least the country’s foreign minister does.
    Speaking at last week’s plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly – which was gathered to address the humanitarian and economic impact of Pakistan’s “worst monsoon floods in living memory” – Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi said that “climate change, with all its severity and unpredictability, has become a reality for 170 million Pakistanis.”
    “The present situation in Pakistan reconfirms our extreme vulnerability to the adverse impacts of climate change. It also complicates the reconstruction and rehabilitation scenario in Pakistan, ” Qureshi said.
    “Nature has made a graphic endorsement to strengthen the case for a fair and equitable outcome from the ongoing UNFCCC negotiations.”
    Qureshi said that the floods, that had killed (at last ‘official’ count) around 1500 people, had affected the lives and livelihoods of 20 million Pakistanis. One in ten people had been rendered destitute, he said, while in a country where 70 per cent of the population was employed in the agriculture sector, over 17 million acres of agricultural land had been submerged.
    Crops worth billions of dollars had been destroyed, he added, and over one million tonnes of wheat, stored in warehouses, swept away.
    To read Qureshi’s full speech to the UN, click here.
    – Sophie Vorrath

    Comments on this article
    Previous Floods – Edit
    Submitted by Lawrie Ayres on Tue, 2010-08-24 14:19.
    August 23 1954 and 15 million Pakistanis were made homeless by the worst floods in recorded history.
    November 23 1970 and again in March 22 1971 floods ravage Pakistan leaving millions homeless.
    In the interim vast areas of woodlands in the hilly regions of Pakistan have been denuded for firewood, building materials and for cropland due to a surge in population.
    Now which one of these catastrophes was caused by climate change as we know it. As with many natural occurrences being blamed on climate change the reality lies with poor management of land cover and overpopulation. When the authorities start properly apportioning blame we might see the correct responses.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wriggle

    Mark D, that’s not democracy, that’s a one sided vote by a biassed audience. Secondly this seems to be the way you deal with arguments that are too difficult to honestly answer.

    Voting it into ‘hidden’ is an admission that you can’t face the truth. Instead you wish to deny its existence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    pat @ 33:

    Four Corners was the only program I watched last night and I was thinking the exact same thing – no doubt they considered the material too sensitive to run it during the campaign leading up to Saturday’s election. It really knocks the whole Labor rhetoric of “we saved Australia from teh recession” garbage on the head. Sometimes you need to have a little recession (Australia’s would not have been severe in any case) to keep teh economy competitive.

    I having been following a chap called John Mauldin for the best part of a year now and he has consistently talked of the liklihood of a double dip recession/depression. The next wave will be caused by debt deleveraging (the unwinding of massive debt levels) brought on by years and years of western world overspending. The party just could not go on forever.

    This is probably as good a piece (and easy to digest) on the double dip recession as you will find anywhere:

    http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/thoughts_from_the_frontline/archive/2010/07/17/the-debt-supercycle.aspx

    John is quite prolific a writer:

    http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/Default.aspx?GroupID=32

    or if you prefer video:

    http://singularityu.org/videos/2010/04/john-mauldin-the-end-game/

    The great thing about John is that he sticks to the basics… no fancy models, just simple economic concepts and tautological equations for the most part. As a former lecturer I really appreciate someone who can break down complex issues such as world economics and explain them eloquently to the lay person. It is a rare talent.

    The party is going to stop soon, or perhaps you can think of it as a global game of musical chairs. Just make sure you have a chair to sit on by the end of this year.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    John Brooke @ 42:

    Could you skeptics please sort out what you do agree on! That is, find a starting point where you say, “We all agree on the following facts….”
    ….to identify where you agree and disagree with the AGW position, and then focus on the actual evidence at the point where the two positions diverge. Simply arguing the toss on every single bit of the AGW argument is stupid…

    Well, John, that’s a misunderstanding of how science works. You seem to think science progresses like politics. And your quote above comes close to suggesting the burden of proof is upon the climate skeptics to prove the AGW theory is false.

    You see, proposing a hypothesis is a bloody unfair business under the accepted rules of scientific method. The AGW hypothesis can be attacked from any point by anyone and if the AGW hypothesis cannot answer to the evidence presented – even only a small bit of the evidence – then it is falsified. It’s not about diverging positions, it’s about where the hypothesis diverges from the evidence. There is only one hypothesis under scrutiny.

    The skeptics are NOT required to propose an alternative hypothesis to the AGW hypothesis, they simply can pose questions that the AGW hypothesis must answer correctly according to observational evidence or experimentation. If not, game over. Bloody unfair, isn’t it?

    The burden of proof is on the AGW team to identify what their hypothesis is, demonstrate its usefulness in explaining hitherto unexplained natural phenomena, outline its predictions and implications and how it can be tested. The role of the skeptic is merely to enforce honesty in this protracted process of rational inquiry.

    The skeptics are not a team. They may agree on many things, but each skeptic is individual free agent not necessarily beholden to any particular hypothesis to explain the climate. The main requirement for skepticism is intense sense of curiosity.

    That said, I suspect a kind of climate skeptical manifesto could be devised that many skeptics could subscribe too. However, it wouldn’t be an alternative hypothesis bearing the burden of proof but rather a socio-political declaration of principles based upon an understanding of the philosophy of science, perhaps along the lines of, say, Karl Popper.

    “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated.”

    Richard Feynman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    AC

    Well the Academy of Science has blinked. They have implicitly become sceptics with out having the moral integrity and balls to actually admit it. They have admitted “the science isn’t settled” and have had to fall back on the totally unscientific notion of the “precautionary principle” to justify their scare campaign. And how totally duplicitous of them to still categorise climate scepticism as a denial of the effect of CO2 when the debate has always been about water vapour feedbacks, which they now have been forced to concede. What an outrageously gutless performance not to simply come out and admit the complete roll over from their previous position. It seems that protecting egos is just more important than national interest.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom

    PRIME-MINISTER JULIA GILLARD HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH MISPRISION (CONCEALMENT OF TREASON)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.larryhannigan.com/treason.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Boris and Boris’s friend have raised some issues with climate sensitivity which I see George has dealt with in his usual forensic manner. The AOS report says this:

    “Water vapour accounts for about half the
    present-day greenhouse effect.”

    This is manifestly wrong. Ramanathan’s study of OLR based on variations in H2O and CO2 show that the greenhouse effect of H2O is 2.5 times that of CO2:

    http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ramanathan-coakley-1978-role-of-co2.png

    Ramanthan’s tables shows removing CO2 (and keeping water vapor) produces a 9% increase in outgoing flux; while removing water vapor (and keeping CO2) produces a 25% increase in outgoing flux. Water also has a negative feedback when it is in cloud form:

    http://stm.arm.gov/2008/presentations/0310/7_Dupont.pdf

    CO2′s effect on the greenhouse is also subject to Beer-Lambert which shows that for very increasing amount of CO2 there is a declining effect as the log graph shows:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/co2_temperature_curve_saturation.png

    If the AOS report cannot get this basic concept right the rest of it must be garbage. It really is a case that when influential people such as the authors of this report come out with predictions, forecasts and recommendations, which they expect people to rely on, on the basis of their expertise, that they should be held to account for the deficiencies and inaccuracies of their report.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Otter

    this seems to be the way you deal with arguments that are too difficult to honestly answer~ Wriggle

    Mostly because Jo does not allow the kind of language which an honest response to such dreck would require….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Probably stating the obvious at this site but isn’t it absurd for the IPCC to be creating a crisis when the offending 1.7 W.m-2 down-welling LWIR is lost in day-time 400 W.m-2 flux?

    Dr Roy Clark at Tallblokes Talkshop:

    “However, when the magnitude and variation of these fluxes is compared to the 1.7 W.m-2 ‘clear sky’ increase in flux from a 100 ppm of CO2, over 200 years, the change in CO2 flux is too small to make any measurable difference.”

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/roy-clark-a-null-hypothesis-for-co2/#more-796

    Also Nasif Nahle nails the radiative physics of CO2:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/nasif-nahle-nails-the-radiative-physics-of-co2/

    The futility of searching for the significance of 1.7 W.m-2 in a globally averaged down-welling LWIR flux can be understood just by viewing the plots in the Tallbloke post along with the following plots:

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/08/11/darwinian-selection-back-radiation/

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/09/sensible-heat-latent-heat-and-radiation/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    #36 Wes George

    Aha – you are right and I like the Plamsa Bullwinkle moniker as well :-) .

    I’m somewhat interested in this thread because the “pronouncement” by the Science Authorities that there is a problem with the discussion over whether humans affect the thermal state of the Earth raises the additional problem of whether the mainstream science establishment actually does science per se, rather than Cargo-Cult science as defined by Feynman.

    I came across a related topic some days ago (I think it was on John Ray’s Greeniewatch site) or American Thinker, or Lew Rockwell/Mises or DissectLeft) about the role Platonic philosophy and the role of Philosopher Kings determining what is done in governing a country.

    Ah, I start to recall – in the US there is the tea-party movement that is essentially leaderless, and better described by Hayek’s indentification as a self organising society etc.

    I’ll have to search for this op-ed in the above blogs before I comment further here as it was a thing-to-do when I got back to Perth this week.

    That said, AGW is fundamentally a Platonic mindset phenomenon where authority on high decides what is, whether in science, politics, or religion. In this sense opposition to AGW is fundamentally a political one by the non-Platonists, and ought to be discussed under this light.

    Notice that the discussion here about climate sensitivity and CO2 etc is essentially rhetorical and not based on data produced by physical experiment and measurement.

    Indeed the very fact that the argument is over the behaviour of CO2 specifically, (it does not exist physically as a separate gas in air whose properties might be measured), makes the whole effort scientifically nonsensical – it’s air of a specific chemical composition that is the object understudy – and in terms of Brownian motion, the thermal behaviour of air per se, and CO2 are not necessarily the same thing. Water ice with dissolved CO2 behaves physically as ice, and varying it’s chemistry, within obvious limits, doesn’t really affect its physical behaviour in a practical sense.

    But when the debate is limited to theoretical considerations, in the absence of physical experiment, then that activity is simply a Platonic dialog and consensus arrived at by artful persuasion rather than from compulsion by experiment.

    AGW is therefore a creature of the political left’s mindset, one which, never having to have to confirm it’s conclusion in reality, displays extreme congnitive dissonance when things go awry and fundamental beliefs are challenged. That this group control most of government, the education systems and the universities, means that no amount of scientifically valid contradictory evidence will ever persuade them that their ideas are, in the first place, wrong.

    That’s why sceptics, or climate realists, have such a hard time making headway in this debate.

    And history seems to show that the Platonists never learn from experience, so that fact makes it doubly hard to counter the AGW belief.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John Brookes, I do appreciate your contributions here and hope you’ll continue.

    Could you skeptics please sort out what you do agree on!

    The problem with this is that is no such things as “We” skeptics. We don’t exist as an organized group. Unlike those worried about carbon, no government pays us billions to toe-the-line, we have no official hierarchy, and we wouldn’t respect it if one were imposed on us (since by definition we respect reasoning and not authority).

    Like herding cats, we could never get all skeptics to go in one direction.

    Yes, I do sometimes wince at things some skeptics say, and it would be ideal if I could expose those flaws too, but forgive me, the targets offered by major institutions and government groups is always a higher priority for me. They control public money and policy.

    When someone organizes a UN agency for skeptical scientists that meets for 2 weeks a year with 20,000 people to thrash out a common message, then we could expect to see some kind of consensus document emerge, but I’d guarantee there’d be splinter groups who disagreed. That’s life on the front line of science.

    And Otter, Wiggle or Friend of Boris… all you anonymous commentators… if I wanted to hide someones comments I would delete them wouldn’t I? Actually, I’m finding boris’s comments helpful, because they are bringing out such well reasoned responses from George. Thanks to Boris. (And thanks to George).

    What to do with the thumbs down?

    I’m not sure. I wouldn’t personally have downrated Borises comment at #2. It wasn’t substantiated, but it was polite and I could follow his point, even if I didn’t agree. It is useful to me in that it reminds me that I need to put together a post on ice cores and climate sensitivity.

    Since moderators (thanks to those volunteers) do delete comments that are crude, rude, or extremely repetitive, perhaps we don’t need the “hidden” capacity of the thumbs down? It’s set to 20 at the moment.

    I wanted the thumbs down and up to help the skim readers of the blog comments: the people who only have a 20 seconds to find the most informative or entertaining comments, and by that judgement, the optional hiding facility does help a bit, though presumably we could use it to hide the nice, but not that informative “me too”, kind of comments.

    At the moment people are just using it as a way of expressing their opinions, but that’s useful in a way too.

    As it is, I think I should jig things to make the few really top notch comments stand out even further.

    I rarely stop polite fans of the carbon scare from writing on the site. But anonymous people with fake emails ought to be especially careful to self-edit. I and moderators don’t want to edit people, so if we find someone is costing us too much time they lose the privilege.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    #64

    I found the reference – “The Wisdom of Crowds“.

    “Armey and Kibbe wrote that the tea party movement “has blossomed into a powerful social phenomenon because it is leaderless — not directed by any one mind, political party or parochial agenda,” resulting in the creation of “a virtual marketplace for new ideas, effective innovations and creative tactics.”

    Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/mark_tapscott/Mark-Tapscott-Tea-party-movement-shows-wisdom-of-crowds-101038179.html#ixzz0xW0PFqyx


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Just noticed the title of this post “Humans affect Climate Change”.

    What, not climate itself, but climate change instead?

    So if climate changes all by itself, then obviously our input into the forces that change climate must be, apriori, significant.

    And what forces cause the climate to change on the Earth’s surface?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    The lost holy grail…Correct Knowledge.

    Math and formulas on incorrect science further muddles truth from being explored as it could damage the religion, science, and social fabric we have created in the pretence of truth with our morals and values.
    When you do find the “Actual Physical Evidence”, it is squashed by known theories that have lasted hundreds of years and ingrained as truth, even though they are incorrect when put to the test of time and the changes that have been generated through this.

    Has any scientist included the physical evidence that this planet is rotating at the speed of 1669.8 Km/hr into their theories and experiments?
    No, they have not.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cementafriend

    Thanks Jo for the post. Amazing that some AGW types like to demonstrate their lack of understanding or rather their ignorance.
    42 John Brookes asks for skeptics to sort out what they agree on.
    Well! I can offer one point. Climate and climate assessment is very, very complex. No one has a full grasp of all the interconnected disciplines and how changes take place not only on a daily basis to affect local weather (at our place yesterday the sky was clear upto 10AM -forcast sunny, then it clouded over, rained, and at 6.30PM -around sunset the clouds disappeared the sky was clear and the temperature dropped until 10PM, then it rained again), but not for seasonal changes such as the strength of monsoons, or the prevalence of cyclones nor longer term cycles (11 year, 56 year etc) of droughts, or very long term cycles which cause ice ages.
    The subject of heat transfer involves conduction, convection, radiation and phase changes (eg evaporation and condensation of water. Radiation assessment involves emissivity & absorptivity of different gases, aerosols, dust & particles, and clouds containing droplets of water and particles of ice. No one understands fully cloud formation. There are any assumptions just in calculating radiation heat transfer in the atmosphere because of lack of measured data. I have calculated using equations and measured data in text books that the absorption of radiation by CO2 is insignificant compared to water vapor on a clear day. Then throw in the effect of clouds which some papers say averages around 67% coverage over globe over a year. Locally, cloud cover varies from 0% to 100%.
    Only those people you have no background in the science/technologies associated with climate assessment can deny that it is complex.
    Science is settled? Is simpleton too strong a word for those who think it is?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    JaniePo @ 61 thanks for that link on Beware the Precautionary Principle.

    I enjoyed the last paragraph:

    In one sense, though, the precautionary principle might have some utility. If we apply the precautionary principle to itself – ask what are the possible dangers of using this principle – we would be forced to abandon it very quickly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Herbert

    cohenite, George didn’t address the climate sensitivity figure. He presented one point of view, and some calculations that I’ve yet to see in any climate science paper.

    That he writes “measured results from skeptics” suggests he wishes to dismissall studies that disagree simply because he doesn’t like the results.

    Not really a good way to practice science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Herbert; your comment encapsulates much that is perverse with the AGW debate; on the AGW side pronouncements are made and when those pronouncements regarding the science of proof for AGW are questioned from any source, peer reviewed or from legitimate comment and discussion on blogs or elsewhere, the usual response is indignation and a demand that the onus of proof is on the sceptics. But the sceptics are not presenting a view, AGW is, and the burden of proof should be on its advocates. The fact that there is no accountability from AGW allows such preposterous ‘science’ as this to rise to the top:

    http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100504HuberLimits.html

    Now, this is impossible; wet bulb temperature at the levels discussed in this paper are impossible; the duel presence of high SH and temp is contradictory because of enthalpy; if heat evaporated water had its latent energy combined with the heat used to evaporate that water then the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics would be contradicted; evaporated water at high levels already exists on Earth at the equator in the wet tropics where temperature is lower than at equivalent latitudes in dry areas because in the wet areas the extra energy is carried as enthalpy and not reflected in temperature. This is basic science and can be used to repudiate a peer reviewed paper such as the one above.

    In any event the sensitivity of the system must now be regarded as being defined by Lindzen and Choi’s revised paper which incorporated the criticisms leveled at their first effort but which still found much lower levels of sensitivity than promulgated by the IPCC; see:

    http://www.legnostorto.com/allegati/Lindzen_Choi_ERBE_JGR_v4.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #

    It might be a bit optimistic to say “The Western Climate Establishment sitting up and paying attention to skeptics…”. Nature, 23 Aug. 2010:

    “Australia’s electorate sends climate-change message”

    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100823/full/news.2010.425.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lindzen goes tropical

    Lindzen still does not address the fatal flaw of using only data from the tropics. He tries to make up for a lack of data by dividing climate sensitivity by 2 (a number he get from another flawed paper of his).

    So perhaps the paper you link to will get published, but it still isn’t any closer to a global figure for climate sensitivity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    John Brookes @ 42:

    You already know the AGW starting point: We have experienced rapid warming of the atmosphere and oceans in the last 100+ years.

    Yeh.. so? It’s been doing that for millions of years. In many cases much faster than today. The current rate of temperature change is actually small compared to previous times:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DWB5yid3PA

    Look at the rates of those temp changes. Today isn’t unprecedented and [yawn].. boring. At the end of this video, you’ll see we have a deep ice age approximately every 100,000 years (likely due to Milankovich Cycles). Hazard a guess as to where our climate will soon shift please.

    CO2 absorbs outgoing infra-red radiation from the earth, thus warming the atmosphere.

    But only for a short time. The atmosphere, with its 95% of GHG’s water vapour and trace gases, isn’t really trapping anything. It’s slowing down incoming radiation like a buffer and releasing it. A molecule of gas (of any kind) can’t trap that heat forever, it transfers it instantly to a neighbouring molecule. You know you can fry at 50C in a desert during the day, and you also know you can freeze that very night if you have a clear sky. CO2 doesn’t “trap” anything. Notice how nights are usually always warmer with overcast conditions?

    Humans are responsible for a steadily increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and hence a gradual warming of the atmosphere and oceans.

    I would like you to prove that, but for now I’ll disprove it. As the planet warms due to Milankovich, solar and ocean changes, CO2 levels rise some 800 years after temperature. That’s proven fact. Something The Goreacle “conveniently” left out. Nature currently contributes some 640Bn tons/year CO2 to the atmosphere, and Man’s contribution is just 30Bn. That’s about 5%. CO2 is currently at 0.038% of the atmosphere and you’re worried about 0.0019% of it creating an instability? That’s a 3rd of a grain of rice at the dinner table.

    Example:

    A square metre of space is a million cubic centimetres. Now throw 388 cc’s in there and see how closely they mingle. That’s 388ppm CO2 we have today, hardly the 20x that we had several million years ago. If CO2 and temperature climb were linear, the temp would climb via Milankovich etc., CO2 would climb, creating more temp, then more CO2, more temp.. Immediate runaway greenhouse every time. This has never happened because (and we’re still alive debating this now moot point):

    http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/log-co2/log-graph-lindzen-choi-web.gif

    CO2 in atmosphere and ocean aren’t linear, they’re logarithmic. The more you add the less effect it has as there’s only so much radiant energy around that each molecule can absorb and pass on without having to fight for it, the rest being absorbed and transferred by other gas molecules.

    As we see in the Jurassic, it was particularly tropical, likely due to inland seas and differing continental arrangements changing the ocean currents and oscillations, with some 5-10x more CO2 than today. Delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans, the proof of which are those pesky un-dissolved fossils of corals and shellfish of that era cramming our museum shelves. On the trail of acid oceans:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/the-electric-oceanic-acid-test

    “The first thing that I learned is that when you go from the tropics (Hawaii) to the North Pacific (Alaska), the water becomes less and less alkaline. Who knew? So even without any CO2, if you want to experience “acidification” of the ocean water, just go from Hawaii to Alaska … you didn’t notice the change from the “acidification”? You didn’t have your toenails dissolved by the increased acidity?”

    Sea water globally ranges from ph 7.9 – 8.3, which is alkaline, and can only be so as the oceans scrub continually on alkaline rocks.

    Ever notice how global temperature changes are very strong during an El Nino or volcanic event? My own mother knew this in 1974.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/12/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-–-part-2

    Check out this page and make sense of the science:

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm

    From what the real science tells us:

    1. Milankovich cycles can rule the deep ice ages (Jupiter and Saturn pulling the Sun away from the Earth).
    2. Solar cycles rule the minor climate fluctuations such as the Maunder Minimum.
    3. PDO and AMO transfer energy from those solar cycles decades later via ocean currents.
    4. Water vapor, clouds, aerosols and CO2 are minor players in the daily chaos and contribute little to actual global effects beyond 1C.

    I would find few here to disagree (correct or debate me if I’m wrong guys).

    Then you get people like Monckton doing tricks involving dividing by zero and then showing that 1 = 2, and everyone claps.

    I haven’t seen that one, and I am calling you to task on showing us all that evidence. Even I would consider going against Monckton’s facts suicidal.

    In fact, Monckton states:

    Using the IPCC’s bloated figures, to forestall warming of 1C, would require mitigation of 1Tn tons CO2, over the next 30 years. That means no cars, trains, aircraft, campfires or industry – for the next 30 years. Back to the stone age. The real figures blow that out to some 200 years.

    What I say:

    You’ll willingly support the destruction of global industry and economies, just “in case” (which means you haven’t got the science right, and maybe couldn’t be bothered). You’ll be staring out of your cave at the night sky, shivering, wondering what the [snip] went wrong – all the while Nature continues to spew out CO2 as she likes (even to higher levels than today), dependent on Milankovich, Solar cycles, PDO, AMO and water vapour.

    If you want to Save The Planet and control the climate, you might as well be “shooing” the clouds away or trying to stop the Earth’s rotation. Humans are arrogant creatures that believe they have the final say and control of everything.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KR

    Lindzen and Choi are still only using the tropics for their computations, which is one of the major complaints lodged against their earlier work. All the temperature evidence indicates that the poles are much more sensitive to feedback and warming (note that both the Northwest and Northern [around Russia] Passages are now open).

    Their estimates on climate sensitivity will be off unless they correct this issue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Herbert, re 71

    What part of the basic math and physics don’t you get? Do you deny that Stefan-Boltzmann describes the relationship between temperature and emitted energy? Do you deny that solar power and GHG recirculated power have the same influence on a Watt per Watt basis? The Sun is hot and appears yellow, yet I can’t recall reading that in a climate paper either. Are all intuitively obvious facts subject to debate if they don’t appear in a paper? Tell me what part of the science you are in denial of and I can help you work through your intrinsic bias.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    KR,

    The poles are more responsive to change in forcing power because is takes more power to sustain incrementally higher temperatures when it’s hot, then when it’s cold. While it takes a linear amount of energy to change temperature by a linear amount (1 cal to raise the temperature of water by 1C), energy leaves at a rate proportional to the fourth power of the temperature, so the warmer it gets, the faster it cools and the more power it takes to maintain the higher temperature. The relevance is that the warmer it gets, the harder it gets to further increase the temperature, so why are you harping on the behavior at colder temperatures? It brings up a point that’s not particularly friendly to your broken hypothesis.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #

    KR:
    August 25th, 2010 at 1:12 am #76
    Lindzen and Choi are still only using the tropics for their computations, which is one of the major complaints lodged against their earlier work. All the temperature evidence indicates that the poles are much more sensitive to feedback and warming (note that both the Northwest and Northern [around Russia] Passages are now open).

    Their estimates on climate sensitivity will be off unless they correct this issue.

    First let’s consider that the signature “hot spot” is supposed to appear in the tropics, why should anyone be surprised that research might focus there? As there is no “hot spot” one might reasonably conclude that AGW climate sensitivity estimates are wrong also.

    Given the paucity of Arctic and Antarctic temperature data, blathering about temperature evidence at the poles is a bit off the wall. The anomaly maps showing a “hot” Arctic are produced by statistical infilling, NOT measured temperatures.

    At any rate, the climate sensitivity of which you speak is a stastical sensivity, not a physical sensitivity. Throwing in the anecdote about the Northwest and Northern passages shows that you don’t know the difference.

    The Northern passage being “open” happens frequently and the Northwest passage has been “open” before. There was a reason early 19th century Arctic explorers were trying to find it. They’d heard about it before. Until commercial vessels can navigate through unescorted, “open” is a pretty loose way to describe either passage.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kr

    co2isnotevil @ 78

    Just pointing out that Lindzen and Choi didn’t speak to some of the critical issues with their work; their limiting data to tropical temperatures to derive sensitivity. The behavior at the poles, as you note, is more extreme (plus and minus, interglacial and glacial), they don’t include it, and hence their ‘average global’ climate sensitivity number is a weak estimate.

    They also don’t discuss energy exchanges between the tropical, temperate, and polar regions – a lot of energy moves between the tropics and sub-tropics, on the order of their total tropical energy values. The tropics are not a closed system. Again, you need global data for global estimates.

    These problems were pointed out in their first papers on the subject – they haven’t addressed them.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Friend of Boris:
    August 24th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
    A usual someone likes Boris makes a valid point about climate sensitivity and how Nova fails to cite evidence for a low value and his comments are ‘ hidden’.

    Already addressed in a couple other comments, but gee, a quick mouse click and by golly the comment is right there for anyone to read. Not like at Real Climate, Climate Progress and Open Mind, where censorship rules.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Joanne Nova: #65
    August 24th, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    What to do with the thumbs down?

    Jo,
    Do nothing. It’s fine. While a “skimmer” might pass over a hidden comment, someone commenting is not likely to skip a hidden. I wind up opening them to gain context on the discussion. For contributors, I don’t think anything is really lost with hidden comments as long as they can be opened.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kr

    co2isnotevil @ 78

    My apologies, I didn’t get the scale correct. “,…latent heat release in precipitation, and redistribution of that heat through atmospheric winds…” through the tropics and sub-tropics are an order of magnitude greater than TOA radiation changes, not roughly equal.

    But then, what’s an order of magnitude among friends, when deriving a result only 50-60% different than anyone else’s?

    Lindzen and Choi didn’t address this in the current (pre-publication???) paper either.

    I believe that the issue of cloud cover that Lindzen and Choi discuss is very important. I just wish they would (a) consider a data set with better coverage, and (b) not try to treat the tropics as a closed system.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    KR:

    At #80 you wrongly assert:

    Just pointing out that Lindzen and Choi didn’t speak to some of the critical issues with their work; their limiting data to tropical temperatures to derive sensitivity. The behavior at the poles, as you note, is more extreme (plus and minus, interglacial and glacial), they don’t include it, and hence their ‘average global’ climate sensitivity number is a weak estimate.

    Etc.

    No! You are dead wrong.

    In their paper, Lindzen and Choi (L&C) say:

    ERBE data appear to demonstrate a climate sensitivity of about 0.5°C which is easily distinguished from sensitivities given by models.

    In other words, L&C say their analysis indicates that if atmospheric CO2 concentration were to double then global temperature would only increase by “about 0.5°C”: this is much less than the rise of between 3.5 and 6 °C the models suggest for a doubling of CO2.

    However, their findings are from the tropical region and the feedbacks may differ at distances from the tropics. Therefore, L&C say;

    Following Lindzen et al. [2001], allowing for sharing this tropical feedback with neutral higher latitudes could reduce the negative feedback factor by about a factor of two. This would lead to an equilibrium sensitivity that is 2/3 rather than 1/2 of the non-feedback value. This, of course, is still a small sensitivity.

    So, L&C say in their paper that when the different feedback magnitudes of non-tropical regions are considered then it could be that L&C’s determination of climate sensitivity would double from “about 0.5°C” to about 1 °C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. But that is still much less than is suggested by the climate models.

    The ERBE data is not capable of determining the mechanisms that provide the magnitudes of the feedbacks but L&C are now studying more recent data from CALIOP in an attempt to determine the mechanisms.

    Please bother to read a paper before you misrepresent what it says.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KR

    Richard S Courtney @ 84

    I did read the paper.

    They give a factor of ’2′, but they don’t support it with any data! And given the factor of 10 energy movement with latent heat, convection, tropical storms, etc. over the TOA energy, I would like to see some reasoning for ’2′. It’s not there – the x2 feels like a fudge factor, not science.

    I look forward to future work from them with additional data, though – I think the cloud feedback is really one of the under-determined issues in the debate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    KR,

    The CAGW crowd seems oblivious to this as well. How else could they get away with the kind of adjustments, renormalizations and homogenization applied to data in order to eek out a false confession of warming (i.e. the hockey stick). In all fairness, Lindzen and Choi did not ignore this, they just treated in a way you don’t like. Of course, the error they introduced is mouse nuts compared to the massive errors found in the IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity, moreover; the Lindzen and Choi analysis is based on more complete surface coverage than any warmist estimate. Don’t you recognize the hypocrisy in denying the Lindzen and Choi analysis while at the same time accepting Hansen homogenization which represents the epitome of sparse data selection from a large data set?

    If you want a global value for the sensitivity, just divide surface power by incident power over the entire planet (or an individual hemisphere), convert power to temperature, and you have it. Of course, when you do this, the sensitivity to doubling CO2 is on the low side of the skeptics estimates which isn’t the answer you want to see, so you deny it.

    Why do you insist on holding on to your hyper inflated sensitivity estimates? What possible mechanism supports GHG forcing, on a watt by watt basis, as being more than 4 times more powerful at warming the surface than solar power? Why is is that warmists are so prejudicially opposed to Conservation of Energy? I understand how ideology can distort your perception of reality, but don’t ignore fundamental, first principles in the process, it just makes you look silly.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    cohenite said:

    “Water vapour accounts for about half the
    present-day greenhouse effect.”

    This is manifestly wrong. Ramanathan’s study of OLR based on variations in H2O and CO2 show that the greenhouse effect of H2O is 2.5 times that of CO2:

    No it isn’t. Using the same calculations as you note for CO2 you get 36% and 72% for water vapor. “About half” is a simplistic, but adequate, description.

    But let me applaud you for citing the literature. R&C is certainly the seminal paper on the issue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    My first sentence wasn’t clear: No, it isn’t wrong to say “about half.” I would agree that currently WV is about 2.5 times the effect of CO2.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    I note KR and the cutely named “Lindzen goes tropical” are denigrating L&C for restricting their study to the tropics; as George, Richard and JLKruegar correctly observe it is in the tropics that the vast majority or radiative effect occurs. As George has observed radiation losses increase proportional to the fourth power of temperature. This means that each additional degree of warming requires more and more input energy to achieve. To warm the earth from 13°C to 14°C requires 20% more energy than to warm it from minus 6°C (the current world average temperature less 20°C) to minus 5°C. Simply put variations in warming and radiative flux in the colder regions play a much lessor role in the ERB and therefore calculation of AGW; this paper sums up the reason why:

    http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf

    The paper says: “A 1C increase in the polar latitudes in the winter, for example, would have much less of an effect on the change of longwave emission than a 1C increase in the tropics.” This is a rather overlooked aspect of the AGW debate, namely the worth of a global average temperature [GMST] to reflect changes in the greenhouse effect and it is dealt with here in some depth:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/spatial-variations-in-gmst-eli-rabbett-vs-dr-pielke-sr/

    The point is summed up thus: (A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4;

    In effect L&C have given too much weight to the supposed greater Arctic warming by giving it a factor of 2; based on SB it should be much less. I say ‘supposed’ Arctic warming because as others have observed the Arctic temperature is subject to considerable interpolation by the official data sources; quite bluntly, they have a dreadful record of overestimating using this method [see the discredited Steig paper alledgedly proving warming in the Antarctic for instance]. In addition, the Arctic ice cover, the best proxy of warming, or not, in the Arctic is also subject to considerable doubt in supporting AGW. Perhaps the best critique of the current, supposed, unprecedented Arctic warming comes from one of the world’s experts on the Arctic:

    http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

    As I say, L&C is for now the definitive statement on the overblown AGE estimates of climate sensitivity.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Al Gore could have done better than AAS, with a DVD and lectures at$100 or so a seat.
    Well done Jo.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Boris, cohenite,

    My HITRAN_2008 based atmospheric simulations put the clear sky absorption at about 1/3 CO2, 2/3 H2O and a few percent for everything else combined. Atmospheric absorption between cloud tops and space is closer to 1/2 CO2 and 1/2 H2O, largely because there is little water vapor above the clouds, although it doesn’t take very much to get the water contribution up to 50%.

    Atmospheric absorption between the surface and clouds is more heavily biased towards water vapor, however, atmospheric absorption here has little to no incremental effect as the clouds act as a super efficient GHG capturing almost all of the LW radiation emitted by the surface anyway.

    This is something else the warmists miss, which is that GHG absorption relative to surface temperature only really matters for the 35% of the planet not covered by clouds.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    How do we put that cloud cover into the models? – Kurt Lambeck

    Possibly as an addition to the IPCC Radiative forcing components

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html

    There doesn’t seem to have been a problem including Cloud albedo RF -0.7 (-1.8 to -0.3 W.m-2)

    But, we ask – Why do we rely on models?

    “The troposphere is an open thermodynamic system so heat and flux are not conserved.” – Dr Roy Clark

    And given the omission of cloud cover from the models –

    If AGW was a drug – the FDA would not approve it


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    KR:

    At #85, concerning the paper by Lindzen and Choi, you assert:

    They give a factor of ‘2′, but they don’t support it with any data! And given the factor of 10 energy movement with latent heat, convection, tropical storms, etc. over the TOA energy, I would like to see some reasoning for ‘2′. It’s not there – the x2 feels like a fudge factor, not science.

    That is not true, as anybody can check by reading it for themselves. The facts are as said (with direct quotes from the paper) at #84.

    You claim to have read the paper. So, either you need a course in reading comprehension or your post is an attempt to misinform the gullible.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    B1

    There are many published scientific papers showing climate sensitivity in the higher range.

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/papers-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates/

    Some people here wish to ignore those and hope no one notices that Lindzen, who produces a low value, tries to deal with the tropical / sub tropical interaction in a simplistic manner.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jan of Perth

    Change of Mantra

    I have recently had a long discussion with a relative who is deep, deep green. I was surprised to learn that, at least from this greenie, the mantra has changed in the past six months. Climate Change is now a non-issue [climate always changes!]. The important issue is to reduce the production of carbon to ensure “Clean air, clean water and clean energy for our grandchildren,” which all sound very noteworthy and admirable on the surface and very hard to criticize. However all this cleanliness comes at a cost: rainfall should be retained for nature, energy should not be dug out of the earth, industry and people should be charged for producing carbon, which means taxation of industry and individuals and definitely no government subsidies of water usage and energy (except green energies), no subsidies for infrastructure (we should not be travelling and creating carbon). All water etc. is to be recycled, all foodstuffs and other products should be produced locally to avoid pollution through transportation. The polluting effect of carbon is causing the acidification of the ocean, dirty air, poor quality water, and destroying the earth.

    Any counter argument to say there are alternative points of view is greeted with “You are a member of the conspiracy theory group,” and “Government agencies or those supported with government monies have to be right because they would not be in this position of power if there were wrong.”

    My concern is that the arguments have now changed. Absolute belief by the population in Global Warming has waned so the ground-rules and the battle ground have quietly been changed. Those people now trying to balance the belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming may well win the battle re the impact of carbon on temperature, but will lose the war because the Green movement is going to develop a different scenario and battlefield.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Jan of Perth,

    I agree and have noted the warmists since December or so, have been invoking the “Grandchildren Principle” with greater frequency. Wes George likes to dissect the psychology but I think behind the scenes “they” have already considered what it would take to get this agenda to move forward.

    Unfortunately for “them” the planing was done before the internet! Them have a problem.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Jan of Perth:
    I have no doubt that you are right, but as they are constantly forced to change tack they are also being forced to reveal more of their true agenda. Which of course is the idealised Aquarian communist state, of the sort that Pol Pot attempted to impose on Cambodia.
    PS Next time you may like to point out the similarities between your green cousins, vision of the ideal society and Pol Pot’s vision for Cambodia. They will scream blue murder about Pol Pot’s methods but the ultimate goal was the same.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Jan,

    It’s never really been about climate change as far as the green agenda is concerned, it’s always been a zero tolerance approach to the environment devoid of any cost benefit analysis. The green’s jumped on the CAGW bandwagon because it provided a justification for their otherwise unsupportable agendas. The same can be said of the progressives and socialists who have other agendas, but see climate change as a lever they can use to force their way upon the clueless masses.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    B1 links to BPL’s legendary list of CS papers; they include Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? by Shaviv & Veizer (2003); Shaviv definitely thinks CS is low:

    http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity

    The list also includes Tanaka’s really bad piece which I included in my recent list of another 10 worst pro-AGW papers.

    If CS was high from a doubling of CO2 the simple fact is that with an approximate increase in CO2 over the last century of ~ 40-45% the temperature increase, even assuming the official data has not been fudged, which is a big assumption, would be much higher than 0.7C.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    The Greens have always been about changing society to be less intrusive of nature; that combined with their communistic tendencies and fundamental misanthropy would mean, if green ideology were enacted, that any society so inflicted would be like the society described in Hamilton’s ‘Growth Fetish’ and critiqued by Andrew Norton in his aptly named piece “Clive Hamilton’s Manifesto for Misery” which can be googled.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    George@ 91; I must say the relative absorptivity of CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere is a vexed and confusing one [for me anyway]; for instance the backradiation comparison between water and CO2 in the overlapping wavelength of 15um shows a much greater CO2 effect:

    http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/spectra-h2o-co2-15um.png

    Yet in Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate, W.J.F. Evans & E. Puckrin, American Meteorological Society, 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change (2006), we see in tables 3a and 3b);

    Winter
    H20 94 to 125 W m-2
    CO2 31 to 35 W m-2

    Summer
    H20 178 to 256 W m-2
    CO2 10.5 W m-2

    Not only did the relative CO2 contribution drop in Summer, but the back radiation value decreased from about 30 Winter to about 10 W/m2 Summer.

    The height of the CO2 backradiation effect is also instructive:

    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=KaJHBv9FbYIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Geiger%E2%80%99s+%E2%80%9CThe+Climate+Near+The+Ground%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=2vWksoLUjX&sig=uzVQx1QlpuuIgcLfqjFI7x7-Eas&hl=en&ei=t_1oTJy5B5DCcYLg3awP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Geiger%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Climate%20Near%20The%20Ground%E2%80%9D&f=false

    In Geiger the height from which the bulk of CO2 backradiation comes from is 72% from the lowest 87 metres of atmosphere. Another 6.4% comes from the next 89 metres, 4% from the 93 metres above that, 3.7% from the next 99 metres, 2.3% from the next 102 metres, and 1.2% from the next 105 metres.

    This means that some 90% of the backradiation is coming from the first (lowest) 578 metres of atmosphere. Furthermore, Fig 11-1 from Geiger seems to confirm Aa=Ed, the paradigm of Miskolczi; The diagram and accompanying Tables from 11-1 show the lapse rate of temp from the surface to what appears to be 51 metres; averaged over the 24 hours at different seasons there appears to be an equivalence but I haven’t done an exact calculation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    “Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”. – Climate sensitivity and feedbacks IPCC ar4 Synthesis Report.

    “The exact amount of warming that will result from any particular trajectory for future greenhouse gas emissions cannot be projected precisely, because it depends on details of processes that reinforce or dampen disturbances to the climate system. Important processes involve clouds“… – The Science of Climate Change Questions 7 How do we deal with the uncertainty in the science?

    The “largest source of uncertainty” that is also an “important process” is excluded from IPCC climate models.

    However, future warming can be specified within plausible bounds, not only from climate models but also from interpretations of climate changes in the past.” – The Science of Climate Change Questions 7 How do we deal with the uncertainty in the science?

    No, future warming cannot be specified within plausible bounds
    if, by the IPCC and AAS’s own admission, the largest source of uncertainty that is also an important process is excluded from consideration.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Not Richard

    Richard C – you are wrong about models and clouds.

    http://climateprediction.net/content/modelling-climate

    You can even download the application and see the clouds as they are rendered as the model runs.

    http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/climate_prediction_lg.jpg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Not Richard@103

    Yes, but where is the cloud cover parameter in the table of radiative forcing components (Natural category), IPCC ar4 Synthesis Report and what is its value? Table shown here:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Not Richard; your link to an article about the MET and “UK Met Office’s state-of-the-art Unified Model” to vindicate your assertion that models are doing a good job is I presume intentionally ironic?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/08/met-office-summer-forecast-drowning-again/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Still not Richard

    hens nite, I linked to the model to show that the climate models do include clouds.

    That you get confused between a climate model and a weather forecasting model doesn’t surprise me!¡!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Still not Richard@ 106

    From your Climateprediction link

    “The Unified Model

    The atmospheric part of the model used by climateprediction.net is the UK Met Office’s state-of-the-art Unified Model; the same model that is used to produce every weather forecast you see on British terrestrial television.”

    Same Global Climate Model (GCM), they are just using the atmospheric part for poor weather forecasting as Cohenite points out.

    Now, where’s that cloud cover parameter value?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    “hens nite”; best yet!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    So Richard was wrong

    So now you can see why you were wrong to say the models don’t include clouds.

    Yes, the atmospheric component does share part of the weather model – which incorporates clouds.

    As for your IPCC link, that is an output, not an input.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    So Richard was wrong# 109

    The IPCC models make no provision for radiative forcing from natural cloud cover. If they do, as you assert, then you would be able to present a value of the forcing, which you can’t.

    No, the atmospheric component used for poor weather forecasting shares part of the GCM. Read the quote again since your comprehension seems challenged.

    A parameter is an input.

    pa·ram·e·ter (p-rm-tr)
    n.
    1. Mathematics
    a. A constant in an equation that varies in other equations of the same general form, especially such a constant in the equation of a curve or surface that can be varied to represent a family of curves or surfaces.
    b. One of a set of independent variables that express the coordinates of a point.
    2.
    a. One of a set of measurable factors, such as temperature and pressure, that define a system and determine its behavior and are varied in an experiment.
    b. Usage Problem A factor that restricts what is possible or what results: “all the parameters of shelter where people will live, what mode of housing they will choose, and how they will pay for it” (New York).
    c. A factor that determines a range of variations; a boundary: an experimental school that keeps expanding the parameters of its curriculum.
    3. Statistics A quantity, such as a mean, that is calculated from data and describes a population.
    4. Usage Problem A distinguishing characteristic or feature.

    For your homework tonight;-

    A 1000 word essay on why ignoring the human immune system would be detrimental to the field of medicine and how this analogy may be applied to climate science,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Hang around Richard Doppleganger; condescending people can be fun; but do some homework; firstly, find an IPCC approved peer reviewed paper which regards clouds as a negative feedback [and Spencer and Braswell don't count]; and 2ndly look up “Superparameterization”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Richard C, can you explain what “Usage Problem” means in your above definition? Also please note that only 1 of your 4 definitions for “parameter” actually implies an input.

    Finally, if cloud cover really is an input, how is this useful for prediction (as the IPCC have predicted 3 degrees C of warming will occur before 2100)?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    So Richard was wrong

    Hey Richard C,

    Care to show where any of those figures from the IPCC are in the parameters?

    http://climateprediction.net/content/parameters

    chiknite, do your own research.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Tel@ 112

    From the dictionary definition supplied: b. Usage Problem A factor that restricts what is possible or what results

    And which of the definitions implies an output?

    Joanne’s post has already addressed your third question (in respect to cloud cover in the models): “If they provide negative feedback then instead of amplifying the direct effect of carbon, they dampen it. Instead of pushing us towards 3 or 4 degrees, they hold us back below one degree.”

    Cohenites advice re “Superparameterization” is worthwhile . Please refer to the Climate Audit post: Cloud Super-Parameterization and Low Climate Sensitivity

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/11/cloud-super-parameterization-and-low-climate-sensitivity/

    The significance of replacing a static parameter with a small cloud resolving model (the dynamic CRM becomes the new parameter) and the improved usefulness for prediction should become self evident after reading the post (and comments). That is of course, only if you accept the radiative forcing approach as a realistic method of climate simulation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    So Richard was wrong@ 113

    No, because the place to look is here:

    https://results.cpdn.org/repository/parameters#standard

    Standard forcings are as follows:

    * file_solar is default.
    * file_volcanic is default or file_volcanic matches volc_v01 to volc_10.
    * anthsca is default .
    * file_ozone is ‘ozone_hadcm3_1919_2082′.
    * file_nh3so2 is ‘DMSNH3SO2A1B_19182082N’.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    So Richard was wrong

    @114, Joanne’s ‘If’ has yet to be shown. They might be slightly negative now, but enough to counteract the sustained CO2 forcing? Past climate tells us that it probably can’t.

    @115, got any more straws to clutch at?

    The table you linked to before is an estimate of radiative forcing from 1750 to 2005. They are not figures that are entered into a climate model as parameters. That you suggest such a thing shows you are blindly accepting ‘Nova’ science and have no concept yourself.

    Here’s a bit more information about that table.

    http://www.physorg.com/news187443399.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    If CS was high from a doubling of CO2 the simple fact is that with an approximate increase in CO2 over the last century of ~ 40-45% the temperature increase, even assuming the official data has not been fudged, which is a big assumption, would be much higher than 0.7C.

    I’m afraid you’re incorrect again. CS in a equilibrium term and we have not reached equilibrium with respect to the CO2 already emitted into the atmosphere.

    Also, I’m not sure why it is a “big assumption” to discount something for which there is zero evidence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Boris,

    You couldn’t be more wrong. Your assertion that the planet’s steady state condition does not already account for the effects of man’s CO2 emissions is 100% incorrect. The planet is in a steady state equilibrium as it responds to massive daily and seasonal changes in flux from the Sun. It adapts to these changes almost immediately, otherwise, there would be no seasonal differences, or for that matter, any difference between night and day. The hemispheres respond mostly independently to changes in solar power. Just because one is cooling while the other is warming doesn’t mean the heat from one hemisphere is transferred to the other. Each hemisphere arrives at it’s own steady state with it’s surroundings and both absorb incident power and radiate it back into space. The 2 hemispheres share a boundary at the equator, but compared to the total flux, the power passing across the equator is insignificant and can be ignored.

    During a single day, the solar power flux varies over about a 340 W/m^2 range. The daily incremental increase owing to increased CO2 (using 3 ppm increase per year and overinflated IPCC forcing values) is on the order of 100 microwatts per day which is less than a millionth of the average daily flux. The daily change in solar flux arising from seasonal change is on the order of a watt per day at the mid latitudes.

    The Earth has no problem adjusting to the watt or so per day of solar forcing change arising just from the gradual change in day length and solar angle. What possible physical fantasy realm exists where the planet has no problem adapting to a gradual change of a watt or so per day, but adapting to change orders of magnitude smaller takes years or decades? This is just another of the many claims of CAGW pseudo science whose absurdity becomes apparent once some simple sanity checking is applied.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    @116

    No, radiative forcing is “IPCC” science.

    From IPCC ar4 glossary of terms:

    Radiative forcing
    Radiative forcing is the change in the net, downward minus upward, irradiance (expressed in Watts per square metre, W/m2) at the tropopause due to a change in an external driver of climate change, such as, for example, a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide or the output of the Sun. Radiative forcing is computed with all tropospheric properties held fixed at their unperturbed values, and after allowing for stratospheric temperatures, if perturbed, to readjust to radiative-dynamical equilibrium. Radiative forcing is called instantaneous if no change in stratospheric temperature
    is accounted for. For the purposes of this report, radiative forcing is further defined as the change relative to the year 1750 and, unless otherwise noted, refers to a global and annual average value.

    Climate model
    A numerical representation of the climate system based on the physical, chemical and biological properties of its components, their interactions and feedback processes, and accounting for all or some of its known properties. The climate system can be represented by models of varying complexity, that is, for any one component or combination of components a spectrum or hierarchy of models can be identified, differing in such aspects as the number of spatial dimensions, the extent to which physical, chemical or biological processes are explicitly represented, or the level at
    which empirical parametrisations are involved…….

    And from your link:

    “the basic concept of radiative forcing is one on which scientists — whatever their views on global warming or the IPCC — all seem to agree.”

    Again no. David Chandler (whoever he is) needs to do some reading.

    Here’s the view of a scientist who does not agree. From the “lite” version of the paper – A Null Hypothesis for CO2, Dr Roy Clark (The full paper is in the stands now):

    “Most of the large scale climate models used to predict global warming ignore the physics of energy transfer at the Earth’s surface and use an approach known as radiative forcing.10, 23-26 This assumes that long term averages of dynamic, non-equilibrium climate variables such as radiative flux and surface temperatures can be analyzed using perturbation theory as though they were in radiative equilibrium. Although the mathematical derivation is correct and may even appear elegant, the underlying physical assumptions are invalid before the first equation is written down. The troposphere is an open thermodynamic system so heat and flux are not conserved.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard still confused

    @119, any point to all your cut & paste?

    I am well aware of the definition.

    But you’ve yet to show why you think that table would be an input to climate models.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard still confused

    co2snot, you are wrong again. Equilibrium is not so quickly reached otherwise we would have no reason to distinguish between climate sensitivity at equilibrium and transient climate sensitivity.

    e


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    One of a set of measurable factors, such as temperature and pressure, that define a system and determine its behavior and are varied in an experiment.

    This could equally well describe an input, or an output, or a feedback.

    Anyhow, the use of a dictionary to describe technical terms tends to result in confusion because the body of theory required to make sense of the technical term is inevitably missing from the dictionary. The correct way to describe these things is with a block diagram that clearly shows the direction of information flow between the sub-units of the system. I’m disappointed by how rarely the GCM components are properly documented in this manner.

    My point is that if you make cloud cover an input then all ability to make meaningful predictions is lost. It must always be modeled as a feedback against some model of cloud formation (and the IPCC admit that their models are poor). I’m perfectly happy to consider that climateaudit may have come up with a better model, or that even better models will come along in due course.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Regarding the definition of radiative forcing (from the Pysorg article):

    For the Earth’s climate system, it turns out that the level where this imbalance can most meaningfully be measured is the boundary between the troposphere (the lowest level of the atmosphere) and the stratosphere (the very thin upper layer). For all practical purposes, where weather and climate are concerned, this boundary marks the top of the atmosphere.

    There are a number of serious problems with this, glossed over by the article. First problem is that the boundary of the top of the troposphere is a strange and uneven shape, which is not static, and quite likely would change significantly to compensate energy imbalance. Second problem is that direct physical measurements of energy balance at this boundary are difficult to do. Third problem is that the actual answer that we want out of GCM’s is a workable prediction of surface temperatures which do not directly relate to temperatures at the tropopause. Putting all those together and this business of “the level where this imbalance can most meaningfully be measured” is highly questionable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Jan of Perth,

    When one bogyman fails you need another…and another…and another…

    First global warming, then climate change, now…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Rodmclaughlin @73,

    My reading of the comments on Nature’s story tells the reporter he got it wrong. The Greens want an ETS and 87% of Australians voted for something else.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    @120

    Unfortunately, in terms of climate simulation, you are living in the past. IPCC ar5 will need to address the necessity of including cloud cover in simulations but the methodology has moved on from the static components that you are quibbling over. Let me introduce you to the concept of cloud super-parameterization where cloud cover is introduced by use of a dynamic cloud resolving model (i.e. the CRM becomes the new input parameter). This method results in lower CS as shown here:

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/11/cloud-super-parameterization-and-low-climate-sensitivity/

    The IPCC simulation methodology is spurious however because it is based on a bogus notion. Dr Clark explains:

    “Radiative forcing by CO2 is, by definition a self-fulfilling prophesy, since the outcome is pre-ordained with a total disregard of the basic laws of physics. An increase in CO2 concentration must increase surface temperature. No other outcome is allowed and other
    possible climate effects are by definition excluded.”

    The fallacy of their simulation leads the IPCC to an eggs-in-one-basket strategy. They assign a “very likely” probability factor of 90% (0,9) to their erroneous scenario so that their risk analysis looks like this:

    Warming 0.9
    No Change 0
    Cooling 0

    That their numbers don’t add up to 1 is immaterial in the IPCC mind-set.

    So what happens? Countries that have bought into the IPCC world-view are caught unprepared when the climate does not act in the IPCC’s prescribed way. Last NH winter Britain’s channel train failed, wind-farms made minimal contribution to electricity supply and they ran out of road grit. This SH winter Bolivia’s President (so gung-ho with the IPCC wealth redistribution plan) was forced to declare a state-of-emergency.

    How useful to Britain and Bolivia was the IPCC risk analysis and how useful were the GCM’s in a prediction role? Were the Bolivian’s that were dying of cold related ailments, heartened, on the eve of their deaths, in the knowledge that the IPCC simulations have predicted extreme heat in 2100? Were the Argentinian avocado and orange producers, that lost 40% of their crops, comforted by the IPCC’s warming scenario?

    There is plenty of scientific evidence to support alternative risk analysis scenarios such as this:

    Warming 0.1
    No change 0.2
    Cooling 0.7

    Given this scenario and the supporting evidence, would pragmatic managers in the fisheries industry say, rush out and buy NZ fishing quota?

    The prime consideration, in view of the Bolivian experience, should be for the welfare of people and this means investigating alternatives – the real precautionary principle. It is also incredibly foolish to be lulled into the false security of the IPCC warming scenario to the extent that alternative scenarios are ignored in the long-term planning of major infrastructure, particularly energy distribution. The Argentinians found that out when they had to shut down industry to supply domestic demand this SH winter.

    Hot may be the scary story in vogue at the IPCC but this year has demonstrated that cold kills.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Confused, #121

    There is no such thing as a static equilibrium, at least relative to the Earth and it’s radiative balance. The Earth’s energy balance is exactly zero twice per year, about a month or so after each equinox. During the summer, the surface is locally receiving more energy in than it’s radiating away, hence it warms. Similarly, in the winter, the surface is radiating away more energy than it’s receiving and it cools. This happens independently for each hemisphere. So as one heats and the other cools, they don’t really cancel, except when combined as a global average. Where many warmists are confused is that changes in global averages don’t represent the response of the system, but the response of 2 independent systems summed together. There’s little to no coupling between hemisphere and they would heat and cool at about the same topographically dependent unique rates even if the other hemisphere was absent.

    The Earth’s energy balance swings by as much as +/- 90 W/m^2, averaged across each hemisphere. That is, at peak summer surplus, a hemisphere is receiving about 90 W/m^2 more than it’s radiating away, while at the peak winter deficit, it’s radiating away about 90 W/m^2 more than it’s receiving. The peak to peak variability at the poles is even larger while it’s relatively low at the equator.

    The magnitude of the imbalance is locally and globally so high, the tiny incremental effect of rising CO2 (20 mw/m^2 per year absolute worst case) and the effect it has on the energy balance is lost in the noise. Even perturbations on the order of many watts per m^2 per year will be completely represented in the steady state within a single year.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Tel@ 122 123

    Perhaps I’m conditioned by hours spent setting software parameters.

    Rather than this focus on the micro I would prefer that we looked at the bigger picture which is what this post is about.

    I would be interested in your response to 126 having read 122 and 123.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard still confused

    @126, let me introduce you to a term called “multiple lines of evidence”.

    A shown in the skeptical science link, there are multiple methods of calculating climate sensitivity, almost all giving a high value.

    That your computer model disagrees with the multiple lines of evidence would suggest that either the many different methods are wrong, or that your model is wrong.

    Time will tell once your model is further scrutinised for possible faults. For now I feel more comfortable in the estimates of the multiple lines of evidence rather than solely trust a computer model.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    cohenite

    Tricky dicky is not ‘Richard confused’ at all; he is deliberately trying to obfuscate and all the ususal canards are being presented; let’s look at 2 big ones:

    1 Are clouds a forcing or a feedback; the short answer is who cares; this is semantic quagmire. To refresh everyone’s memory and make sure we are talking about the same thing; a forcing is an exogenous factor which has a climatic effect; now CO2 is already in the climate system and humans are natural but we are told that human CO2, ACO2, is exogenous to the [natural] system and therefore a forcing; on that basis cloud seeding would make those clouds exogenous. What about CR caused clouds? If you accept Svensmark, Shaviv, Veizer views on CR, CRs cause clouds to form so the CR is the forcing but the clouds are still feedback. This confusion comes from the IPCC definition of forcing: Christopher Game explains the limitations of IPCC defintion of forcing:

    “forcing” can include any amount of internal state variable contribution, as well as external driving function contributions. And according to this IPCC formalism, there is only one dynamically distinct internal state variable, the climate temperature, that functionally determines the apparently distinct but really merely functionally dependent “feedbacks” of their formalism.”

    By including internal or endogenous factors as forcings and using only temperature [and therein radiative imbalance] as the measure of those forcings the IPCC ignores the fact that what it desigantes as feedbacks, such as clouds, can be unrelated to temperature or radiative flux; as Spencer and Brasell note:

    “Since it is well known that the processes that control cloud formation and dissipation are myriad, complex, and in general not perfectly correlated with surface temperature variations
    (e.g., vertical temperature and water vapor profiles, horizontal temperature gradients), the existence of nonfeedback sources of cloud variability should not be unexpected.” From:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf

    By regarding clouds as a +ve feedback the IPCC modeling artificially inflates climate sensitivity. Even if we ignore Spencer and Braswell’s legitimate concerns about the stochastic, non-feedback nature of clouds and look simply at the radiative effects of clouds and cloud types we see that clouds, en toto, are a NEGATIVE feedback:

    http://stm.arm.gov/2008/presentations/0310/7_Dupont.pdf

    2 Climate sensitivity, equilibrium [ECS], the delayed sensitivity, and transient sensitivity [TCS], what is happening now. ECS depends on either storage of the heat so that it can’t be measured now by the designated internal state variable of temperature, which is both impossible and not happening, or that long-term, lags in the climate system are created so that the effect will not be realised for centuries. ECS is usually associated with the alleged long life, or retention of ACO2 in the atmosphere. But ACO2 is not long-lived in the atmosphere:

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi

    Clearly the IPCC views about the lon-life of ACO2 is an outlier.

    As for TCS; this is defeated by the simple fact that CO2 concentration has gone up ~ 40-45% since 1900 but temperature, again the designated internal state variable for measuring CS, both ECS and TCS, has only gone up ~ 0.7C. According to Table 8.2, AR4, p631 has an average ECS for all relevant models of 3.2C; the TCS should be, given that CO2 has risen by 45%, 3.2/10 x 4.5= 1.44C; the actual temperature has risen by only 1/2 of that; and even the IPCC acknowledges that TSI has contributed either 0.4C [TAR] or 0.1C[AR4] to temperature increase; ignoring natural variability and the predominance of +ve PDOs since 1850 [which arguably account for all the recent temperature increase] the TCS falls short of what it should be by either 0.84C or as much as 1.14C.

    It is obvious that CS estimates by IPCC are grossly exaggerated.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Richard still confused

    Cohenite, you seem to have gone off the rails. Where did I say clouds were a feedback or forcing?

    As for the rest of your post, why is it these claims are only ever backed up with ‘science’ found on ‘skeptics’ blogger sites?

    @Richardc , thanks for more links to blogger sites, the ‘ science’ is amazing!!! Btw, still believe clouds are not modelled?

    [Richard whatever your name; You need to settle down to one name and less antagonism.] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Cohenite@ 131

    Outlier! What masterful understatement (but 100 is so easy to remember)

    Obnoxio The Clown from CA to sum-up

    “I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now, from up and down and still somehow, it’s modelling illusions I recall. I really don’t know clouds at all”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Really Richard just another watergate, you are being disingenuous; you said @109 “So now you can see why you were wrong to say the models don’t include clouds.” Are you saying or can you point to any IPCC/AGW modeling which doesn’t assume clouds are a +ve feedback? And I referred to the Spencer and Braswell paper and the Dupont pp; are you claiming they are just “’skeptics’ blogger sites”?

    How about addressing the substantive point I made about clouds either being a -ve feedback or having stochastic properties which are converted, erroneously, by the models, into a +ve feedback; or are you just around to preen and taunt?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Richard C @134:

    “I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now, from up and down and still somehow, it’s modelling illusions I recall. I really don’t know clouds at all”

    That was hilarious! :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    I'm not Richard

    [Richard whatever your name; You need to settle down to one name and less antagonism.] ED

    Hi Ed, (or whatever your name is)

    I will take note although I do find that antagonism seems to follow wherever denials mistakes are pointed out.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    I'm not Richard

    Oh Ed, will you also edit others here that have done similar or does this only apply to us warmists?

    (None of the others are changing their names as they post) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Oh stop whinging Richard maybe Gordon Liddy, just consider the issue: do models treat clouds only as +ve feedbacks?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    I'm not Richard

    @cohennite, richo said that the models exclude cloud feedback, so why don’t we ask him to show how all models have excluded them. Perhaps without using blogger websites that can be created by anyone wishing to pretend they perform science.

    About your negative feedback from clouds, if its so effective then why can’t they stop us from warming?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl

    Would be nice if it also solved why multiple lines of evidence suggests otherwise. Why is it paleoclimate evidence also discount the clouds from saving us from higher temps?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    A shown in the skeptical science link, there are multiple methods of calculating climate sensitivity, almost all giving a high value.

    Following the link at @43 above, I note that the seemingly impressive list of references doesn’t lead to much. I followed the third item under the empirical heading:

    Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.

    I challenge anyone to show me where the above paper “empirically calculates a climate sensitivity” in any way. It merely contains pretty pictures and statements of assertion. No calculations at all.

    I presume other items in the list are similarly lacking in content.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Richard not; you say: “About your negative feedback from clouds, if its so effective then why can’t they stop us from warming?” You approach this from the wrong angle; clouds are moderators and their presence will mitigate warming while their absence will accentuate warming; look at the paleoclimatic evidence:

    http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5873/195

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012050.shtml

    Clouds as moderators:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C2976%3APBOTES%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    As for your assertion that clouds have not saved us from modern warming; again you are only looking at 1/2 the picture; the true story is that the absence of clouds caused the warming through the 80′s and 90′s upto the early 2000′s;

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;308/5723/850

    Pinker et al found an increase in average Long wave solar flux at the surface from 1983 to about 2001; the periods where more SW reached the surface correlate with the periods of decreased cloud cover. Your recent warming can be attributed to the decrease in cloud and increase in SW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    @140

    richo said that the models exclude cloud feedback,

    Nope, never said that. Said (from 140)

    Yes, but where is the cloud cover parameter in the table of radiative forcing components (Natural category), IPCC ar4 Synthesis Report and what is its value? Table shown here:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html

    Goodnight from the Land of the Long White Cloud (Aotearoa)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Ed. @143 (from 140) should read (from 104) – dyslexia attack


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Richard sc @133 –If the blogger sites have no useful information why are bothering wasting everyone’s time on here ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Richard @ 126 & 128:

    Agreed that the IPCC predictions have become highly politicized. Very difficult for any organization to declare that there is no reason for their own continued funding. You would think more people would cotton onto that principle, but the public have reached the stage where they seem to enjoy being told how sinful they are so the IPCC serves a purpose, sadly not a scientific one.

    The GCM’s were calibrated to surface temperature data that was already full of tweaks and adjustments, merged with temperature proxy inputs that have since been found to be decidedly suspect (e.g. the tree rings). This just goes to show how poor the available empirical measurement data is, and of course large portions of the Earth are not measured at all so even before the model is built a lot of extrapolation goes on.

    On top of that there has been an atmosphere of secrecy — documentation of the fundamental system structure tends to be poor (e.g. difficult to tell which items are measured inputs, which are feedbacks, which are guesstimates, etc) details of algorithms have been kept secret, datasets are not available, where data is available it is patchy and often in obscure formats, and above all, disagreement simply is not tolerated. This means that only the chosen few are entitled to attempt to reproduce the results, and only then if they promise to get the anointed answers.

    By the way, I went to the climateprediction.net site and read:

    Climateprediction.net is a distributed computing project to produce predictions of the Earth’s climate up to 2100 and to test the accuracy of climate models. To do this, we need people around the world to give us time on their computers – time when they have their computers switched on, but are not using them to their full capacity.

    Read more about the experiments.

    If you follow the link to “read more” you can see that none of the experiments in the list actually involve making an attempt to predict the Earth’s climate up to 2100 based on best estimate of our current status and progression. I find that a bit of a let down really. Maybe they can add that one next week?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Ross@ 145

    Don’t send him away Ross. He raises a point that we should be able to answer.

    The thing is – what is the IPCC methodology and values for cloud feedback, which models do they actually use etc

    I am currently immersed in the IPCC reports and I am struggling to unearth cloud feedback data. I’m a skeptic show me the data.

    I have done a “cloud feedback” search and have got as far as these two pages

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-2.html#8-6-3-2-2

    the conclusions seem to say that cloud feedbacks are not actually incorporated in ar4 but they will be in ar5

    8.6.3.2.4 Conclusion on cloud feedbacks

    Despite some advances in the understanding of the physical processes that control the cloud response to climate change and in the evaluation of some components of cloud feedbacks in current models, it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable. However, progress has been made in the identification of the cloud types, the dynamical regimes and the regions of the globe responsible for the large spread of cloud feedback estimates among current models. This is likely to foster more specific observational analyses and model evaluations that will improve future assessments of climate change cloud feedbacks.

    Some pointers from an IPCC insider lurking nearby would be greatly appreciated.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Tel@ 146

    documentation of the fundamental system structure tends to be poor (e.g. difficult to tell which items are measured inputs, which are feedbacks, which are guesstimates, etc)

    Can you point me at what you have already gleaned please?

    Also see 147


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Can you point me at what you have already gleaned please?

    Hansen et al wrote an article in 1994 called “CLIMATE SENSITIVITY: ANALYSIS OF FEEDBACK MECHANISMS” which should be relatively easy to find and download. It describes the basic terminology of some change in temperature being caused by “delta-T0″ (which is the change without any feedback) being multiplied by a “feedback factor” which can alternatively be expressed as a system gain:

    f = 1 / ( 1 – g )

    It should be easy to see that a system gain of 1 leads to dividing by zero and singularity (i.e. a system where every degree you put in gives another degree back out gets hotter forever). Hansen also explains why you can add up the g’s but you can’t add up the f’s.

    The GCM code described is called “Model II” and you can download it if you follow the links:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/

    To run the model requires boundary conditions to be specified, from the EdGCM FAQ you get:

    Boundary conditions in the GISS GCM include topography, land coverage (continent distribution), ice sheets, vegetation, surface drag coefficient, and ocean energy characteristics. Oceans use either monthly specified sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and sea ice, or mixed-layer depths and ocean heat transports in the case of predicted “Qflux” runs.

    Note that the EdGCM FAQ also says that users cannot change boundary condition files, so if you want to tinker at that level you will have to follow links to the source code and build it yourself. I’ve never personally got past the stage of just looking around at what’s out there and reading some of the articles. GISS is probably the best place to start because at least they give you stuff to download.

    By the way, the conclusion to the Hansen 1984 article was:

    The rate at which the ocean surface can take up or release heat is limited by the fact that feedbacks come into play in conjunction with climate change, not in conjunction with climate forcing. Thus the (isolated) ocean mixed layer thermal relaxation time, commonly taken as 3-5 years, must be multiplied by the feedback factor f. This, in turn, allows the thermal inertia of the deeper parts of the ocean to be effective. If the equilibrium climate sensitivity is ~4C for doubled CO2 and if small heat perturbations behave like observed passive tracers, the response time of surface temperature to a change of climate forcing is of order 100 years. If the equilibrium sensitivity is 2.5C, this response is about 40 years.

    We conclude, based on the long surface temperature response time, that there is a large growing gap between current climate and equilibrium climate for current atmosphere composition. Our projections indicate that within a few decades the equilibrium global temperature will reach a level well above that which has been experienced by modern man.

    Needless to say, that was 25 years ago, but they are still singing the same song.

    There’s a link to ModelE which is the more advanced rewrite of Model II, if you follow the link above. It also has source code. I thumbed through it once, found it all a bit messy and hard to follow and gave up. Supposedly there is a snapshot of the code used for AR4, but in those “stolen” emails they described a number of code versions that were explicitly never to be released to the public, but maybe the US researchers had different ideas to the UK?

    By the way, with regard to my own poking around (nothing to do with the IPCC) you might be curious about correlation between CO2 and temperature in the ice cores. Not a simple matter as people tend to describe it:

    http://lnx-bsp.net/agw/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Tel@ 149

    Thanks for good pointers.

    A central issue raised in Joanne’s Post is Kurt Lambeck’s curious quote:

    “How do we put that cloud cover into the models?”

    Given the models failure to mirror the last decades temp trend, his question is telling.

    My personal view is that the IPCC models are firstly, “based on a bogus notion”, secondly, “not sufficiently evolved to be useful for long-term prediction”,and lastly, “guesses using computers”. In realty they are a scientic tool but not science itself and in this sense they are given undue credence.

    But if the models are the issue by default, then it follows from what is revealed by Kurt Lambecks question that we must have a basis of debate i.e. what is the state of play (in respect to coud cover in models) in a form that is easy to understand and can be debated in the public arena. To be fair to Kurt, I think his question is in the context of ar5 not ar4 in which case the new super-parameterization methodology is salient.

    So the search is for the elusive documentation (as in your 146 comment) and the relevant parameters (radiative forcing components, feedback factors, boundary conditions, constants, variables, CRM’s, whatever, etc) pertaining to natural (not anthropogenic) cloud cover in the IPCC models i.e. how has natural cloud cover been incorporated in the ar4 models or has it been left out completely as the IPCC Conclusions on Cloud Feedback (see 147) seems to say?

    Going by your experience in 146, the search is fraught and getting clarity from the horrendous IPCC-codespeak is a nighmare. Also, Cohenites comment (131 Point 1) is very enlightening, but what has the IPCC actually implemented?

    I have accessed the Radiative Forcing Components table (see 143) but natural cloud cover is absent, so where is it?

    I have also accessed the list of IPCC ar4 models on this page:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-2.html

    I’m going in.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Richard C @ 147 . My point was just to show that “smart / meaningless” comments like that just detract from an otherwise wortwhile discussion and to me shows he has lost the argument. I’ve seen this sort of comment before but the people sprouting them are quite content to quote Real Climate and co


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Ross@151

    The larger argument yes. But in the “cloud cover in models” argument we are at cross-purposes or apples and oranges.

    Not-Richo may well be right (that natural cloud cover is incorporated in models) in terms of Mid ar4-ar5 Generation models, which is where we are now, but is he also right in terms of ar4 Generation models, the results of which IPCC, AAS et al are pushing? – I don’t think so.

    Tel, if you are reading this. The GISS GCM Model II that you linked to is not on the list of ar4 models so I suspect after a cursory look that it is a Mid ar4-ar5 Gen model but not a “Super” ar5 gen model.

    The blurb seems to suggest that natural cloud cover is incorporated, but until the elusive documentation is uncovered, who knows?

    Model Description – GISS GCM Model II (Mid ar4-ar5 Gen?)

    “Cloud particles, aerosols, and radiatively important trace gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and chlorofluorcarbons) are explicitly incorporated into the radiation scheme. Large-scale and convective cloud cover are predicted, and precipitation is generated whenever supersaturated conditions occur.”

    I note the reference to “radiatively important trace gases” reference supports Dr Clarks self fulfilling prophesy assertion.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    IPCC Climate Modeling

    1. Declare arbitrarily that anthropogenic CO2 is the Major Climate Driver (MCD).

    2. Insert MCD into model input parameters.

    3. Run the simulation.

    4. Inspect the results.

    4. Voila! – We have warming due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    The old Model II from 1984 was supposed to be able to model clouds. I’m not going to vouch for the quality of that model (and all parties admit there were problems with it) but in general the idea of a cloud model is not such an amazing new thing:

    The model accounts for both the seasonal and diurnal solar cycles in its temperature calculations. Cloud particles, aerosols, and radiatively important trace gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and chlorofluorcarbons) are explicitly incorporated into the radiation scheme. Large-scale and convective cloud cover are predicted, and precipitation is generated whenever supersaturated conditions occur.

    I’ll have a got at digging out the relevant subroutines from the download code bundle. Ho, ho, how hard could it possible be?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 152

    Nope I’m wrong. GISS GCM Model II is Pre ar4.

    A later incarnation in the GISS series was used in ar4 simulations.

    GISS GCM ModelE

    The latest incarnation of the GISS series of coupled atmosphere-ocean models is now available. Called ModelE, it is a complete rewrite of Model II’ physics, combined with greater flexibility and more options. These include better representations of the stratosphere, tracer components and various ocean models.

    The frozen version used for IPCC AR4 simulations (see below) and the controls for model description papers is denoted as ModelE1 (internal version number 3.0, dated Feb. 1, 2004). This code can be freely downloaded (as a 1.2 MB gzip-ed tar file) from modelE1.tar.gz. There are nightly snapshots of the current code repository available also, but users should be aware that these snapshots are presented ‘as is’ and are not neccessarily suitable for publication-quality experiments. The frozen AR5 version will be posted soon.

    Boundary and initial conditions for the AR4 version can be downloaded from fixed.tar.gz (191 MB). This is a large amount of data due to things like transient 3-D aerosol concentrations etc

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

    On the same page there is reference to the elusive documentation:

    GISS GCM Documentation Index


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 155

    The frozen AR5 version will be posted soon.

    Missed that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Cloud Processes in the GISS GCM ModelE Reference Model.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/modelE.html

    Who wooda thunk it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 157

    Click Dynamics. You get this (but still no link to parameter data – perhaps Initialization is the key)
    Basically we are looking for assumptions i.e. stuff that people have made up but have a profound effect on the results.

    Is LSCOND a CRM?

    3. Atmospheric model

    Dynamics
    The solution of the momentum equations is done within the DYNAM. The scheme is leap frog in time with an initial 2/3 time step every 8 leap-frog steps to prevent solution splitting. The dynamics are based on the dry physics (no water vapour effects in the pressure gradient calculation) and use potential temperature as the advected variable. Water vapour and tracers are advected outside the dynamics loop (once every source time step). All temperature, water and tracer advection is done using the quadratic upstream scheme to minimise numerical diffusion.

    Cloud processes
    CONDSE is a driver that sets up the vertical arrays for the column models for moist convection and large scale condensation, and accumulates diagnostics and output for the radiation and other modules.

    Moist convection
    The moist convection routine is a plume based model (Yao and Del Genio, 1995) that incorporates entraining and non-entraining plumes, downdrafts (which can also entrain environmental air), subsidence (using the quadratic upstream scheme).

    Large scale condensation
    The main cloud generating routine LSCOND is based on Del Genio et al 1996, with some modifications to improve the simulation of the nucleation of super-cooled precipitation and the estimate of near-surface cloud formation in very shallow pbl conditions.

    Radiation
    The radiation code is based on the k-correlation methodology using 33 correlated spectral intervals in the solar and long wave bands (Lacis and Oinas, 1991, Oinas et al, 2001)

    Surface fluxes (incl. planetary boundary layer physics)
    Surface fluxes are calculated separately for each land surface type (open water, ice, earth and land ice). For each type, a different high resolution PBL calculation is done to extrapolate the first layer atmospheric properites to the surface (defined as 10m above the ground). The diffusion parameters in the PBL layers are functions of the local turbulence closure scheme (Cheng et al, 2002) and are iterated to get a robust estimate of the surface properties (temperature, humidity, and tracer concentration) and fluxes. Generally, 2 or 4 surface flux time steps are done every hour, depending on the vertical resolution.

    Turbulence and Dry convection
    There are two methods of vertical mixing outside of the surface layer: Either, complete mixing is performed if two boxes are statically unstable (using the virtual potential temperature) (DRYCNV), or a turbulence closure is used to estimate the amount of mixing based on on the grid-scale properties and available TKE (ATURB).

    Stratospheric drag (incl. Gravity Wave Drag schemes)
    Stratopsheric drag is applied in two ways. Firstly, using a simple formulation as a Ralyeigh damping near the top of the model (SDRAG). Secondly, and generally only if the stratsophere is being properly resolved, we have a physically-based estimate of gravity-wave drag detemined from the model simulation of moist convection, mountain waves, shear and deformation (in STRATDYN) (Rind et al, 1988). When gravity waves break, there is also some vertical mixing assoicated with that. Both GWDRAG and SDRAG are applied within the dynamical leap frog tiome steps to improve stability.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Tell,

    Hansen’s equation is screwed up which is why the singularity arises.

    f = 1/(1-g)

    The easily derived gain equation for a feedback loop is,

    1/Go = 1/Gc + f

    where Go is the open loop gain, Gc is the closed loop gain and f is the fraction of output fed back to the input. Hansen made 2 errors. First, he assumed the open loop gain was 1 and second, he mixed up feedback and gain. This can be verified by setting Go=1 in the gain equation for a general feedback loop and solving for Gc.

    1/Gc = 1 – f
    Gc = 1/(1 -f)

    Which is the same as Hansen’s equation when f is replaced with g and Gc is replaced with f.

    Schlessinger noticed the gain/feedback fubar and addressed it in his follow on paper, but still kept the unit open loop gain assumption. He also introduced the idiotic idea to express climate sensitivity and gain as a ratio of temperature to power density, rather than as a dimensionless ratio of emitted surface power density and forcing power density. Hansen had the gain/sensitivity specification right, but his numbers were way out of wack, at least relative to the physical significance of gain and feedback when expressed as dimensionless fractions. Luckily for the warmists, Schlessingers ‘innovation’ of obscuring gain as a ratio of temperature and power density made it less obvious that the sensitivity isn’t as high as claimed. Schlessinger claims to be an expert in feedback systems, which if he is, then it almost seems like he purposefully obscured the physical significance of gain and feedback in order to prevent anyone from trivially being able to notice that high sensitivities are bogus.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 158

    Initialisation
    Initialisation is handled almost exclusively by the call to subroutine INPUT. This routine will initialise all prognostic variables depending on the value of ISTART. Submodules (for instance, ocean, ice, radiation etc.) are initialised through calls to various init_XYZ routines. Most input files will be opened and read at this point.

    So what we need is the initialization of the Submodule resposible for cloud generationLSCOND and possibly some interaction with Radiation values for clouds.

    Fine. We generate some clouds. But what are the INPUT parameters in the relevant Submodule that influence the radiative forcing effects of said clouds?

    Show me the data!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    GISS GCM ModelE Reference Manual.

    1. Model files and directory structure

    To help you get an idea of what is where, here is a brief overview of the source code files:

    * ATMDYN.f, ATMDYN_COM.f: Code for the calculation of atmospheric pressure gradients, and dynamic time stepping.
    * ATURB.f: Calculation of vertical diffusion by atmospheric turbulence
    * CLOUDS.f, CLOUDS_COM.f, CLOUDS_DRV.f: Column model, common variables and driver routines for moist convection and large scale condensation
    * CONST.f: Physical constants
    * DEFACC.f, DIAG.f, DIAG_COM.f, DIAG_PRT.f: Definitions, calculations, common variables and print out routines for the diagnostics
    * DRYCNV.f: Dry convection (can be used instead of ATURB.f)
    * FFT144.f, FFT72.f, FFT36.f: Fast fourier transforms for the most common longitudinal resolutions
    * FLUXES.f: Module containing all fluxes and variables that need to be passed between physical modules.
    * GEOM_B.f: B-grid geometry
    * GHY.f, GHY_COM.f, GHY_DRV.f: Ground hydrology column model, common variables and driver routines.
    * ICEDYN.f, ICEDYN_DRV.f: Ice dynamics (ICEDYN_DUM.f is a dummy version)
    * IORSF.f: Controls I/O for reading and writing restart files and monthly diagnostics
    * LAKES.f, LAKES_COM.f: Two-layer lake code
    * LANDICE.f, LANDICE_DRV.f: Calculations for the temperature profile in glacial (land) ice.
    * MODELE.f: Main time stepping loop and driver for the initialisation
    * MODEL_COM.f: Basic model variables
    * MOMEN2ND.f, MOMEN4TH.f: Different momentum equation calculations
    * OCEAN.f, OCNML.f, ODEEP.f : Fixed sea surface conditions, and mixed layer ocean code (with optional diffusion into deep ocean).
    * OCEAN_COM.f: Common variables for Russell dynamic ocean code
    * OCNDYN.f: Russell dynamic ocean time stepping and advection
    * OCNFUNTAB.f: Ocean functions (equ. of state etc.)
    * OCNGM.f: Implementation of Gent and McWilliams mesoscale eddy parameterisation in Russell Ocean
    * OCNKPP.f: KPP scheme for vertical mixing in Russell ocean model
    * OCN_TRACER.f: Tracer code for initialising ocean tracers
    * ODIAG_COM.f, ODIAG_PRT.f: Dynamic ocean diagnostic routines and output (Russell)
    * OGEOM.f: Russell ocean geometry definitions
    * OSTRAITS.f, OSTRAITS_COM.f: Russell ocean Straits definitions and calculations
    * PARAM.f: Controls access to database parameters
    * PARSER.f: Used to scan the rundeck for options
    * PBL.f, PBL_COM.f, PBL_DRV.f: Code for column model of planetary boundary layer physics
    * POUT.f, POUT_netcdf.f: Options that control the binary format for the diagnostic post-processing.
    * QUSDEF.f, QUS_COM.f, QUS_DRV.f, TQUS_DRV.f: Quadratic upstream scheme for tracers (including T,Q)
    * RADIATION.f, RAD_COM.f, RAD_DRV.f: Radiation column model, variables and driver
    * RES_*.f: Definitions for vertical and horizontal resolution, inclusion of stratosphere etc.
    * SEAICE.f, SEAICE_DRV.f: Seaice thermodynamics
    * SNOW.f: Land snow model
    * STRATDYN.f: Gravity wave drag schemes
    * STRAT_DIAG.f: Special E-P flux diagnostics if required
    * SURFACE.f: Surface flux calculations
    * SYSTEM.f: System dependent code for random numbers, exit codes, file handling etc.
    * TRACER.f, TRACERS.f, TRACER_COM.f, TRACER_PRT.f, TRDIAG_COM.f: Generic code for defining tracers, and controlling their diagnostic output.
    * TRACERS_DRV.f: Library definitions for commonly used tracers
    * TRACERS_SPECIAL_Lerner.f: Special physics needed for suite of Lerner/Rind tracers
    * TRACERS_SPECIAL_Shindell.f, TRCHEM_*.f: Special physics needed for atmospheric chemistry tracers
    * TRACERS_O18.f: Special physics needed for water isotope tracers
    * UTILDBL.f: Utilities used throughout the model (i.e. saturation vapour pressure calculations, tri-diagonal solvers etc.)

    Controls access to database parameters seems to imply that the values are top-secret.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 161

    Model files and directory structure

    Since the model supports a number of ‘plug-and-play’ options, there may be a number of files that contain subroutines or entry points (for dummy routines) with the same name. To find out which is relevant for your particular configuration, we recommend automatically generating the documentation for your rundeck using

    gmake htmldoc RUN=E001xyz

    This will generate a file index.html. From here you can access lists of:

    * Source Files
    * FORTRAN Modules
    * Database Variables
    * NAMELIST Variables
    * Global Variables ( LONG! )
    * ALL Variables ( LONG! )

    Are these Database Variables the database parameters from 161?

    index.html would be most useful to have around. Tel?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Analysis of climate models is like watching the herding of spherical cows.
    Assumptions, simplifications and mis-conceptions dominate models. There is no real “signal” in models. Models can only help you to understand how wrong you are if you make the effort to compare it to what is actually measurable in the real world.

    Even if you can measure something, doesn’t make it important.
    One needs to remember this with regards to the ability to measure CO2 levels (easily). Shortly after it became easy, the perception of its importance was elevated. And, as far as I can tell, elevated beyond all reason.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    I’m wondering whether the insulation effect of clouds (both from solar IR and upwelling IR) is built into the Solar irradiance RF value of 0.12 W.m-2.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html

    But then why have LSCOND?

    Anyone know how the value 0.12 W.m-2 was arrived at?

    I’m off to look at the K&T budget and relevant IPCC notes (sighs).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 164

    Also the RF of CO2 is 1.66 W.m-2 . That’s 13.8x the forcing of solar.

    Its worse than we thought!

    Cohenite, would the 1.66 W.m-2 RF value for CO2 (warming magnifier), have its origins in the IPCC ‘Residence Times’ study?

    From 131

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi

    Clearly the IPCC views about the lon-life of ACO2 is an outlier.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    CO2isnotevil and RichardC:

    There is no need to assess how GCMs emulate clouds because the emulations are known to be wrong.

    The underlying problems are that
    1.
    the models have low spatial resolution and clouds occur at sizes too small for the GCMs to evolve their mechanisms from first principles
    and
    2.
    the mechanisms of cloud behaviour are not adequately understood for emulations of cloud behaviour to be devised and input to the GCMs.

    If any group of GCM modellers had found a method to emulate cloud behaviour then all the GCM modellers would have adopted the method.

    Ron Miller and Gavin Schmidt, both of NASA GISS, provide an evaluation of the leading US GCM. They are U.S. climate modellers who use the NASA GISS GCM and they strongly promote the AGW hypothesis. Their paper titled ‘Ocean & Climate Modeling: Evaluating the NASA GISS GCM’ was updated on 2005-01-10 and is available at
    http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2001/oceans/
    Its abstract says:

    This preliminary investigation evaluated the performance of three versions of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies’ recently updated General Circulation Model E (GCM). This effort became necessary when certain Fortran code was rewritten to speed up processing and to better represent some of the interactions (feedbacks) of climate variables in the model. For example, the representation of clouds in the model was made to agree more with the satellite observational data thus affecting the albedo feedback mechanism. The versions of the GCM studied vary in their treatments of the ocean. In the first version, the Fixed-SST, the sea surface temperatures are prescribed from the obsevered seasonal cycle and the atmospheric response is calculated by the model. The second, the Q-Flux model, computes the SST and its response to atmospheric changes, but assumes the transport of heat by ocean currents is constant. The third treatment, called a coupled GCM (CGCM) is a version where an ocean model is used to simulate the entire ocean state including SST and ocean currents, and their interaction with the atmosphere. Various datasets were obtained from satellite, ground-based and sea observations. Observed and simulated climatologies of surface air temperature sea level pressure (SLP) total cloud cover (TCC), precipitation (mm/day), and others were produced. These were analyzed for general global patterns and for regional discrepancies when compared to each other. In addition, difference maps of observed climatologies compared to simulated climatologies (model minus observed) and for different versions of the model (model version minus other model version) were prepared to better focus on discrepant areas and regions. T-tests were utilized to reveal significant differences found between the different treatments of the model. It was found that the model represented global patterns well (e.g. ITCZ, mid-latitude storm tracks, and seasonal monsoons). Divergence in the model from observations increased with the introduction of more feedbacks (fewer prescribed variables) progressing from the Fixed–SST, to the coupled model. The model had problems representing variables in geographic areas of sea ice, thick vegetation, low clouds and high relief. It was hypothesized that these problems arose from the way the model calculates the effects of vegetation, sea ice and cloud cover. The problem with relief stems from the model’s coarse resolution. These results have implications for modeling climate change based on global warming scenarios. The model will lead to better understanding of climate change and the further development of predictive capability. As a direct result of this research, the representation of cloud cover in the model has been brought into agreement with the satellite observations by using radiance measured at a particular wavelength instead of saturation.

    This above abstract was written by strong proponents of AGW but admits that the NASA GISS GCM has “problems representing variables in geographic areas of sea ice, thick vegetation, low clouds and high relief.”

    These are severe problems.
    For example, clouds reflect solar heat and a mere 2% increase to cloud cover would more than compensate for the maximum possible predicted warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the air. Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid 1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid 1980s and late 1990s. Over that period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 W/sq metre).

    So, the fact that the NASA GISS GCM has problems representing clouds must call into question the entire performance of the GCM. And all other GCMs cannot model clouds adequately, too.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 164

    Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

    TS.2.4 Radiative Forcing Due to Solar Activity and Volcanic Eruptions

    The estimated direct radiative forcing due to changes in the solar output since 1750 is +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.3] W m–2, which is less than half of the estimate given in the TAR, with a low level of scientific understanding. The reduced radiative forcing estimate comes from a re-evaluation of the long-term change in solar irradiance since 1610 (the Maunder Minimum) based upon: a new reconstruction using a model of solar magnetic flux variations that does not invoke geomagnetic, cosmogenic or stellar proxies; improved understanding of recent solar variations and their relationship to physical processes; and re-evaluation of the variations of Sun-like stars. While this leads to an elevation in the level of scientific understanding from very low in the TAR to low in this assessment, uncertainties remain large because of the lack of direct observations and incomplete understanding of solar variability mechanisms over long time scales. {2.7, 6.6}

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-4.html

    Executive Summary

    — The global mean concentration of CO2 in 2005 was 379 ppm, leading to an RF of +1.66 [±0.17] W m–2. Past emissions of fossil fuels and cement production have likely contributed about three-quarters of the current RF, with the remainder caused by land use changes. For the 1995 to 2005 decade, the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere was 1.9 ppm yr–1 and the CO2 RF increased by 20%: this is the largest change observed or inferred for any decade in at least the last 200 years. From 1999 to 2005, global emissions from fossil fuel and cement production increased at a rate of roughly 3% yr–1.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-es.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 166

    These results have implications for modeling climate change based on global warming scenarios.

    Would a warming enclave consider any other?

    Richard Courtney, thanks for the headsup. Has the “extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre” been reduced by the following fix?

    As a direct result of this research, the representation of cloud cover in the model has been brought into agreement with the satellite observations by using radiance measured at a particular wavelength instead of saturation


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    OK FWIW, here’s a rundown of the file Pjal0C9.f with sha1sum of 2d1325dcf22ce0d7e7251b2c1605a4f237bbe42b as downloaded in the package modelII_source.zip

    I’ve only included what seems like the relevant subroutines and the skeletal structure based on the comments. The equations are pretty dense and not referenced back to any supporting theory, so I’m just chopping them out for brevity (exercise for the reader to puzzle through them, but more than one day’s work for sure). Also, I’ve removed the end-of-line card numbering because the layout here doesn’t handle it properly.


    SUBROUTINE CONDSE
    C**** THIS SUBROUTINE MIXES AIR CAUSED BY MOIST CONVECTION, AND
    C**** CALCULATES PRECIPITATION AND CLOUD COVER DUE TO CONVECTIVE
    C**** AND SUPER SATURATION CLOUDS.
    . . .
    C**** FDATA 2 LAND COVERAGE (1)
    C**** ODATA 2 RATIO OF OCEAN ICE COVERAGE TO WATER COVERAGE (1)
    C**** GDATA 11 AGE OF SNOW (DAYS)
    . . .
    C**** MOIST CONVECTION
    . . .
    C**** CONVECTION OCCURS AT THE LOWEST MOIST CONVECTIVELY UNSTABLE
    C**** LEVEL AND CONTINUES UNTIL A STABLE LAYER PAIR IS REACHED. RE-
    C**** EVAPORATION AND PRECIPITATION ARE COMPUTED AT THE END OF THIS
    C**** CYCLE. THE WHOLE PROCESS MAY BE REPEATED FROM A NEW LOWEST
    C**** UNSTABLE LEVEL.
    . . .
    C**** RAISE THE PLUME TO THE TOP OF CONVECTION AND CALCULATE
    C**** ENTRAINMENT, CONDENSATION, AND SECONDARY MIXING
    . . .
    C**** DEPOSIT PART OF THE PLUME IN LOWER LAYER
    . . .
    C**** CONVECTION IN UPPER LAYER (WORK DONE COOLS THE PLUME)
    . . .
    C**** CONDENSE VAPOR IN THE PLUME AND ADD LATENT HEAT
    . . .
    C**** UPDATE ALL QUANTITIES CARRIED BY THE PLUME
    . . .
    C**** UPDATE CHANGES CARRIED BY THE PLUME IN THE TOP CLOUD LAYER
    . . .
    C**** SUBSIDENCE AND MIXING
    . . .
    C**** REEVAPORATION AND PRECIPITATION
    . . .
    C**** LARGE SCALE PRECIPITATION
    . . .
    C**** DETERMINE THE CLOUD COVER
    . . .
    C**** TOTAL PRECIPITATION AND AGE OF SNOW
    . . .
    C**** TOTAL HEATING AND MOISTURE ADJUSTMENT

    That’s probably the major one (about 500 lines total). There’s another one for precipitation following it:


    SUBROUTINE PRECIP
    C**** THIS SUBROUTINE USES THE PRECIPITATION TO CALCULATE THE GROUND C**** WATER, GROUND ICE, SNOW COVER, AND RUNOFF
    C**** RUN1 IS NOT ACUMULATED IN ADAILY FOR DIAG6
    . . .
    C**** FDATA 2 LAND COVERAGE (1)
    C**** 3 RATIO OF LAND ICE COVERAGE TO LAND COVERAGE (1)
    C****
    C**** ODATA 1 OCEAN TEMPERATURE (C)
    C**** 2 RATIO OF OCEAN ICE COVERAGE TO WATER COVERAGE (1)
    C**** 3 OCEAN ICE AMOUNT OF SECOND LAYER (KG/M**2)
    C****
    C**** GDATA 1 OCEAN ICE SNOW AMOUNT (KG/M**2)
    C**** 2 EARTH SNOW AMOUNT (KG/M**2)
    C**** 3 OCEAN ICE TEMPERATURE OF FIRST LAYER (C)
    C**** 4 EARTH TEMPERATURE OF FIRST LAYER (C)
    C**** 5 EARTH WATER OF FIRST LAYER (KG/M**2)
    C**** 6 EARTH ICE OF FIRST LAYER (KG/M**2)
    C**** 7 OCEAN ICE TEMPERATURE OF SECOND LAYER (C)
    C**** 12 LAND ICE SNOW AMOUNT (KG/M**2)
    C**** 13 LAND ICE TEMPERATURE OF FIRST LAYER (C)
    C**** 14 LAND ICE TEMPERATURE OF SECOND LAYER (C)
    C****
    C**** VDATA 9 WATER FIELD CAPACITY OF FIRST LAYER (KG/M**2)

    This one splits out into a whole bunch of special cases handling ocean vs land and rain or snow, melting, freezing, etc. Approx 450 lines of code, but each case is less than 10 lines of equations, many of which are just adding and subtracting (tipping buckets this way and that way). Would need to spread it out on a diagram to follow it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Tel@

    Nice. Much easier to read by email BTW.

    So the “Fix” from 166 (Richard Courtney), must have been applied to Model E because Model II uses SUPER SATURATION CLOUDS.


    SUBROUTINE CONDSE
    C**** THIS SUBROUTINE MIXES AIR CAUSED BY MOIST CONVECTION, AND
    C**** CALCULATES PRECIPITATION AND CLOUD COVER DUE TO CONVECTIVE
    C**** AND SUPER SATURATION CLOUDS.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    In reply to, co2isnotevil @159:

    Yes Hansen presumes that the forward gain is 1 and the loop gain is “g” which is to say that all the action is happening in the feedback path. Since he regards temperature as the primary state variable and also uses temperature as an input variable, the forward gain of 1 is effectively saying “the temperature is what it is”. A diagram would make it a lot easier.

    From cohenite @131 above:

    And according to this IPCC formalism, there is only one dynamically distinct internal state variable, the climate temperature, that functionally determines the apparently distinct but really merely functionally dependent “feedbacks” of their formalism.”

    That is exactly the Hansen 1984 formalism. Note that it’s only the introductory outline that Hansen uses to frame the results (the code internally uses many state variables beyond temperature) so evidently the IPCC figured it was a good common ground for discussing these things. Dumbed down enough for politicians to grasp, but mystical enough for the true believers to gasp, “Oh the Science, the Science!”

    There is one summing junction in this particular formalism where the feedback adds to the input, and it all sums temperature (which allows the feedback gain “g” to be split into components, each outputs a temperature). Then they can do their component breakdowns of each item delivering this and that degrees C to the total. You could be tempted to think that if one of those items reduced by half a degree then the sum output would also reduce by half a degree but since they are on the feedback path it doesn’t work like that. I’d be sure that the Political Poobars don’t appreciate that subtlety because their comprehension stretches to adding up a budget (and barely goes that far). To be fair to Hansen he does have a try at explaining this, but I dare say after discovering that most people don’t listen, he just gave up with any explanations and let himself get swept into a tide of grant money.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    ar4 Executive Summary

    The combined anthropogenic RF is estimated to be +1.6 [–1.0, +0.8][2] W m–2, indicating that, since 1750, it is extremely likely[3] that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate. This RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes. For the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined anthropogenic RF.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-es.html

    If solar is 0.12
    1.6/0.12 = 13.3 times greater than solar – not five times

    Still looking for natural cloud albedo value

    Anthropogenic cloud albedo value is -0.7 W.m-2


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Clouds in Models

    1. The investigations and subsequent learning (yes Not-Richo, clouds are in the models but crudely) by crowd-source, highlight the deficiencies and (I think) omissions in the implementation (also the un-physical nature of the IPCC RF concept).

    Question 1. Was the “Fix” (from 166 168) applied to the frozen ar4 GISS GCM ModelE1 version?

    If not, the effect of extra surface warming of 5 – 10 W.m-2 is resident in the results of that simulation.

    2. Cloudiness varies over short and long-term time frames. It is the short-term that produces the problems of 1 above and questions relating to cloud albedo (See 23, 166 and Reflected Sunlight Shines On IPCC Deceptions And Gross Inadequacies) but the long-term produces the RF factors. The IPCC’s definition of RF in its own RF methology is “change relative to the year 1750″Reflected Sunlight Shines On IPCC Deceptions And Gross Inadequacies

    Question 2. How is the IPCC able to estimate a change in cloudiness relative to the year 1750?

    That the IPCC does not incorporate an RF factor for long-term natural cloudiness change is in my view an omission. The only change in cloudiness apparently, is anthropogenic aerosols and albedo – that’s a big assumption; the Earthshine project proves the point.

    3. The albedo feedback mechanism is a crucial component of the models. The super-parameterization study showed negative feedback and this supports Joanne’s view in the post but its for a different reason than what Kurt Lambeck asserts. A negative feedback will definitely change the current CS from the CS predicted by positive feedback oriented models.

    Question 3. Where are the details of a crucial IPCC model mechanism that has such profound influence on temperature predictions?

    This mechanism deserves as much public scrutiny as the temperature records and just as those deficiencies were exposed by Statisticians, the cloud feedback mechanism must undergo critique by say, independent specialist Systems Analysts and the documentation made available for public viewing.

    Question 4. Will there be a “Fix” in the ar5 models to cater for variations in TSI?

    Again, see Reflected Sunlight Shines On IPCC Deceptions And Gross Inadequacies


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 173

    GISS GCM ModelE

    Boundary and initial conditions for the AR4 version can be downloaded from fixed.tar.gz (191 MB). This is a large amount of data due to things like transient 3-D aerosol concentrations etc. A wider selection of input data (encompassing many different configurations, but mainly for a more up-to-date codebase are available here. There are more variants of this data available internally, so if you do not find the configuration you’d like, let us know and we may be able to help you.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

    191 MB of assumptions!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 173

    Climate forcings in Goddard Institute for Space Studies SI2000
    simulations, Hansen et at (2002)

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

    Abstract
    “We define the radiative forcings used in climate simulations with the SI2000 version of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) global climate model. These include temporal variations of well-mixed greenhouse gases, stratospheric aerosols, solar irradiance, ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and tropospheric aerosols. We illustrate the global response to these forcings for the SI2000 model with specified sea surface temperature (SST) and with a simple Q-flux ocean, thus helping to characterize the effectiveness of each forcing. The forcing data cover the period 1951-2000. The climate simulations are extended to 2050 for two forcing scenarios. The results suggest that observed global temperature change in the past 50 years is primarily a response to radiative forcings. It is also inferred that the planet is now out of radiation balance by 0.5 to 1 W/m2 and that additional global warming of about 0.5°C is already “in the pipeline”.”

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2002/Hansen_etal_2.html

    From

    GISS GCM ModelE
    Model Description and Reference Manual

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/modelE.html#part2_1


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 175

    Other natural forcings discussed – then ignored.

    Hansen et al (2002)

    “[29] Other possible amplifications of the solar forcing have long been discussed, usually involving mechanisms that alter cloud properties, for example, solar modulation of cosmic ray flux and thus atmospheric ionization [Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997]. Marginal detection of a change in earthshine during the current solar cycle [Goode et al., 2001] are not inconsistent with a larger cloud reflectivity during solar minimum, but the suggestion remains, at most, a hypothesis” (sounds like denial – but they had apply a fix)

    They admit that solar variability “could be a significant climate forcing” but its in the too-hard basket (ignored for the time being).

    “[31] We include solar variability in our ‘‘alternative scenario’’ for 2000–2050 with 10-year periodicity, cyclically repeating the data for January 1989 to December 1998. Thus there is no long-term solar trend in our simulations.We argue elsewhere [Hansen, 2000] that solar irradiance could be a significant climate forcing in the next 50 years, but as yet we have no reliable way of predicting future solar changes”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 173

    Question 1.Was the “Fix” (from 166 168) applied to the frozen ar4 GISS GCM ModelE1 version?

    Answer: Probably yes. The abstract quoted by Richard S. Courtney in 166
    is from the paper Ocean & Climate Modeling: Evaluating the NASA GISS GCM – L. Abbo, M. McGraw, A. Olaleye, and A. Padilla found in GISS 2001 Student Research.

    http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2001/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Richard, glad to see you are getting into climate modeling. You will rapidly become our resident expert on the subject if you aren’t careful.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Tel@ 178

    Did you see the file fixed.tar.gz (191 MB)

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

    That’s all the boundary and initial conditions (parameters, assumptions) for the “frozen” AR4 version GISS ModelE (Model E1) that I was looking for at 160.

    I pulled it down but can’t unzip it, ran out of disk space on my old box.

    Would appreciate if you could have a look for Radiative Forcings. See if you can identify the 9 values corresponding to the IPCC RF’s here

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html

    There will be zillions of transients (assumptions that the IPCC doesn’t tell us about), so might be a wild goose chase.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 173

    Question 3. Where are the details of a crucial IPCC model mechanism that has such profound influence on temperature predictions?

    Answer: I have not found a graphical system diagram (IT style) but the source code is easy to follow (see below). I have found scientific documentation, Schmidt et al (2006) in respect to GISS GCM ModelE1.

    Abstract Schmidt et al. 2006

    A full description of the ModelE version of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Atmospheric General Circulation Model (GCM) and results are presented for present-day climate simulations (c. 1979). This version is a complete rewrite of previous models incorporating numerous improvements in basic physics, the stratospheric circulation and forcing fields. Notable changes include the following: the model top is now above the stratopause, the number of vertical layers has increased, a new cloud microphysical scheme is used, vegetation biophysics now incorporates a sensitivity to humidity, atmospheric turbulence is calculated over the whole column, and new land snow and lake schemes are introduced. We compare the performance of the model using three configurations with different horizontal and vertical resolutions to quality controlled in-situ data, remotely sensed and reanalysis products. Overall, significant improvements over previous models are seen, particularly in upper atmosphere temperatures and winds, cloud heights, precipitation, and sea level pressure. Data-model comparisons continue however to highlight persistent problems in the marine stratocumulus regions.

    So, is “cloud microphysical scheme” (CMS) the same as cloud resolving model (CRM)? i.e. has super-parameterization been employed? I don’t think so, CRM’s produce negative cloud feedbacks. The excerpt from Schmidt (2006) below shows 2xCO2 and solar forcings but I have not found a similar statement for cloud. I suspect that CMS is a static precursor to dynamic CRM (ar5 ModelE version?). The Climate Process Team on Low-Latitude Cloud Feedbacks on Climate Sensitivity (cloud CPT) uses the Khairoutdinov-Randall (2001, 2005) superparameterized CAM3 (CAM-SP), this is described in Bretherton (2006). I see no reference in GISS blurb to the cloud CPT work and vice versa.

    It is important to differentiate between radiative flux and radiative forcings. The GISS modelers make a good effort to calibrate ModelE1 flux to observed conditions. From Schmidt (2006):

    6. Climate sensitivity
    This paper is mainly concerned with the fidelity of the ModelE simulations of present-day climate. However, the generic climate sensitivity of the model is a function of the base state and is a useful metric to estimate the response of the model to more specific forcings. Accordingly, we use the q-flux model (with a maximum mixed layer depth of 65 m to reduce computation time) to estimate the climate response to 2x CO2 and 2% reduction in the solar constant, which are roughly comparable (4.12 and -4.69 W m-2 adjusted forcing at the tropopause, respectively) but of opposite sign. The M20 model warms by 2.6°C for doubled CO2 and cools by 2.8°C in the reduced solar case, giving a sensitivity of ~0.6°C (W m-2)-1. With a preindustrial base case (1880 conditions), which has slightly increased sea ice, the doubled CO2 sensitivity is slightly larger, 2.7°C. The F20 and M23 models have sensitivities to 2x CO2 of 2.8° and 2.4°C, respectively.

    In terms of radiation, flux base state is set using flux parameters from the PARAM database in the INITIALIZATIONS procedure using INPUT (See below). When the simulation is run the q-flux model takes over (I think). ModelE uses different methodology than Model II to calibrate fluxes to real-world observations. From Schmidt (2006):

    7. Comparison to GISS SI2000
    Recent GISS publications have used SI2000 (Hansen et al. 2002) and similar configurations of Model II (Koch et al. 1999; Menon et al. 2002; Yao and Del Genio 2002; among others). To track the improvements to the climatology, we use a selected set of well observed data (including many of the fields discussed above) and use Taylor diagrams (Taylor 2001) to compare the model means, spatial variability, and coherence with observations

    That’s nice. But because the AGW hypothesis has been defined by the proponents in terms of their own un-physical Radiative Forcing methodology (RF), it is the forcings that do the business. The forcings are the incremental magnifiers or reducers of Climate Sensitivity (CS) along with feedbacks and that’s where the subtle fiddling takes place. Note the adjustments to the values of forcings in successive IPCC reports to rachet up the 2xCO2 scenario.

    The base state radiative forcings are set in the same procedure as fluxes described above. But the forcing assumptions (specific forcings in the Schmidt 2006 Climate sensitivity quote above) are rather more contentious (omissions from the natural category and fiddling) than the empirical fluxes.

    The file fixed.tar.gz (191 MB zipped!, see 179) contains the PARAM database of parameters (I suspect) of radiative forcings and fluxes (among others). With this understanding, it is easy to follow the source code in the absence of a simple system diagram.

    The source code can be accessed using the F90 code viewer on this page:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

    This leads to the source code on this page:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/modelEsrc/

    The relevant part of the program is reproduced below.

    PROGRAM GISS_modelE,160
    !@sum MAIN GISS modelE main time-stepping routine
    !@auth Original Development Team
    !@ver 1.0 (Based originally on B399)
    USE FILEMANAGER, only : openunit,closeunit
    USE TIMINGS, only : ntimemax,ntimeacc,timing,timestr
    USE PARAM
    USE MODEL_COM
    USE DOMAIN_DECOMP, ONLY : init_decomp,grid,finish_decomp
    USE DYNAMICS
    USE RADNCB, only : dimrad_sv
    USE RANDOM

    USE DAGCOM, only : oa,monacc,koa
    USE SOIL_DRV, only: daily_earth, ground_e
    USE SUBDAILY, only : nsubdd,init_subdd,get_subdd,reset_subdd
    IMPLICIT NONE

    INTEGER K,M,MSTART,MNOW,MODD5D,months,ioerr,Ldate,istart
    INTEGER iu_VFLXO,iu_ACC,iu_RSF,iu_ODA
    INTEGER :: MDUM = 0
    REAL*8, DIMENSION(NTIMEMAX) :: PERCENT
    REAL*8 DTIME,TOTALT

    CHARACTER aDATE*14
    CHARACTER*8 :: flg_go=’___GO___’ ! green light
    external sig_stop_model
    C**** Command line options
    LOGICAL :: qcrestart=.false.
    CHARACTER*32 :: ifile

    call init_decomp(grid,im,jm)
    call alloc_drv()
    C****
    C**** Processing command line options
    C****
    call read_options( qcrestart, ifile )
    if ( qcrestart ) then
    call print_restart_info
    call stop_model(“Terminated normally: printed restart info”,13)
    endif
    C****
    C**** INITIALIZATIONS
    C****
    CALL TIMER (MNOW,MDUM)

    CALL INPUT (istart,ifile)
    C****
    C**** If run is already done, just produce diagnostic printout
    C****
    IF (Itime.GE.ItimeE.and.Kradia.le.0) then ! includes ISTART 2*
    end if
    C**** Initiallise file for sub-daily diagnostics, controlled by
    C**** space-seperated string segments in SUBDD & SUBDD1 in the rundeck
    call init_subdd(aDATE)

    C****
    C**** MAIN LOOP
    C****
    DO WHILE (Itime.lt.ItimeE)

    C**** Every Ndisk Time Steps (DTsrc), starting with the first one,
    C**** write restart information alternatingly onto 2 disk files
    IF (MOD(Itime-ItimeI,Ndisk).eq.0) THEN
    CALL RFINAL (IRAND)
    call set_param( “IRAND”, IRAND, ‘o’ )
    call openunit(rsf_file_name(KDISK),iu_RSF,.true.,.false.)
    call io_rsf(iu_RSF,Itime,iowrite,ioerr)
    call closeunit(iu_RSF)
    WRITE (6,’(A,I1,45X,A4,I5,A5,I3,A4,I3,A,I8)’)
    * ’0Restart file written on fort.’,KDISK,’Year’,
    * JYEAR,aMON,JDATE,’, Hr’,JHOUR,’ Internal clock time:’,ITIME
    KDISK=3-KDISK
    CALL TIMER (MNOW,MELSE)
    END IF
    C**** THINGS THAT GET DONE AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY DAY
    IF (MOD(Itime,NDAY).eq.0) THEN
    C**** INITIALIZE SOME DIAG. ARRAYS AT THE BEGINNING OF SPECIFIED DAYS
    if (kradia.le.0) call daily_DIAG
    C**** THINGS THAT GET DONE AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY MONTH
    IF ( JDAY.eq.1+JDendOfM(Jmon-1) ) then
    write(aDATE(1:7),’(a3,I4.4)’) aMON(1:3),Jyear
    if (Kradia.ne.0) then
    if (Kradia.gt.0) aDATE(4:7)=’ ‘
    call closeunit( iu_RAD )
    call openunit(trim(‘RAD’//aDATE(1:7)),iu_RAD,.true.,.false.)
    end if
    C**** THINGS THAT GET DONE AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY ACC.PERIOD
    months=(Jyear-Jyear0)*JMperY + JMON-JMON0
    if ( months.ge.NMONAV ) then
    call reset_DIAG(0)
    if (Kvflxo.ne.0) then
    call closeunit( iu_VFLXO )
    call openunit(‘VFLXO’//aDATE(1:7),iu_VFLXO,.true.,.false.)
    end if
    C**** reset sub-daily diag files
    call reset_subdd(aDATE)
    end if ! beginning of acc.period
    END IF ! beginning of month
    END IF ! beginning of day
    C****
    C**** INTEGRATE DYNAMIC TERMS (DIAGA AND DIAGB ARE CALLED FROM DYNAM)
    C****
    if (kradia.le.0) then ! full model,kradia le 0
    MODD5D=MOD(Itime-ItimeI,NDA5D)
    IF (MODD5D.EQ.0) IDACC(7)=IDACC(7)+1
    IF (MODD5D.EQ.0) CALL DIAG5A (2,0)
    IF (MODD5D.EQ.0) CALL DIAGCA (1)
    CALL DYNAM
    CALL QDYNAM ! Advection of Q by integrated fluxes
    CALL TIMER (MNOW,MDYN)

    C****
    C**** Calculate tropopause level and pressure
    C****
    CALL CALC_TROP

    C**** calculate some dynamic variables for the PBL
    CALL PGRAD_PBL

    CALL CHECKT (‘DYNAM ‘)
    CALL TIMER (MNOW,MSURF)
    IF (MODD5D.EQ.0) CALL DIAG5A (7,NIdyn)
    IF (MODD5D.EQ.0) CALL DIAGCA (2)
    IF (MOD(Itime,NDAY/2).eq.0) CALL DIAG7A
    C****
    C**** INTEGRATE SOURCE TERMS
    C****
    IDACC(1)=IDACC(1)+1
    MODD5S=MOD(Itime-ItimeI,NDA5S)
    IF (MODD5S.EQ.0) IDACC(8)=IDACC(8)+1
    IF (MODD5S.EQ.0.AND.MODD5D.NE.0) CALL DIAG5A (1,0)
    IF (MODD5S.EQ.0.AND.MODD5D.NE.0) CALL DIAGCA (1)

    C**** FIRST CALL MELT_SI SO THAT TOO SMALL ICE FRACTIONS ARE REMOVED
    C**** AND ICE FRACTION CAN THEN STAY CONSTANT UNTIL END OF TIMESTEP
    CALL MELT_SI
    CALL UPDTYPE
    CALL TIMER (MNOW,MSURF)
    C**** CONDENSATION, SUPER SATURATION AND MOIST CONVECTION
    CALL CONDSE
    CALL CHECKT (‘CONDSE’)
    CALL TIMER (MNOW,MCNDS)
    IF (MODD5S.EQ.0) CALL DIAG5A (9,NIdyn)
    IF (MODD5S.EQ.0) CALL DIAGCA (3)
    end if ! full model,kradia le 0
    C**** RADIATION, SOLAR AND THERMAL
    MODRD=MOD(Itime-ItimeI,NRAD)
    if (kradia.le.0. or. MODRD.eq.0) then
    CALL RADIA
    CALL CHECKT (‘RADIA ‘)
    end if
    CALL TIMER (MNOW,MRAD)
    if (kradia.le.0) then ! full model,kradia le 0
    IF (MODD5S.EQ.0) CALL DIAG5A (11,NIdyn)

    I have not yet chased down CMS/CRM, q-flux model, or radiative forcings values (Tel, where are you?) in the code or database. that’s enough for today.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Hint Re 180

    RADIA is where it all happens in terms of radiation (I think).

    Just click on RADIA in the MAIN LOOP and the viewer will take you to SUBROUTINE RADIA in the window below.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 173

    Question 4. Will there be a “Fix” in the ar5 models to cater for variations in TSI?

    Answer: CMIP5 gives a pointer to what will be implemented in ar5.

    http://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/met/ag/strat/forschung/SOLARIS/Input_data/CMIP5_solar_irradiance.html

    But what was implemented in ar4?

    Apparently, we are looking for “forcing” datasets. From PCMDI:

    Climate Forcing
    In order to perform the experiments called for in support of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, models require certain so-called “forcing” datasets. The forcing is mainly given in terms of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, ozone and aerosols. Although the atmospheric concentrations are based on emissions scenarios developed by IPCC, concentrations do not uniquely follow from emissions. Different concentrations can be derived from the same emissions scenarios, depending on the model used to derive them.

    One set of concentrations that may be used to drive climate simulations can be obtained from Dr. Curt Covey (covey1@llnl.gov). Use of this dataset is not mandatory.

    http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/climate_forcing.php

    Suspect they are anthropogenic only – what a mission!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 182

    GISS ModelE Climate Simulations page gives forcings tables for TAR

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/transient/climsim.html

    Forcings in GISS Climate Model page gives forcings graphs for TAR

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

    Previous page links to “separate radiative forcing data” textfile (Dataset?) but will be for TAR. Don’t these guys date anything?

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/RadF.txt

    Still no ar4 radiative forcing dataset for GISS ModelE1.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 183

    WordPress won’t allow me to follow on (duplicate comment apparently) so will instead submit at 185


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Nope. Didn’t work

    I’m finished at this post.

    Will submit an O/T comment in Joanne’s “The Word Skeptic is Back” post

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/the-word-skeptic-is-back/

    Showing how I’ve found the ModelE forcings dataset and what that reveals.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Didn’t work either, will try paraphrasing to get around WordPress.

    The TAR forcing datasets may still be valid for ar4.

    My confusion arises from the subtle restatement of forcing component values TAR – ar4. ar4 values are stated as a range so in terms of the models, the average value is only a “handle” (bit like global average temperature).

    e.g.
    TAR Solar RF +0.30 W m-2
    ar4 Solar RF +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.3] W m–2

    The 1880 – 2000 range for forcings is graphed here

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

    And tabled here (but the solar range values don’t match the 0.06 – 0.3 range so suspect this table has been superceded)

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/RadF.txt


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    WordPress throws me out so i’ll do this bit by bit

    Stop Press. Found the ModelE forcings dataset homepage

    (Have been there before at 183 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/transient/climsim.html but it is not titled as such – Doh!)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    The trick now is to map the IPCC Table 2.4 (Radiative Forcing Components) onto the GISS ModelE1 forcing dataset


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    For Solar, GISS ModelE forcings are: Fi (instantaneous), Fa (adjusted), and Fs (fixed SST).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    You can see global maps of each forcing by clicking on the forcings subsets (could be more clear but wordpress issues)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Obviously this is a ship-load of data (explaining fixed.tar.gz 191 MB zipped!) that bears scant resemblance to the IPCC Table 2.4 summary.

    So thats how radiative forcing is introduced to the model. The next step is to figure out how the cloud microphysical scheme (CMS) allocates its portion of said radiative forcing and the resultant feedbacks.

    That’s all for today, got better things to do – first day of spring in NZ – Yaaaay.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    An aside from 182

    CMIP5 gives a pointer to what will be implemented in ar5.

    http://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/met/ag/strat/forschung/SOLARIS/Input_data/CMIP5_solar_irradiance.html

    The Judith Lean mentioned is the ar4 solar expert (the only one) and was the expert caught by Donna Laframboise’s citizens audit citing her own papers (might have been another audit – not sure).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Climate Model Forcing Datasets

    CMIP5 – Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (IPCC ar5)

    The hierarchy leading to the recommended forcing datasets for CMIP5:-

    World Climate Research Program (WCRP)

    Stratospheric Processes and their Role in Climate
    (SPARC)

    Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
    (PCMDI)

    Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Now the recommended forcing datasets from the respective specialists.

    CMIP5 – Modeling Info – Forcing Data

    Solar Forcings

    SOLARIS – Solar Influence for SPARC

    Input Data

    Recommendations for CMIP5 solar forcing data (See 192)

    Anthropogenic Forcings

    RCP Database (version 2.0)

    Input Data

    Input Data is categorized under Climate indicators (their terminology) as follows:-
    Concentration

    Radiative Forcings

    Emissions


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    The file fixed.tar.gz (191 MB zipped!, see 179) contains the PARAM database of parameters (I suspect) of radiative forcings and fluxes (among others). With this understanding, it is easy to follow the source code in the absence of a simple system diagram.

    OK, I downloaded and unzipped it. I’m a bit short of time lately but I can say that the files are binary arrays (mostly 32 bit, floats I think) with a header where part of the header is a text description of the data. There is no index that I can find, no README, and no obvious reference to where the data came from. The file names are abbreviated shorthand, presumably matching something in the code.

    I’ll generate at least an index of the file names against the header comments… might provide a foothold in the rock. I’m not sure of the full specification of the header block, which is variable length, maybe that’s in the code as well ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Yes. the inputs just aren’t published but outputs are dime-a-dozen.

    When you have time, follow my comments down up-thread, I’ve figured out quite a bit re forcings datasets.

    Meantime just click on Anthropogenic Forcings, Input Data – comment 194.

    Looking at that database of recommended inputs for model comparisons may help you guess the corresponding filenames. BTW, the tar part of fixed.tar.gz is probably Third Assessment Report (ar3) which says to me that the input parameters for ar3 were used again for ar4.

    PARAM is actually a module that controls access to the database. There is a link to the ModelE source code browser at 180. Once you’ve got the browser up, just click on PARAM and all will be revealed (or not). I’ll have a look myself but this is my first look at Fortran so I’m just winging it from what I’ve forgotten about 3GL’s.

    Look for forcings not fluxes (there will be screeds of fluxes – some forcings datasets may only be a dozen entries)

    Also, I made an inquiry to the contact person at NASA NSFC in regard to ModelE1 and what to expect in the ar5 version. It was a bit pointed so I’ll be lucky to get a reply. See the “Skeptic is Back” post comment 128.

    Question 1. Will super-parameterization (i.e. a cloud resolving model) be implemented in the up-coming frozen ar5 GISS ModelE(?) version?

    Question 2a. Am I correct in that the GISS ModelE1 frozen ar4 version
    uses Radiative Forcing methodology rather than Full Physics?

    Question 2b. What methodology can we expect to see in the up-coming
    GISS ModelE(?) frozen ar5 version – Radiative Forcing? Full Physics?
    Hybrid? Also, will we still be looking at Fortran source code or OO?
    (System Diagrams paint a thousand words) Or, has The ModelE series
    been superseded by another model for ar5 purposes?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Tel 195:

    I looked at the data a couple of years ago and gave up on it. You have to reverse-engineer from the source code to interpret what each byte means. Good luck.

    It’s abysmal software engineering to store such data in a binary format; one susceptable to problems of misinterpretation through alignment and byte order, let alone being effectively undocumented. Data should be stored in a portable, self-documenting format such as XML. When compressed, it uses little more space than the compressed binary soup.

    Perhaps the maintainers don’t think that the data are important enough; seeing that they can get whatever results they want anyway.

    Perhaps it’s deliberate obfuscation to conceal the verity of the data. I think back to “Harry’s” comments.

    Perhaps they’re just hopelessly incompetent. They get enough money to obtain resources for all their GIGO (Garbage-In; Grants-Out) exercises.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Richard C

    A relevant article from sciencemag.org

    Creating Clearer Climate Computer Codes


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    That’s my first effort at cranking out an index for the fixed.tar.gz data set. Some of the files I have yet to make any sense of. filename is on the left of the colon (as per unix text-handling toolkit)

    http://lnx-bsp.net/IPCC_AR4_data_index.txt

    Hope it helps…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Tel 200

    It helps a LOT

    Suspect ACO2 forcings datasets are in here (near Top, just below historic crops data):

    GHG.1850-2050.Mar2002: Greenhouse Gas Mixing Ratios 3/4/2002 (New from 2001’09 version:
    GHG.1850-2050.Mar2002: minor modification in N2O prior to 1978, new CO2, CH4, N2O for 2000,
    GHG.1850-2050.Mar2002: other CFCs are quite different — starts earlier but ends smaller)
    GHG.1850-2050.Mar2002: Year CO2 N2O CH4 CFC11 CFC12 others

    Solar flux is near EOF but I need to do some reading (see 194) to find forcings. BTW, lean is Judith Lean (see 192).

    solar.lean02.ann.uvflux: ANN: Spectral irradiance annually on following wavelength (nm) grid centers
    solar.lean02.ann.uvflux: with the following wavelength bands (nm) centered on above wls
    solar.lean02.ann.uvflux: Spectral irradiance (mW/m2/nm) for years from 1850 to 2000
    solar.lean02.ann.uvflux: Following YEAR is TSI (direct) and TSI (from summed spectra) in W/m2


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 196

    Frequently Asked Questions About the GISS Model, General questions, answers part of my question 2b (see 196).

    Why should I switch to using modelE?

    Answer

    It is of course up to you. However, there are a number of reasons why it makes sense for you to make the effort involved in upgrading.

    * modelE fixed a number of bugs (some major, some minor) that may still exist in your code.
    * subsequent changes and upgrades for modelE will be significantly easy than it was for model II’
    * adding diagnostics is much more straightforward
    * acc files now have more information (NOT YET IMPLEMENTED) and ‘pd’-like programs are now more robust
    * modelE is double precision throughout
    * modelE will eventually be the only model version supported by the programmers.
    * modelE is more modular, more flexible and easier to understand
    * modelE has made explicit most of the dependencies that were hidden in model II’. Thus minor changes are less likely to have devastating knock on effects.
    * modelE is written using a lot of Fortran 90, and a lot less Fortran 66.
    * modelE comes with automatic Makefile generation from the rundeck.
    * modelE comes ready for parallelisation, coupling and tracers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Solar flux is near EOF but I need to do some reading (see 194) to find forcings. BTW, lean is Judith Lean (see 192).

    It happens that the file solar.lean02.ann.uvflux is one of the few plain text files so the numbers are easily available for that one.

    FWIW I don’t have a big problem with authors citing their own earlier works (or more often, works from the same research group), if those represent relevant background material that bring the reader up to speed. It seems to me more important to ask what other work is cited.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    So they admit they don’t understand feedback or cloud or water vapour, but say those things don’t matter. Right. Prove it. Rigorously, please, because you want to mess with the survival of “industrial society” on the planet, and with it the survival of 90%+ of the population.

    Negative feedback ==> one or more stable “strange attractor” states

    Positive feedback ==> runaway breaking of the system. [Would have necessarily happened LONG AGO, since all relevant independent variables have seen wide excursions far beyond any now projected.]

    “Tipping points” (all unknown, of course) are code for unpredictable scary stuff we must take precautions against even if we have no actual ideal how to do so. Except it always operationally turns out to mean, “Give me lotsa your money!”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    typo: “actual idea”, not “ideal”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Looking at that database of recommended inputs for model comparisons may help you guess the corresponding filenames. BTW, the tar part of fixed.tar.gz is probably Third Assessment Report (ar3) which says to me that the input parameters for ar3 were used again for ar4.

    Just to correct a misconception here, the tar part of fixed.tar.gz means “Tape ARchive” and the gz part means “gzip”. It’s been a long standing principle of unix that each program does one job well rather than many jobs badly so the program called “tar” will assemble many files and directories into a single stream and then the “gzip” program compresses that stream as a second phase of the operation.

    Microsoft Windows users are more familiar with the Phil Katz design where one single “zip” program does both archiving and compression. If you try downloading 7zip you will probably be able to uncompress and extract the archive on a Microsoft machine.

    http://www.7-zip.org/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    ACO2 forcings are the “magic thermostat” whereby man’s 3% of 4% of 1% controls the climate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re Cloud Cloud Feedbacks and Model Specifications

    In the absence of input specifications for forcing datasets, I’ve been looking at output specs which is helping to fill in the picture.

    From PCMDI Information for analysts

    List of simulation specifications (1.)

    Precise definitions of variables (2.)

    Official model names (3.)

    Model documentation (including simulation forcing information) (4.)

    (I won’t link further in this comment to avoid WordPress issues.)

    Option (1.) is actually IPCC Standard Output from Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere GCMs. Much to learned here. Not only are forcings introduced at Initialization but new forcings are calculated for the 2xCO2 scenario in order to “make it possible to estimate the importance of cloud feedbacks

    Option (2.) leads to the same page as (1.)

    Option (3.) new page, self explanatory.

    Option (4.) leads to same page as (3.), hotlinks lead to info for ar4 Lead Authors. GISS-AOM (Atmosphere-Ocean Model) hotlink leads to GISS AOM webpage which gives addresses (not hotlinks) to parameterizations (clouds, radiation, etc), mathematical formulations etc (useful) and simulation details (very useful) copied here:

    A. PIcntrl: 1850 to 2100

    C480: B. 200-year spinup from Levitus climatological conditions

    C490: B. 250-year spinup from Levitus climatological conditions

    C. Monthly varying, but annually fixed, some industrial and

    natural aerosols and Boucher’s 1850 sulfate burden, see

    solar constant is fixed at 1367 (W/m^2)

    A. 20C3M: 1850 to 2000

    C483: B. 200-year spinup from Levitus climatological conditions

    C493: B. 250-year spinup from Levitus climatological conditions

    D. Greenhouse gases: http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/IN/GHGA1B.LP ;

    Boucher’s time varying sulfate burden (1850 to 2000), see

    http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/cp4x3in.html (#16);

    other forcing agents have monthly changes, but no annual

    changes

    A. SRES B1: 2000 to 2100

    C484: B. Initialized from end of C483

    C494: B. Initialized from end of C493

    D. Greenhouse gases: http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/IN/GHGB1.LP ;

    Boucher’s time varying sulfate burden (2000 to 2100) for

    IPCC SRES B1, see

    http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/cp4x3in.html (#16);

    other forcing agents have monthly changes, but no annual

    changes

    A. SRES A1B: 2000 to 2100

    C485: B. Initialized from end of C483

    C495: B. Initialized from end of C493

    D. Greenhouse gases: http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/IN/GHGA1B.LP ;

    Boucher’s time varying sulfate burden (2000 to 2100) for

    IPCC SRES A1B, see

    http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/cp4x3in.html (#16);

    other forcing agents have monthly changes, but no annual

    changes

    Following the Greenhouse Gases hotlinks gives concentrations for that scenario e.g. B1 1850-2100.

    Obviously the two spinups (C483,C493) and the Levitus climatological conditions provide the initial conditions for SRES B1 and SRES A1B scenarios.

    Also useful on Option (1.) page is a link to the Cloud Forcing Model Intercomparison Website which is actually the Met Office Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP)

    At the bottom of the Option (1.) page we find Table of Experiments. Quoting from SRES B1 notes:

    Impose SRES B1 conditions and initialize with conditions from the end of the 20C3M simulation and run to 2100, after which hold concentrations fixed and continue run to 2200. One member of the ensemble should be extended for an additional 100 years (to 2300), continuing to hold concentrations fixed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Do any of the models include ‘work’? Phase changes of H2O, or wind movement, or heat-driven chemistry? These are deductions from energy required to be radiated back into space.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Tel 203 206

    Thanx for the TAR tip (vague recollections from 25 years ago).

    In regard to solar and Judith Lean, there’s not much other. She seems to be sole solar expert reviewer and providor of solar datasets. As you say there’s no reason for her work not to be cited but its a contentious area and there needs to be alternative views for the solar part of ar4 to have any credence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Brian H 209

    Do any of the models include ‘work’? Phase changes of H2O, or wind movement, or heat-driven chemistry? These are deductions from energy required to be radiated back into space.

    See 208. Option (4.) leads to the GISS ModelE mathematical formulations. The relevant page is linked (but not hotlinked) from the GISS AOM Info page under 4. Parameterizations: AOM web site:

    http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/DOC4X3/ATMOC4X3.TXT

    I’ll leave you to answer your own question from that – there’s a lot of reading on that page.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Brian H

    Richard;
    yeah, there is a lot! Much of it is in formulas whose variables and exponents show up as non-displaying characters in the TXT format, too.

    But there are lots of clues about super-simplifying procedures and assumptions. E.g.:
    “At present, the radiation subroutines cannot accept vertical gradients of temperature, humidity or clouds that are calculated by other parts of the model, and the subroutines cannot return the vertical gradient of heating rates within each layer. Changing the
    radiation routines will not be done soon. ”

    So critical parts of the model can’t talk to each other.

    I think a professional modeler would have kittens reading this stuff.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Brian 213

    I have since googled the title “4×3 ATMOSPHERE-OCEAN MODEL FORMULATION” looking for a readable text. Came up with 4×3 Atmosphere-Ocean Model Documentation page with this helpful note:-

    The NASA/GISS Atmosphere-Ocean Model is a continually evolving computer program written in Fortran. There are different files that describe the Model in different mathematical languages: English, algorithm notation, and the Fortran source code which is the definitive reference. The first two languages contain incomplete, piecemeal, and occasionally inaccurate descriptions of the Model; the algorithm notation files may use a symbol set which is currently unreadable on the web.

    I think you are looking for a Full Physics methodology and at present my understanding is that GISS ModelE uses RF methodology. Up-thread I displayed an inquiry I made to NASA GSFC seeking clarification on that and couple of other things (no response to-date).But I did read on the GISS Climate Theory and Modeling page, this statement:

    “For climate dynamics studies, a hierarchy of models ranging from
    one-dimensional radiative-convective models to coupled
    atmosphere-ocean-land models with full physics is used
    .”

    So ModelE might be full physics – I don’t know, haven’t got that far and its a bit out of my zone at the moment but a quick glance at the formulations seems to indicate that it is. I’d like to know what you think. ModelE could be RF/Full Physics (its definitely AO coupled) which would include work done against gravity for example i.e. energy deductions as you say at 209.

    Not easy dissecting 1000′s of man-years of work all over the Net.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 214

    From Dr Roy Clarks: A Null Hypothesis For CO2

    Most of the large scale climate models used to predict global warming ignore the physics of energy transfer at the Earth’s surface and use an approach known as radiative forcing.10, 23-26

    A model that “ignores the physics of energy transfer at the Earth’s surface” cannot be described as Full Physics.

    The ModelE AO Coupling mechanism should show up in the source code somewhere (a diagram would be nice).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    My Fortran is many decades behind me, I’m afraid.

    But the statement I quoted seems to me to preclude meaningful “modeling” of a dynamic system.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Tel

    The AGHG forcings datasets at 208 for the B1 and A1B SRES scenarios should correspond with datasets in fixed.tar.gz. The data includes ACO2 concentrations in ppm from 1850-2100. 1850-2000 is spin-up and 2000-2100 is simulation. Code algorithms convert to Wm2 forcings (I think).

    Here’s parts of the files:-

    Global Annual Greenhouse Gas Concentrations – IPCC Scenario B1

    Year CO2_ppm N2O_ppb CH4_ppb CFC-11_ppt CFC-12_ppt CFC-X_ppt
    1850 285.200 275.400 791.000 .000 .000 .000

    2000 369.600 316.300 1752.000 263.000 534.000 309.000

    2005 378.400 320.000 1793.000 256.000 531.000 427.000

    Global Annual Greenhouse Gas Concentrations – IPCC Scenario A1B

    Year CO2_ppm N2O_ppb CH4_ppb CFC-11_ppt CFC-12_ppt CFC-X_ppt
    1850 285.200 275.400 791.000 .000 .000 .000

    2000 369.600 316.300 1752.000 263.000 534.000 309.000

    2005 379.800 320.000 1815.000 256.000 531.000 431.000

    TAR provides Table 6.2: Simplified expressions for calculation of radiative forcing

    For CO2 F= (g(C)-g(C0)) which expanded looks like this:-

    F= 3.35 *( ln(1+1.2C+0.005C2 +1.4 x 10-6C3) – ln(1+1.2C0)+0.005C0)2 +1.4 x 10-6C0)3))

    Steve McIntyre has already raked this formulation over at CA and from what I can gather, ModelE does not actually use this formulation (?) but it can be used to readily calculate a forcing for any year. For example, the AR4 Radiative Forcing Components figure 2.4 was compiled for 2005. By my calcs for 2005:-

    B1 1.70 Wm2
    A1b 1.72 Wm2
    AR4 1.66 Wm2 (1.49 to 1.83)

    So my calcs using the GISS datasets are within the AR4 envelope but I have not yet mapped the AR4 figure 2.4 ACO2 forcings onto actual ModelE calculated forcings. I might have a look at the algorithm notation file (see 211,214) and the source code one day to perhaps see how the code handles the concentrations data to allocate the forcing.

    Note, the early spin-up concentration data is at the discretion of the modelers, late spin-up is more or less standardized for each scenario as is the 2000-2100 simulation data. This explains the variation between B1, A1B and AR4.

    I suspect there is a similar formulation somewhere to calculate solar forcing from the solar flux data.

    Basically, I see a massive group-think exercise with much navel gazing over model inter-comparison studies and screeds of reporting to show how well the model results compare but the similarities are to be expected given:-

    A. All the models are based on the same AGW hypothesis, and

    B. All the models are using the same RF methodology.

    For want of a better term, they are making incestuous comparisons. More meaningful simulation comparisons would be between:-

    A. Different hypotheses, and

    B. Different methodologies.

    Required reading for the above is AR4 10.1 and 10.2 through to 10.2.2

    Also AR4 2.3.1 and the IPCC Special Report Emissions Scenarios (SRES)

    Now back to clouds in conventional AOGCM’s (ModelE) and whats in the offing for AR5. This will be very interesting given Spencer-Braswell (2010) and the super-parametrization studies – negative feedbacks both.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Richard;
    Yes, computerized circle-jerks are so MUCH more efficiently stimulating, aren’t they?

    As for the output …


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Richard C

    From 217

    ModelE does not actually use this formulation (?)

    From Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis? – A Guest Weblog by William DiPuccio

    Pielke’s Litmus Test

    In 2007 Roger Pielke, Sr. suggested that ocean heat should be used not just to monitor the energy imbalance in the climate system, but as a “litmus test” for falsifying the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis (Pielke, “A Litmus Test…”, climatesci.org, April 4, 2007). Dr. Pielke is a Senior Research Scientist in CIRES (Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences), at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and Professor Emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. One of the world’s foremost atmospheric scientists, he has published nearly 350 papers in peer-reviewed journals, 50 chapters in books, and co-edited 9 books.

    Pielke’s test compares the net anthropogenic radiative forcing projected by GISS computer models (Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al.) with actual ocean heat as measured by the ARGO array. To calculate the annual projected heat accumulation in the climate system or oceans, radiative forcing (Watts/m2) must be converted to Joules (Watt seconds) and multiplied by the total surface area of the oceans or earth:

    [#1] Qannum = (Ri Pyear Aearth) .80

    or, [#2] Qannum = (Ri Pyear Aocean) .85

    Where Qannum is the annual heat accumulation in Joules

    Ri is the mean global anthropogenic radiative imbalance in W/m2

    P is the period of time in seconds/year (31,557,600)

    Aocean is the total surface area of the oceans in m2 (3.61132 x 1014)

    Aearth is the total surface area of the earth in m2 (5.10072 x 1014)

    .80 & .85 are reductions for isolating upper ocean heat (see below)

    Radiative Imbalance. The IPCC and GISS calculate the global mean net anthropogenic radiative forcing at ~1.6 W/m2(-1.0, +.8), (see, 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Summary for Policy Makers, figure SPM.2 and Hanson, Willis, Schmidt et al., page 1434, Table 1). This is the effective total of all anthropogenic forcings on the climate system. Projected heat accumulation is not calculated from this number, but from the mean global anthropogenic radiative imbalance (Ri). According to Hanson, Willis, Schmidt et al., the imbalance represents that fraction of the total net anthropogenic forcing which the climate system has not yet responded to due to thermal lag (caused primarily by the oceans). The assumption is that since the earth has warmed, a certain amount of energy is required to maintain the current global temperature. Continuing absorption will cause global temperatures to rise further until a new balance is reached.

    Physically, the climate system responds to the entire 1.6 W/m2 forcing, not just a portion of it. But while energy is being absorbed, it is also being lost by radiation. The radiative imbalance is better described as the difference between the global mean net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its associated radiative loss. The global radiative imbalance of .75 W/m2 (shown below) would mean that the earth system is radiating .85 W/m2 in response to 1.6 W/m2of total forcing (1.6 – .85 = .75). For a more detailed discussion of radiative equilibrium see, Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: “Heat storage within the Earth system.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 331-335.

    Projected Ocean Heat. Since observed heat accumulation is derived from measurements in the upper 700m-750m of the ocean, an “apples to apples” comparison with model projections requires some adjustments. Eq. #1, used by the GISS model, assumes that nearly all of the energy from anthropogenic radiative forcing is eventually absorbed by the oceans (80%-90% according to Willis, U.S. CLIVAR, 1, citing Levitus, et. al.). Based on modeling by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al., (page 1432) upper ocean heat is thought to comprise 80% of the total as shown in the illustration. So, the calculated heat must be multiplied by 0.8 to subtract deep ocean heat (below 750m) and heat storage by the atmosphere, land, and cryosphere

    Apart from that analysis, the post blows away the AGW hypothesis!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re Not-Richo’s question @ 113

    My answer at 115 is incorrect, I suspect the forcings are in dtheta on the page he specified. That would include the standard forcings I quoted at 115.

    dtheta might be the UKMO AOGCM equivalent to GISS fixed.tar.gz.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Another hockey stick.

    Re 217, the ACO2 dataset is a hockey stick splice using Law Dome icecore data and recent Mauna Loa observations.

    The same dataset is used to compile this graph (note the Data Sources):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

    Seems to me, the modelers combine natural and anthropogenic CO2 concentrations to arrive at the anthropogenic forcing. The Mauna Loa uptick in the combined dataset provides the magnifier that is assumed to be a result of increased human emissions and assumed to be the reason for post 1958 warming!

    More on this at the Climate Conversations post here:
    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/09/new-unfccc-climate-chief-no-worse-than-the-old/#comments


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Your blog is very motivating. When I was reading it, I get drawn in. I am totally agreed with your thoughts. Thanks for sharing this beautiful thoughts with me.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hey, I searched for this weblog on Bing and just wanted to say thanks for the fantastic study. I would have to agree with it, thank you once more!


    Report this

    00