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



Ice Core evidence — where is carbon’s “major effect”?

The ice cores are often lauded as evidence of the effects of carbon dioxide. Frank Lansner asks a pointed question and goes hunting to find any effects that can be attributed to carbon.

Where is the data that actually shows a strong and important warming effect of CO2? If CO2 has this strong warming effect, would not nature reflect this in data?

He has collected together the data from the last four warm spells (the nice interglacials between all the long ice ages) into one average “peak”. The common pattern of the rise and fall has already been recorded in many scientific papers. Orbital changes trigger the temperatures to rise first and about 800 years later (thanks to the oceans releasing CO2), carbon dioxide levels begin to climb. At the end of a patch of several thousand warm years, temperatures begin to fall, and thousands of years later the carbon dioxide levels slowly decline. No one is really contesting this order of things any more. What is contested is that those who feel carbon is a major driver estimate that the carbon dioxide unleashed by the warming then causes major amplification or “feedback”, making things lots warmer than they would have been if there was no change in carbon. Since most skeptics (but not all) agree that there is probably some warming due to extra CO2, the real question is “how much”.

Lansner points out that counter to the amplification theory, temperatures return most of the way back to their starting level (ice age temperatures) even while CO2 levels are elevated. If the CO2 can’t prevent the temperatures falling, it’s effect is anything but major.

Estimates of climate sensitivity and support for the “feedbacks” comes from models which depend on water vapor increasing high over the tropics. The radiosondes show that the models are wrong.

Frank graphs the change in temperatures and CO2, and finds a slight positive trend which is predictable (we know oceans release CO2 as they warm, so there would be a correlation). But then he plots the changes in CO2 against changes in the rate of temperature change, and finds no correlation at all (if CO2 was a major forcing, it would force or accelerate temperature change, which would show as the rate of temperature change). The data is limited to 1500 year blocks, so the time-frame is less than ideal, but the best available in the Petit data.

Thanks to Frank for his work

Jo


Searching for carbon’s effect in the ice cores…

An edited version of Frank Lansner’s post on Hidethedecline

In January 2009 Frank discussed the apparently missing CO2 warming signal in data at Watts Up With That in: “CO2, Temperature and Ice Ages

I added most of the four large interglacial temperature peaks into one peak for a closer look.
The pro-CO2 argument goes, that  1) CO2-levels at only 210-240 ppm “must” be the reason that temperature boosts and thus could change 6-7-8 Kelvin or more on Earth.

However, in ice core graphs it’s clear that 2) CO2 concentrations far higher, 250-280 ppm, occurs while the temperature declines during 15-20 thousand years after the interglacial temperature peaks and thus temperatures returns almost to start level.

This doesn’t prove that CO2 has no effect, but nor does it suggest it has a big effect.

Furthermore, if some scientists thinks that CO2 just need to have a minor effect, it is as though they forget the basis of the CO2 theory that actually demands the CO2 effect to be dominating and strong:

The CO2 increase is supposed to increase Earth temperatures to a far higher level than seen on Earth in a million years or more in just few centuries. So obviously we are entitled to see actual data showing a significant CO2 effect dominating the natural mechanisms of temperature regulation on Earth.

I have downloaded the available CO2/temperature data from NASA (petit et al 1997-99):

I then to plotted data from sample to sample to seek for an actual CO2 warming signal.

(The Petit data has far less CO2 measurement data points than temperature points, so I have matched each CO2 measurement with the temperature data taken nearest possible to the CO2 sample. This gave, in average periods of approximately 1500 years length, the mismatch in sample data is approximately 52 years, but the difference has random direction and thus the CO2 data points are just 2,4 years later than the temperature points in average.)

Here’s how a scatter plot of dT/ dCO2 appears:

dT and dCO2 are calculated simply as:

The outcome showed a visible trend: A larger dCO2 is accompanied by a larger dT.

Bingo?

Not so.

We know temperatures raise CO2 levels. So we’d expect to see a correlation.

It doesn’t help us with the question: Can CO2 itself increase temperatures? Or are higher CO2 concentrations mostly a result of temperatures?

Does a change in CO2 change the trend of temperatures?

Frank plots the derivative (which means he is looking not at the absolute highs and lows but at the rate that the slope of the graph changes.)

I made a plot ddT vs dCO2, the change of temperature trend pr 1000 years in kelvin as a function of change in CO2 concentration:

And again I made a scatter plot, and this time when highlighting the effect of CO2 change on change in temperature trend per millennium I found…

Nothing. The ability of CO2 to change the temperature trend from one period to the next is extremely hard to pinpoint. I just see white noise.

Is it wrong to expect a visible CO2 warming signal from these data? If CO2 was really capable of making global temperature much warmer than seen in a million years in nature — should there not be a visible connection between CO2 change and change in temperature trend?

I have thus failed to show a CO2 effect for these intervals in average 1500 years long. So perhaps the CO2 effect is supposed to have an effect only using some other length of periods? or? No doubt, data appears very noisy as CO2 trends and temperature trends are rather irregular appearing over the years — but still, should a strong CO2 effect not be visible from this noise? I think so.

Where is the data that actually shows a strong and important warming effect of CO2?

See Franks full post on his blog.

UPDATE: The slope of temperatures does not appear related to CO2 concentration in Vostok data

Frank compared the trend of temperatures as a function of the CO2 concentration:

dT = TB – TA

as a function of the average CO2 for the period:

CO2 = (CO2B+ CO2A)/2

It appears that there is no visible connection between CO2 concentration and the slope of temperatures in these Vostok data. In fact, if I insert a trend line it appears slightly negative.

Again, these are the data that should show the warming effect of CO2. Im not sure how much I can conclude on this, but i believe the CO2 – warming message would stand stronger if one could see bigger warming trends for bigger CO2 concentrations.

Franks Update.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.0/10 (3 votes cast)
Ice Core evidence — where is carbon’s “major effect”?, 7.0 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2dlfake

214 comments to Ice Core evidence — where is carbon’s “major effect”?

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    There isn’t any data showing an important warming effect of CO2 – it’s totally in the domain of belief – if the data were available then climate sensitivity would have been calculated years ago. That there continues to be debate over the value of climate sensitivity simply confirms the lack of unequivocal data.

    It’s helps to realise that a greenhouse gas effect is proposed to explain the thermal anomaly on earth that is considered a sphere of rock coated with a thin film of gas suspended in vacuo and illuminated by a radiating sun. Caveman era physics.

    The fact that temperatures go down while CO2 continues to increase is evidence enough to instantly reject the AGW hypothesis. It’s another case of the logical fallacy of arguing the consequent – a rather common phenomenon in sciences which have become disconnected from physical reality.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    I wonder what Frank thinks of this paper:

    http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf

    Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz found that there is no statistical correlation between a linear increase of CO2 and temperature. As CO2 only increases in a linear way over the 20thC it cannot have had an effect on temperature.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Funny how no-one (scientists) have looked at the location of this planet to the sun in moving angular past the suns equator periodically. This would definately explain why an Ice Age is very predictable.
    If our planet was level at the suns equator, then we would not be able to see the poles as of the suns massive size. Yet we can see the northern hemisphere pole of the sun, so, we must be north of the suns equator.
    When understanding the factors of the mechanics of rotation, there is a massive amount sciece does NOT want to know.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Here a little update:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/update-the-slope-of-temperatures-does-not-appear-related-to-co2-concentration-in-vostok-data-192.php

    Louis Hissink: I agree. Theres not really a data source from the real world showing that CO2 actually causes heat on this planet. But do peoble know?

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wayne

    Wow! This is great!

    Any chance this becomes a power reviewed paper or will it remain only in the biosphere?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Frank, as long as the sceptical camp continues to admit the existence of a greenhouse gas effect, no matter how minor its effect, little progress will be made in putting the AGW fallacy into the dustbin of history. That’s the problem, and people won’t hear about it until the sceptics start to understand just how incomplete the standard solar model is.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Wayne: If these things where to be reviewed, i would need a little more time :-)

    Louis: Its my impression that if there is any CO2 warming from CO2, this effect is really small and Im not sure if its a cooling or warming effect. The CO2-sinsitivity even from sceptics appears too high.

    But what peoble then should realise is, that “a minor CO2 warming effect” simply cannot lead to the warming disaster some fears.

    The thing is: The horror theories demands that temperatures should rise above anything seen in nature for over a million years:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/media/CO2signal/co2greenblack.jpg

    So the CO2-effect MUST be SIGNIFICANT for this theory to make sence. No “minor effect from CO2 can totaly dominate the natural mechanisms seen in a million years.

    Cohenite: Thanks for link – i have saved it on my pc for now.

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Wayne: I think before an article to-be reviewed etc. I would need to go through more data sources of CO2-temperature. Joanne has sent me some links. However, im not sure that any CO2 data sources has the resolution needed to really complete the work of saying: “CO2 has no effect”.
    For now we can perhaps say: “We cant see the Co2 effect in the data available, and thus its problematic to claim for sure that CO2 has a significant effect”.
    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wayne

    Right, so until its peer reviewed we can’t rule out that this analysis contains perhaps many major flaws.

    Wow! That’s great news!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Wayne, there can certainly be flaws in all writings, peer reviewed or not (especially when we talk about climate “science”).
    Im not sure what you are saying, but i you only find peer rev. writings useful, then there are magazines presenting only such material.
    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    What is contested is that those who feel carbon is a major driver estimate that the carbon dioxide unleashed by the warming then causes major amplification or “feedback”, making things lots warmer than they would have been if there was no change in carbon.

    And:

    If the CO2 can’t prevent the temperatures falling, it’s effect is anything but major.

    It’s what I’ve been saying for years. There’s NEVER been a runaway greenhouse, ever. Because CO2 has a logarithmic effect:

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

    If the relationship between CO2 and temp were linear, then ANY errant Milankovich Cycle would produce warming, nature would emit more CO2, creating higher temps, more CO2, more warming.. etc. Runaway greenhouse every time. The reason this has never happened is due to CO2′s logarithmic effect.

    The following video illustrates the 100,000 year Milankovich Cycles in ice cores:

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

    Would any intelligent life on this planet like to hazard a guess as to what will happen next and, how would we mitigate against it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Wayne @ 9:

    Right, so until its peer reviewed we can’t rule out that this analysis contains perhaps many major flaws.

    Thanks to the IPCC and UEA, “peer-reviewed” means little at the moment, until we have an independent body that’s completely independent of political funding and agendas that does the reviewing. But it’s a start.. ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Guenier

    Frank: you and Louis (and Jo) are sure “There’s not really a data source from the real world showing that CO2 actually causes heat on this planet”. So was I – and I wrote to my MP (I’m British) stating that and asking what sense it made for the UK to base draconian climate policy on a hypothesis unsupported by empirical evidence. He passed my letter to Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (no less). And Huhne replied! He referred me to a 2009 paper by Murphy et al showing, he claimed, that “by combining energy conservation with observational data on surface temperature, ocean heat content and radiative forces”, it could be shown that GHG emissions were the “most important contributor to current global warming” – a conclusion that, he said, “fully supports” the IPCC AR4 conclusion that current warming is largely manmade. In other words (I think – I’m a lawyer not a scientist and I’ve no idea what “combining energy conservation with observational data … radiative forces” means), he is telling me I was wrong to claim that the proposition (re mankind’s GHG emissions being the principal cause of GW) was unsupported by empirical evidence.

    Is Huhne right? If so, it seems that a key sceptics’ argument (and a major plank of Jo’s Handbook) is shot down in flames.

    [Robin, thanks for an entirely reasonable point, sorry I can't be at my desk all day to reply sooner... I see Richard Courtney has answered this well in #34. Essentially, the clue here is that when they "combine" a lot of measured factors it must mean a model is involved with multiple assumptions. If they could report an empirical study, they would be able to say "Radiosondes show... x y z". Instead, as I mentioned in the Handbook, the radiosondes show the models are hopelessly wrong. - JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Martin Wearner

    Robin,

    I think opinions like yours grow from sites like this.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Please take your uninformed opinion back there!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Robin!
    Im fully aware that there are models and studies claiming that CO2 indeed has a great warming effect.
    But the problem is, that in real data this effect appears invisible, please read:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Robin, as I understand supporters of the idea that CO2 has a strong warming effect, they believe so because they cant understand how these big changes in temperatures during the ice ages could occur.
    Then they use an X-factor, and they decide its CO2 and more.
    But its nonsense when temperatures can decline alle the way down to new iceages while CO2 has max concentration. This prooves that we dont need CO2 to explain that big changes in temperatures can occur and thus the whole argument to introduce CO2 as explanation falls.

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Olaf Koenders @ 11:

    Would any intelligent life on this planet like to hazard a guess as to what will happen next and, how would we mitigate against it?

    I don’t know about intelligent but I did notice on the graph that it appears this most recent warm period is near the point where (if the same as the other historic cycles) we are in for some cooling. A LONG LONG period of cooling……

    As far as mitigation I’m going to invoke the “Grandchildren Principle”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Guenier

    Martin:

    Please read my post a little more carefully – note, in particular, my comment “what sense [does it make] for the UK to base draconian climate policy on a hypothesis unsupported by empirical evidence?” Er … that doesn’t, I think, sound remotely like an opinion derived from skepticalscience.com. No, I’ve been a sceptic since 2007 – but I’m not a scientist and I’m trying to learn. Is there something wrong with that?

    Frank:

    Your first comment suggests that you may have misunderstood me. Perhaps I should have made it clearer that, in his reply to my letter, the Secretary of State specifically claimed that his policy did not rely on computer modelling (as I had alleged) and he cited the Murphy et al, 2009 paper to support that. And that paper does (to my non-scientific eye) appear to be based on “observational data“. So my question to you is: could Huhne be right and my “no empirical evidence” claim be wrong?

    Re your second comment, I well understand that past history demonstrates that temperature changes irrespective of CO2 concentrations. But what the UK’s Climate Change minister appears to be saying is that this particular warming (i.e. late 20thC) can be shown by reference to “observational data” (not models) to be caused by mankind’s CO2 emissions. Could he be right?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I have yet to see one proponent of CAGW explain why EVERY ice core sample shows that CO2 levels continue to rise while temperatures fall. Granted, there are sometimes other factors at work such as volcanic activity, but that does not explain why in EVERY INSTANCE when temperatures drop CO2 levels continue to rise.

    In every instance when a proponent of the CAGW hypothesis is confronted with this fact the response is always vague and elusive. Their response almost always begins with “something else” followed by something nebulous. The look in their eyes reminds me of a deer in the headlights.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    There are quite a few issues here. Firstly, the language is imprecise. What do you mean by “big effect” or “minor effect”?

    As far as I know, no one is arguing that CO2 was the main driver of ice ages. It was important, sure. But trying to explain the ice ages by only looking at CO2 is going to give you false results. We know this already because we know that other things–solar, albedo, methane for example–are as important, if not more important than CO2.

    Another problem is that you are looking at Antarctic cores which show twice as much warming as the entire globe experienced.

    Climate sensitivity estimates based on ice ages give results of about 3 deg C. Of course, these studies go into far more detail than this post.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Robin
    You write: “But what the UK’s Climate Change minister appears to be saying is that this particular warming (i.e. late 20thC) can be shown by reference to “observational data” (not models) to be caused by mankind’s CO2 emissions. Could he be right?”

    1) If CO2 is indeed having an importing effect, then this effect should have been there all the time.

    2) Antarctic ice core vs. temperature data is widely used as the evidence for the CO2/global warming idea. For example in Al Gores movie. Therefore we are in title to see that these data actually shows that CO2 has an effect. otherwise you could claim anything.

    3) For present times it has been claimed that the temperatures measured mostly near cities and at airports shows more warming than can be explained by natural effects.
    - This is another discussion that in no way makes it “ok” that Antarctic data does not show the Co2 effect.
    - Furthermore, obviously modern temperature measurements are questionable due to Urban Heat island and a long series of temperature adjustments that happens to be adding more heat to data.

    Finaly: Considder that when you ask for real data showing CO2 effect, and then they just come with the temperature discussion of the 20íeth century where no real evidence is used. As I mentioned, its the “too warm” temperatures that makes some scientist suggest CO2 (In stead of the obvious UHI etc) but this is in no way evidence for any CO2 effect. I think its funny that when you ask for real data actually showing Co2 effect – you down really get what you asked for.
    Dont you think that if they actually could point to datasets showing CO2 warming effect – they would just hand it to you?

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    All,

    “The trainee astrophysicist that first proposed the runaway CO2 greenhouse effect for Venus as his dissertation for his Ph.D in physics at the university of Iowa in 1967 was James E. Hansen – the very same James E. Hansen who is now the current director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the number one global warming alarmist “climate scientist” that looks after the NASA GISSTEMP global surface temperature record and oversees the NASA GISS Model E climate modeling project.”

    Hansen was supervised by Sagan, and at the time the runaway Venusian greenhouse effect was proposed to counter Velikovsky’s prediction that Venus was hot because it was a recently formed planet. Until then everyone believed Venus was similar to the Earth in temperature.

    AGW will not go away until Hansen’s 1967 thesis is challenged – and it is this decades old fallacy that is driving the AGW movement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    grayman

    Frank, thank you for the paper. I hope you can get it peer-reviewed so we don’t have to here that it is not reviewed so it is of no significance!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Boris, you write: “As far as I know, no one is arguing that CO2 was the main driver of ice ages. It was important, sure. ”

    CO2 as a temperature driver was important, you say. well :-) Then you are the man who can pinpoint where in the data you see that?

    Then you write: ” But trying to explain the ice ages by only looking at CO2 …”
    - i dont.
    Then you write: “Another problem is that you are looking at Antarctic cores which show twice as much warming as the entire globe experienced.”

    Why is that a problem? Al Gore looked at these data as only evidence for CO2 effect in his whole movie.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Guenier

    Excellent, useful points, Frank, thanks. I liked two especially (+ minor edits): (1) If CO2 is indeed having an important effect, then this effect should have been there all the time. And (2) Don’t you think that if they actually could point to datasets showing CO2 warming effect – they would just hand them to you?

    Thanks again.

    PS: I can’t understand why my original post was unpopular. Perhaps someone (Martin?) would enlighten me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Forgive me if I’ve missed something here, ‘though according to Jo’s Vostok Ice Core graphs, the latest period of serious warming appears to have kicked off around 17 K years ago, while CO2 seems to have begun it’s rise nearer 18 K years ago. Isn’t the ~800 year lag supposed to be in the other direction ?

    We do appear to have been incredibly lucky ‘though (well at least anyone living in Vostok), to have enjoyed such a sustained, nay un-precedented period of stable warmth, for the last 11 K years. Onset of long term cooling is now looking seriously overdue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Robin, my first read took your post to be from a potential warmist too. It was a subtle mis-read of argument from authority (quoting Huhne). Don’t feel bad, we’re just a little “trigger happy”. Too many Trolls lately :)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Robin, its really impressive that you actually went to your MP, briliant. If only everyone did this. (I have have contacted a few politicians in Denmark, but had no actual dialog with peoble representing the government.

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Grayman: Thanks! Perhaps the climate-gate has made it easier for sceptics to have something peer reviewed – and then the present subject is quite important to highlight.
    I think the graphs etc. are rather bulletproof, to be honest. The issue is to what degree you can conclude what from them. But hey dont seem to support the idea of a CO2 effect.
    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Frank,

    You wrote:

    CO2 as a temperature driver was important, you say. well :-) Then you are the man who can pinpoint where in the data you see that?

    Then you write: ” But trying to explain the ice ages by only looking at CO2 …”
    - i dont.

    But if you don’t consider what is happening with methane or solar forcing then how can you know what CO2 is responsible for? For instance, if methane is dropping precipitously while CO2 is dropping slowly then we would expect temperatures to drop and for CO2 to keep them from dropping as fast if there were no CO2 effect. You have to consider all factors to know what CO2 is doing. It does get overwhelmed by other forcings during these ice ages, but this does not mean it has no effect or a minuscule effect.

    Then you write: “Another problem is that you are looking at Antarctic cores which show twice as much warming as the entire globe experienced.”

    Why is that a problem? Al Gore looked at these data as only evidence for CO2 effect in his whole movie.

    The reason it is a problem is because in these Vostock cores we know that half the temperature change has zero to do with CO2. We know this because it is only a local effect and CO2, as a well-mixed greenhouse gas, affects the entire globe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Guenier

    Frank: thanks. You know, a lot of people say “it’s not worth it, they won’t listen”. I’m sure that’s wrong. This is a long, step by step process – needing patience and perseverance. If everyone who feels strongly about this wrote to their elected representative and didn’t give up, it would make a difference. And, judging by a recent BBC Newsnight programme, I think we’re winning. Note: I wrote to my MP and got my message through to the Secretary of State. And he replied in person. I call that a result: it gives me an opportunity to respond in turn – hence my appeal for help here.

    PS: yet, since my last post, I see the negative votes on my first post (11:54 pm) have increased. Come on people – I expect (and have received) that sort of treatment on Joe Romm’s blog (and how many of you have had the guts to go there?), but I didn’t expect it when I came looking for help on the sainted Jo Nova’s blog.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Boris, you write: “But if you don’t consider what is happening with methane or solar forcing then how can you know what CO2 is responsible for?”

    First of all you need to have real data from nature showing that CO2 plays a part at all.

    hen if you have such data, then find out if CO2 could have an effect of 0,01K/1000 years? 0,1K/1000 years? 1K/1000 years? etc. You cant just fill in a “missing” heat in data with CO2 before you clearly with data can justify that CO2 actually can have this effect.

    We need the BASIC data that shows any CO2 effect on earth and from these we might be able to estimate the magnitude of the CO2 effect.

    Where are these data?

    Boris you cant just say: So much heat, so much from the Sun, So much from Orbital changes, then some molecule, CO2 just has to have the warming effect making your other assumtions appear correct.

    Before you start using CO2 as warming explanation you must have data that shows a CO2 warming effect!

    Then comes the next problem:
    In the Antarctic data the CO2 levels in 15-20.000 years after the interglacial peaks does not prevent cooling back into new ice age.

    The point: The argument – as you seem to use too – goes that only by also adding CO2 temperature effect can we account for the big temperature changes over the ice ages.
    But nature shows in the temperature declines, that it can go all the way down to a new iceage withtout CO2 influence. This means that nature CAN account for these big temperature changes without anyone has to drag in CO2 to explain this. In fact, nature can cool all the way down despite CO2 in max.

    Can you follow this?

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Robin Guenier:

    I have liked your posts and I understand the puzzlement you state when you write at #26:

    PS: I can’t understand why my original post was unpopular. Perhaps someone (Martin?) would enlighten me.

    I think I know why. We have had a series of trolls here who have attempted to disrupt sensible discussion. Several of them have pretended to be “humble seekers after truth” in their first post, but they have used any responses to that post as targets for imbecilic flaming and obfuscation.

    Your first post had the appearance of one of those ‘first posts’ by a troll and, therefore, several may have voted it down as a warning to others to not ‘nibble at the hook’.

    More importantly, at #13 you say:

    And Huhne replied! He referred me to a 2009 paper by Murphy et al showing, he claimed, that “by combining energy conservation with observational data on surface temperature, ocean heat content and radiative forces”, it could be shown that GHG emissions were the “most important contributor to current global warming” – a conclusion that, he said, “fully supports” the IPCC AR4 conclusion that current warming is largely manmade. In other words (I think – I’m a lawyer not a scientist and I’ve no idea what “combining energy conservation with observational data … radiative forces” means), he is telling me I was wrong to claim that the proposition (re mankind’s GHG emissions being the principal cause of GW) was unsupported by empirical evidence.

    Ah, but the paper by Murphy et al reports an attribution study. This is “empirical evidence” of the model they used.

    It is not empirical evidence of the real world.

    In an attribution study the system is assumed to be behaving in response to a suggested mechanism (or mechansims) that is modeled, and the behaviour of the model is compared to the empirical data. If the model cannot emulate the empirical data then there is reason to suppose that the suggested mechanism is not the cause (or at least not the sole cause) of the changes recorded in the empirical data.

    It is important to note that attribution studies can only be used to reject hypothesis that a mechanism is a cause for an observed effect. Ability to attribute a suggested cause to an effect is not evidence that the suggested cause is the real cause in part or in whole.

    For example, that any one of three people may have committed a murder in a Cludo game does not mean that they all ‘done-it’: we want to know ‘Who-done-it’. At first all the suspects may be attributed with the ‘crime’ and as more attribution studies are conducted more suspects can be eliminated. Eventually, all except one suspect is eliminated and, thus, the ‘murderer’ is revealed. This works because all the suspects are known in the virtual world of the game. But a real policeman in the real world knows that a real murder may have been committed by a thief whom the victim disturbed and whose identity is not known. So, in the real world proving that (a) to (y) ‘did not do it’ does not prove (z) ‘did it’. It only proves that (z) cannot be shown to have not ‘done it’.

    However, Murphy et al. assume that an ability to attribute an anthropogenic effect as the cause of recent warming is evidence that the anthropogenic effect is the actual cause of the warming (i.e. this is like the mistaken ‘proof’ that (z) ‘did it’).

    And it is the classical logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’.
    This isn’t new.

    In the Middle Ages experts said,
    “We don’t know what causes crops to fail, therefore it must be an effect of witches: so, we must eliminate them.”

    Now, experts such as Murphy et al. say,
    “We don’t know what causes global climate change, therefore it must be an effect of emissions from human activity: we must eliminate them.”
    Of course, they phrase it differently saying they can’t match historical climate change with known climate mechanisms unless an anthropogenic effect is included. But evidence for this “anthropogenic effect” is no more than the evidence for the effect of witches.

    Furthermore, global temperature is estimated: [correction made per #38] ED

    to have fallen slightly from~1880 to ~1910
    to have risen from ~1910 to ~1940
    to have fallen slightly from ~1940 to ~1970
    to have risen from ~1970 to ~2000
    to have fallen slightly since ~2000.

    This is two periods of warming with similar duration in the twentieth century and little if any warming in the twenty first century.

    Over 80% of the anthropogenic emissions have been since 1940 and the emissions have been increasing at a compound rate. The carbon dioxide in the air has been increasing, too: atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940.

    Everybody agrees that the first of these two periods of global temperature rise was not caused by the anthropogenic emissions.

    And both the periods of global temperature rise have similar warming. In fact the warming trend of the more recent rise was slightly (but not significantly) less than the warming trend of the earlier rise.

    Furthermore, there has been no statistically significant global warming or cooling for the last 15 years.

    And Huhne claims the earlier period of global warming was ‘natural’ but the more recent period of global warming was ‘anthropogenic’ because Murphy’s model does not work for the later rise without introducing a postulated anthropogenic effect.

    But it does not work for the temperature stasis of the last 15 years, either. So,
    only a gullible fool would swallow Huhne’s claim.

    I hope the above is sufficient answer to your request for clarification of the issue. I am away from my base and overseas probably until the end of September, so if I fail to answer any responses to this it is because I will not have seen them. Sorry.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Robin Guenier: @ #13
    August 26th, 2010 at 11:54 pm,
    says

    ………I wrote to my MP …asking what sense it made for the UK to base draconian climate policy on a hypothesis unsupported by empirical evidence. ……….the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (no less)……… referred me to a 2009 paper by Murphy et al ……..that, he said, “fully supports” the IPCC AR4 conclusion that current warming is largely manmade….

    Robin,
    You seem to have identified that the UK Govt. is basing it’s climate policy on this Murphy paper, from the Secretary of State himself. Well done. That would seem to merit this Murphy paper some serious attention.
    One can see from it’s abstract that the Minister is perhaps confusing “…This is consistent with the IPCC’s best estimates… ” with “fully supporting”‘, while you as a lawyer will understand full well that being merely consistent, is always nice, but proof of nothing.

    I’m sure that some of the many talented individuals who frequent this illustrious blogg & have access to the Geophys. Journal, will be able to get it the attention your opportune enquiry has afforded it. Just have patience.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Indeed, while I was biding the time, till Aus. awoke, Richard was already on the case.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Before you start using CO2 as warming explanation you must have data that shows a CO2 warming effect!

    We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This has been observed many times over and is pretty well explained. But if you want a period where CO2 was more dominant you can look at the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).

    This means that nature CAN account for these big temperature changes without anyone has to drag in CO2 to explain this. In fact, nature can cool all the way down despite CO2 in max.

    I don’t know what you mean by “max” here, but, yes, of course nature can overcome the effect of CO2. This has happened numerous times in the geologic past, but it does not indicate that climate sensitivity is low. To determine that you need a far more detailed study of all the forcings. When this has been done, the results are a value for climate sensitivity of around 3. (But with a wider range, so something like 1.3 to 5.8 if I recall one paper correctly.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Everybody:

    Ooops! In my post at #34 I wrongly typed:

    Furthermore, global temperature is estimated
    to have fallen slightly from~1880 to ~1910
    to have risen from ~1940 to ~1970
    to have fallen slightly from ~1970 to ~2000
    to have fallen slightly since ~2000.

    Of course, I intended to have typed:

    Furthermore, global temperature is estimated
    to have fallen slightly from~1880 to ~1910
    to have risen from ~1910 to ~1940
    to have fallen slightly from ~1940 to ~1970
    to have risen from ~1970 to ~2000
    to have fallen slightly since ~2000.

    Sorry.

    Richard

    [correction made in that post] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Guenier

    Thanks Richard and Joe: at last I seem to be getting somewhere. Some especially useful stuff in both your posts – and, Joe, I’m particularly glad you think the Murphy paper merits serious attention. I agree. But I wonder why I haven’t heard of it before. I have often chided warmists re the lack of empirical evidence: they’ve struggled to reply but never mentioned it. Why not? If it’s as crucial as Huhne seems to believe, it should surely have been the obvious rejoinder. Hmm …

    There was much more to my letter (and Huhne’s reply) than my claim of a lack of empirical evidence verifying the IPCC claim that human GHG emissions were the principal cause of recent warming. For example, I also made the same point about claims that further such emissions would cause dangerous (even catastrophic) climate change. Here Huhne’s response was this:

    … the most relevant factor is the so-called ‘climate sensitivity’, which can be defined as the global average surface warming that would result from a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 concentration. A recent review of climate sensitivity supports the IPCC’s best estimate of about 3 deg. C for this factor, but somewhat lower and higher values cannot be ruled out. If the current rate of emissions continues continues unabated over the coming decades, the CO2 concentration will almost certainly become more than double the pre-industrial level later this century. So there is in fact a very real risk of future significant climate change …

    In support of this, he cited Knutti & Hegerl, 2008. My (inexpert) look at this seemed to show that it relied heavily on models – so I was less concerned about it. So I chose not to mention it here – where in any case it’s O/T. But comments would be most welcome. (And, again, I seem to have unearthed an interesting insight into the thinking underpinning UK Government policy.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Boris:

    At #37 you say:

    We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    Yes, of course we know that. And nobody disputes it.

    Now, please show some evidence that this undisputed fact has any relevance to the hypothesis that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will or could induce discernible alteration to climate at either or both of the local or global levels.

    Please note that the postulated feedbacks which could enhance any effect of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are proved to not exist by the absence of the ‘hot spot’.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Robin Guenier:

    I have to disappoint you because I do not think you are correct when, at #39, you suggest:

    I seem to have unearthed an interesting insight into the thinking underpinning UK Government policy

    I think UK policy on climate change has always been – and remains – an excuse for economic actions.

    My view on how this came about is at
    http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

    The item at the URL is a bit dated because it is an update made in the late 1990s of part of a study I conducted in 1981 (yes, nearly three decades ago and before the AGW scare existed). But it explains

    (a) why the scare has been promoted by successive UK governments since the early 1980s

    and

    (b) that the scare has been a purely political issue from the start.

    The issue still runs if you remove all reference to science (i.e. the loop indicated by green arrows) in Figure 2 of the item.

    Science is an excuse used to justify the scare and is not a reason for the scare. Indeed, the IPCC exists to provide so-called scientific justification for the scare.

    Fortunately, the scare is dead. It died at Copenhagen in 2009. It still continues to move but the political demand for it was killed at Copenhagen. It will demonstrate an imitation of life in Cancun later this year, and nobody will declare it dead, but it will have been forgotten by the end of this decade (just as the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s is now forgotten).

    So, now we need to defend against the effects of the scare because they will survive its demise.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Thankyou Robin for you kind words @ #39, though the substance is of course all Richard’s. The supposed importance of Murphy, is based purely on you having identified it as a plank of UK policy, while as to it’s failure to be brought to your attention previously, one can only imagine that most AGW proponents aren’t supported by such a staff of well paid researchers, to make their case.

    At least the Minister is attempting to come back at you with what he understands to be science, though I suspect the insights you will gain from further postings here will allow you to enlighten the Minister further on the weakness & limitations, if not complete folly, of his scientific case, now that your honest enquiring manner has caught his ear.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Robin:

    It appears the UK government has found “one” paper supporting their ideals and are resting on its claims, ignoring (hiding from the public) the thousands of others disproving it. Since money is at the heart of everything, they’ll do whatever it takes. I’m not sure why some of your posts have appeared unpopular. It’s possible some are overreacting somewhat.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Joe @ 42:

    At least the Minister is attempting to come back at you with what he understands to be science, though I suspect the insights you will gain from further postings here will allow you to enlighten the Minister further on the weakness & limitations, if not complete folly, of his scientific case, now that your honest enquiring manner has caught his ear.

    Good point, but I suspect the Minister will ignore any scientific opinion or fact, no matter how correct, coming from a layman or anyone with somehow less significant climate “celebrity”. Unfortunately, this is how things work for now, but it doesn’t hurt to try, having written to my own Australian Ministers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Robin @ 39:

    ..but somewhat lower and higher values cannot be ruled out. If the current rate of emissions continues continues unabated over the coming decades, the CO2 concentration will almost certainly become more than double the pre-industrial level later this century. So there is in fact a very real risk of future significant climate change …

    Minister Huhne admits the uncertainty, then tries to qualify a “risk” as being very real. Let’s destroy the economy, just in case..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Ok, before anyone wastes any time on it, you can ignore my post @ #27 (if you haven’t already).

    The apparent CO2 leading the turn in temperature. c 18 K years ago,I now see from the raw figures is due to the surfeit of CO2 measurements for between 17K7 & 14K years ago.

    Depth ice Age Air Age Co2 Conc.
    (m) (yr BP) (yr BP) (ppmv)
    375.6 18580 13989 225.3
    443.5 24315 17695 182.2

    The straight lines joining data points (which aren’t discreteley indicated) on Jo’s still marvellously illustrative graph, have the unfortunate effect of showing an upturn ~ 17k7 , while we actually have no idea what CO2 done between these 2 dates and a rounder smoothing would have put the CO2 upturn somewhat later, and at least not-inconsistent with it lagging the turn in Temps.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony D

    Robin, perhaps you should watch Richard Alley’s video http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

    It gives a brilliant overview of why scientists (those that work and study the climate as opposed to those that tinker with science as a hobby) believe CO2 has an important role to play. It is not always dominant, but it’s usually present. Richard Alley explains why.

    ps: don’t feel bad about the thumbs system, when people here feel threatened, this stuff happens. You are in their forum remember so don’t expect a balanced argument.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Now, please show some evidence that this undisputed fact has any relevance to the hypothesis that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will or could induce discernible alteration to climate at either or both of the local or global levels.

    We are discussing this now: The ice ages show that there is a net positive feedback for radiative forcing. this is also illustrated by the recent temperature rise along with the increase in ocean heat content. Further evidence is the PETM which shows how CO2 can dominate the climate for an extended period of time.

    The so called “hot spot” has no bearing on these arguments, which have nothing to do with climate models. In any case, you can of course have positive feedback even if the tropical troposphere becomes decoupled from the moist adiabat.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Olaf Koenders: @ #44
    August 27th, 2010 at 7:59 am

    ….. I suspect the Minister will ignore any scientific opinion or fact, no matter how correct, coming from a layman or anyone with somehow less significant climate “celebrity”. Unfortunately, this is how things work for now, but it doesn’t hurt to try, having written to my own Australian Ministers. ….

    No need to be so cynical Olaf. While it your observations above may well be true, there’s no harm in letting them know they’ve been rumbled and that more and more ordinary people know it, as you would seem to understand. Then the new UK Govt. can afford to drop the illusion that some suspect they have just been maintaining to not upset the electoral applecart. I mean they’d have to be seriously stupid or deluded to actually believe any of that stuff, wouldn’t they ? – Which is what we all need to be telling them, objectively.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Robin Guenier

    I will not address the question you posed regarding the “thumbs Down” to your first post as it has already been adequately addressed by other posters.

    I admire anyone who posts under their real name and writes their elected officials. Also, you strike me as being intelligent and open minded. Welcome to the site. I hope you will continue to post here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    O/T but have you guys noticed how Abbott thinks that the “leak” from treasury is the big issue, not the contents of the leak and the lack of independent accountability on his costings?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Boris:
    August 27th, 2010 at 8:33 am

    The ice ages show that there is a net positive feedback for radiative forcing.

    Besides papers based on models, can you cite any evidence to bolster your claim?

    The so called “hot spot” has no bearing on these arguments, which have nothing to do with climate models.

    The IPCC predicts a hotspot based on models. See http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html Feel free to scroll to the bottom and check the references. ;)

    The UN’s fourth assessment report on climate change (IPCC, 2007) confirms that computer modeling predicts the existence of a unique and distinct signature or fingerprint of anthropogenic warming caused by our emissions of greenhouse gases. That signature is the instantly-recognizable tropical, mid-troposphere “hot spot” about 10km above the Earth’s surface. In the “hot spot”, the models predict that the rate of increase in atmospheric temperature, measured in degrees Celsius per decade, will be two or three times greater than at the Earth’s surface.

    In any case, you can of course have positive feedback even if the tropical troposphere becomes decoupled from the moist adiabat.

    Please cite something relevant that will give your claim some credence.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ MattB

    I was about to inquire as to your whereabouts. I was concerned that you had met an untimely end or hit the lottery! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ed Moran

    Ms Nova,
    you never fail to amaze and delight me.

    I’m not bright enough for McIntyre, Jeff Id and the Pielkes but I feel I understand enough of your stuff to say I have enough information to put most warmists (I hope that’s not a prerogative term) I meet to flight.

    Keep providing the ammunition, Jo.

    Ed Moran

    [That's high praise indeed Ed. Thanks. I must confess that it sometimes takes the longest time to pull out the key information. Sometimes I think it's what I don't say that matters as much as what I do. I'm glad it's useful! -- JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Colin Davidson

    Boris wrote:

    “This has happened numerous times in the geologic past, but it does not indicate that climate sensitivity is low. To determine that you need a far more detailed study of all the forcings. When this has been done, the results are a value for climate sensitivity of around 3. (But with a wider range, so something like 1.3 to 5.8 if I recall one paper correctly.)”

    A number of climate scientists have estimated much lower sensitivities, in the range 0 to 0.5 DegC/ doubling of CO2. (Idso, Lindzen, Spencer). They each base their estimates from measurements. If one just considers the surface balance (and after all, we are talking about SURFACE temperature, so why wouldn’t we look at the SURFACE balance rather than the airey-fairy oh-so theoretical and unknown Tropopause Balance) and you assume reasonable values for evaporation, you get between 0.095 and 0.15DegC/W/m^2, ie bugger-all warming.

    And this paper has found no discernable effect – no measurable sensitivity of the planet to CO2 concentration.

    The paper referred to by Boris makes a very large assumption: that Ice Ages are caused by the Milankovitch Effect (orbital cycles govern the Ice Age cycles). As far as I can ascertain, that theory was questioned 25 years ago, and remains (as much in this fascinating field) in dispute. See for example “Ice” by Fred Hoyle.

    The question of feedbacks is central to AGW. The evidence is thin and shaky. This paper adds to the mounting evidence that the feedback is neutral or negative.

    Boris also claims that the lack of a hot spot does not disprove the assumption of positive feedback. Maybe not, but it does disprove the models which predict it. And without these models what models do you rely on? Spencer’s model is looking good.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB @ 51:

    Have you noticed how Treasury got the original mining tax estimates wrong by a factor of at least two? Would you trust an agency so inaccurate and leaking like the proverbial sieve?

    The real issue is the politicisation of government departments. This is generally not a problem with departments that are more pragmatic/process-driven in nature, but it is with highly sensitive areas like Treasury.

    Personally I would like to see the Australian politics “mature” somewhat and accept a proportional representation system. It would require more collaboration and less cheap shots across the galleries, which IMHO would lead to more stable governance.

    But then this is in violation of my First Law of Politics:

    Law 1: Politicians are there for our amusement.

    Also it should be noted that I do not consider “Yes, Minister” a comedy program… it is a reference guide for us in the service.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony D

    Ed, Making it understandable by oversimplifying it doesn’t make it right.

    I suspect Frank needs to look at more than just CO2 and temps in order to determine the correct forcings involved.

    Why do sceptics turn to assure attempts like this when there are many scientific studies of greater complexity. A simple google scholar for Vostok & CO2 finds plenty of work on the subject.

    This blog might make sense because it avoids getting into the detail required to fully understand the forces involved during this period. But that’s probably the reason that it comes to a biased conclusion.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Tony D. 57

    Thank you for condescending to grace this site with your wit and wisdom. Do you intend to engage in a meaningful discussion of the subject at hand, are you doing a dump and run or is this the start of a trolling session?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Robin Guenier,

    You surprised me also as you went along though I didn’t give you a thumbs down. But I’ll offer a personal observation for what it’s worth. Almost always the real motivation behind anything climate change seems to be money, power or prestige if not all three. Different groups want different results but if this was just about the science I think it would have died of its own dead weight a long time ago.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Tony D @57:

    This blog might make sense because it avoids getting into the detail required to fully understand the forces involved during this period. But that’s probably the reason that it comes to a biased conclusion.

    A very good indicator of BS is over complication.

    This blog makes sense because you don’t get away with a lack of empirical evidence here.

    What is your biased conclusion? You seem to have plenty of attitude…….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony D

    Eddy, I am deliberately showing that this analysis is lacking substance when compared to science performed by climate scientists.

    Though Frank’s intentions may be noble, his science is naive. You can’t study the effect of CO2 on the temperature without consideration for other forces that were also in effect at the time.

    That Jo expects the CO2 effect to be major indicates that she didn’t learn from her past mistakes.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-CO2-lag.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Boris @ 49,

    Can you elaborate a little on this statement “We are discussing this now: The ice ages show that there is a net positive feedback for radiative forcing”

    I have waded through the IPCC reports and am yet to find anything that shows a -ve feed back to rising CO2 levels in other words if CO2 goes up then so must Temp.

    Your next statement was this “Further evidence is the PETM which shows how CO2 can dominate the climate for an extended period of time.”

    If you are correct then what was the -ve feed back that triggered the following ice age? Now i dont want to hear anecdotes about obital wobble because we all know the Earth is round so no matter how much wobble there is half of the Earth is coated in glorious sunshine every second of every day so the suns energy would not have changed so therefore the heat would not have changed so please explain what happened to all that atmospheric heat and CO2.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Tony D @ 61

    I take it from your post you are well versed on this subject, maybe you could enlighten us on why CO2 fails time and time again to stave off an ice age.

    Lets go through what we do know.

    We know the approx values of temp

    We know the approx values of CO2

    We know CO2 drives the temp

    If any methane or water vapour are present in the atmosphere they to drive the temp

    All combined there is no plausible reason as to why the temp dropped, over to you Tony D to explain the rest.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Tony D from your link at 61:

    How does this work? When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is initiated by changes in the Earth’s orbit. As the ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2 into the air. This has several effects. Firstly, the relatively weak warming from orbital changes isn’t enough to take our climate out of an ice age. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. That’s the positive feedback.

    Secondly, CO2 from the ocean mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming across the globe. Ice cores and marine sediments find that initial warming begins in Antarctica. Around 800 years later, CO2 rises and at the same time, warming spreads to the tropics and northern hemisphere

    So the warming spreads to the tropics right? and the oceans continue to warm causing more out-gassing right? WHAT STOPS THIS positive feedback?

    The FACT is that your warmist idea doesn’t make sense. In order to work as that link suggests it would HAVE TO RUN AWAY! We KNOW that hasn’t happened through many ice ages so your warmist ideas are wrong


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Nice thesis Frank. When you look at those falling temperatures even while CO2 levels remain high, it does make you wonder. However it is possible that the temperatures would have fallen faster and further without the CO2 being there.

    Still, a good argument well put.

    [There's a thumbs up from me. Thanks John. --JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    John @ 65

    Yes the temps may have fallen faster without CO2 there but that is not the question. The appropriate question to ask is “How did all that CO2 allow the temps to fall to begin with?”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew Barnham

    Tony. I agree with you that the analysis is not exceptionally deep. Yet your link to skepticalscience was, with respect, quite underwhelming. It requires accepting on face value a suspect and poorly verified hypothesis. The feedback argument on the leading edge I can provisionally accept, but the rationalisation given for the falling edge of the signal is most dubious. As a free thinking citizen, I am told a catastrophic tipping point is on its way, but when I eyeball the rises and falls in those graphs, a red flag goes off in my mind : why is this time any different? What makes this point in time and us so special? I am underwhelmed by the highly speculative arguments used to try and bring this hypothesis back to some sure footing. (I am also underwhelmed by the proposed solutions to this asserted problem: but that’s straying OT).

    At least Frank tempers his input by saying this “This doesn’t prove that CO2 has no effect, but nor does it suggest it has a big effect.”. You will not see any such circumspection on the site you linked to. In the post or the comments. It’s hubris all the way.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tony D:
    August 27th, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    Eddy, I am deliberately showing that this analysis is lacking substance when compared to science performed by climate scientists.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sorry, I hit the wrong key and submitted the comment at 68 instead of block quote, my bad!

    Tony D:
    August 27th, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    Eddy, I am deliberately showing that this analysis is lacking substance when compared to science performed by climate scientists.

    Actually, you haven’t “shown” anything.

    Though Frank’s intentions may be noble, his science is naive.

    Science is not “naive.” Your comment is a grammatically botched ad hominem.

    You can’t study the effect of CO2 on the temperature without consideration for other forces that were also in effect at the time.

    True, but EVERY ice core sample shows that temperatures decline and hundreds of yeaRS CO2 follows. If CO2 is such a powerful forcing, shouldn’t CO2 levels drop BEFORE temperatures at least once in a while? If it is only a rare event, then CO2 is not a dominant forcing, is it?

    That Jo expects the CO2 effect to be major indicates that she didn’t learn from her past mistakes.

    Actually, Jo doesn’t expect the CO2 effect to be major as the effect is logarithmic which means the effect decrease per unit. Besides employing a straw man you have delivered another botched ad hominem.

    When you linked to skeptical science’s website I was not at all surprised. Based upon your illogical fallacious posts and your inability to cite anything relevant or meaningful it is obvious that you are a man of deep, global warming religious beliefs. I guess I will just have to wait with bated breath for your next entertaining post.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony D

    Mark D, you say “WHAT STOPS THIS positive feedback? The FACT is that your warmist idea doesn’t make sense.”

    Mark, you almost got the answer yourself. Had you continued reading the link then you would have read

    A common misconception is that positive feedback always means runaway warming’ This isn’t necessarily the case. If the feedback is not too great, what happens is an amplification of initial warming with the temperatures eventually stabilising at a higher level. Past history indicates this is the case with our climate – net positive feedback amplifies initial warming but climate settles at a higher temperature. There’s a good demonstration of how this works in a past comment by Ned Flounders.

    The problem we face this time is that we’re adding to the CO2 and it’s now at higher levels than for hundreds of thousands of years. We’re also starting at a warmer starting point than with the cooler periods in the interglacials.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Tony i think you are still missing the point.

    (According to the IPCC theory) Let us assume the climate is stable then the sun doubles in brightness this means the Earth gets hotter and we get more CO2 so it gets warmer so we get more water vapour and it gets warmer which melts the ice so we have less albedo so it gets warmer.

    You can see from the above paragraph the +ve feedbacks amplify the warming. For the climate to “settle at a new higher temp” implies there is a -ve feed back at play is this correct if not please explain how the climate “settles”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Now it’s Tony D. Here we go again. Tony, CO2 is not at higher levels than the past hundrds of thousands of years. Where do you get this stuff?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    crakar24 @71:

    You are absolutely right, here is one totally dominating negative feedback, but no one mentions it because it is taken for granted:

    A hotter body emits more radiation. So if the sun gets brighter, then the earth warms up, and as it does so it emits more radiation. At some point the extra input from the sun and the extra radiation emitted by the earth cancel out, and we have a new equilibrium. The earth doesn’t have to warm up much, because the extra energy emitted as radiation is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the 4th power.

    All this is totally uncontroversial (even Eddy and the bloke with a middle initial would agree).

    Where it gets controversial is in estimating the effect of CO2 in warming the earth’s surface by trapping some of the outward radiation, and whether there are minor positive and negative feedbacks associated with this, and what magnitude they are. If the positive feedbacks are big, then a small kick from CO2 will see us get a fair bit hotter before a new equilibrium is reached.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Tony D @ 70

    Mark D asked a very good question and I don’t think you answered it. He asked why, if increased CO2 causes increased temperatures, (which then gives hot oceans outgassing yet more CO2) we don’t have a runaway situation?

    Your response indicates there needs to be negative feedbacks to temper this effect – and that these negative feedbacks are responsible for the stable climate we have seen in the 4.5 billion year history of this planet.

    My question is – where are these negative feedbacks included in the IPCC modelling? If they are not factored in, does that not concede that the models, and the theory and the policies based thereon, are wrong?

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi all! Im happy to wakr up and see a very important and interesting discuccion evolving, i will answer most of you during the day here in Denmark.

    But first :-) an easy one:
    “John Brookes:
    August 27th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
    Nice thesis Frank. When you look at those falling temperatures even while CO2 levels remain high, it does make you wonder. However it is possible that the temperatures would have fallen faster and further without the CO2 being there.”

    Well exactly, the ice core data shows that temperatures can change between interglacial and ice age without any help from CO2. Therefore the whole argument that we need CO2 to account for something falls.
    So we see natural effect capable of changing temperatures opposite of what Co2 is supposed to drive, so at least we know that CO2 is inferiour from natural forces.

    But could CO2 have an effect anyway? Yes of course. We just cant see it in these data – so to come with this hypothesis we need data that shows to what extend one might need CO2 to explain matters.

    Its true that the Earth normally cools slower than it warms. But the fact that an object cools slower than it is warmed up is not extraordinar. To dig in this a little further, i once made a graph showing that there is a connection: The longer the Earth has been warmed during the interglacials, the longer the Earth takes to cool. I will see if i can find that graphic. But this pattern suggests that the cooling rate of Earth is related to how much Earth was warmed. And Certainly The slower cooling rate does not point exactly to CO2 – we still need to see Co2 perform in real data.
    Further: As i remember, this cooling rate was around 1K/1000 years less than the warming rate (?) so what ever it is, its tough to expect a 3 – 5 – 7 K increase in temperatures before year 2100 from this.

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Hi everybody.

    Lets have a look at the pattern of warming and cooling as shown in the 3rd chart above.
    Notice how T’s increase SLOWLY, but drop dramatically?

    Not the Sun nor Earths orbital variations happen instantly. So how is it that T’s drop so dramatically? Wouldn’t commonsense dictate that a RISE in T’s should happen dramatically (with the aid of CO2 warming effect) and a FALL in T’s happen slowly (again due to CO2′s warming effect slowing the cooling effect from orbital variations) But that’s not what happens.

    There is ofcourse a (reasonable sounding) hypothesis which may explain this connundrum.

    Anybody care to take a guess?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    I cant stand the suspense BH just tell us will ya.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    My post at #76 can be ignored. I must be having a dislexic moment


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Speedy@74 – just look at my post @70. It explains it (and yes, the IPCC do know about this!).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony D

    True, but EVERY ice core sample shows that temperatures decline and hundreds of yeaRS CO2 follows. If CO2 is such a powerful forcing, shouldn’t CO2 levels drop BEFORE temperatures at least once in a while? If it is only a rare event, then CO2 is not a dominant forcing, is it?

    For the interglacial periods CO2 was not the main driver, the Milankovitch cycles were.

    Today the Milakovitch cycle is still in a cooling phase, yet our surfaces temps continue to rise because CO2 levels are much higher.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony D

    Roy Hogue: August 27th, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Tony, CO2 is not at higher levels than the past hundrds of thousands of years. Where do you get this stuff?

    Apart from in the graphs above? It’s well documented in scientific literature.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618143950.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    John B @ 79

    I presume you mean your post at 73. So I suppose the IPCC will be distancing itself from the comments that James “Tipping Point” Hansen has made telling us we need to keep CO2 level below it’s “safe” level of 350 ppm. Why would he say that if the system is in fact self-correcting?

    The evidence is that CO2 is a minor bit player in determining climate. Trying to legislate it will do no good for the environment but will likely do harm to people who need affordable energy to elevate their standard of living.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony D

    Speedy

    Tony D @ 70 Mark D asked a very good question and I don’t think you answered it. He asked why, if increased CO2 causes increased temperatures, (which then gives hot oceans outgassing yet more CO2) we don’t have a runaway situation?

    Yes I have answered it. The CO2 outgasses as the water warms. When the Milankovotch cycles moves into its cooler phase, then it still has a greater effect on the radiative balance than the CO2, the oceans start to cool and can absorb the CO2.

    This article stats with a strawman argument that CO2 should be THE MAJOR driver of past climate. That’s wrong, many other factors influence the climate. With the high levels of CO2 we have today, they are influencing the climate today and atte having a bigger influence than the Milankovitch cycle’s cooling force.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Guenier

    Apologies for going way, way OT again but I feel I must comment on Richard’s (#41), Olaf’s (#43) and Roy’s (#59) suggestion that, for our “leaders”, the science is unimportant and what really matters is the opportunity it gives to raise money. IMHO that’s not quite right. My view is that the massive momentum behind the AGW scare is based squarely on the upbringing of our current crop of European (and Australian and, to a lesser extent, US) politicians. The culture of the 60s, 70s and 80s was deeply influenced by a subtle left-wing (Marxist) bias (e.g. Stalin was really as bad as all that) where global capitalism and big business were really the bad guys and the comfortable West should feel guilty about the deprived third world – it’s emerged today at senior levels in the professions, journalism, academia, the arts (think Avatar) … and especially amongst senior politicians. Of course, Marxism itself is a failure. But, just as that became obvious, along came AGW and its message of global catastrophe resulting from the excesses of Western capitalism – with a solution depending on central authority, government intervention and regulation and the reining in of excess. Suddenly the science was very important: it fitted the mindset, they latched onto it, they showered the scientists with money, honour and publicity – and the bandwagon rolled. Oh yes, it also provided an opportunity to raise more taxes. But that was only a welcome side effect.

    But the science (which in my view does underpin UK Government policy) is the weak point in all this. First, they don’t understand it and, second, it doesn’t stand up to straightforward criticism based on the principles of the Scientific Method (something they can understand – they are (mostly) intelligent people) – criticism of the sort made by Jo Nova.

    That’s why writing to your elected representative, drawing his/her attention to the science’s defects, is worthwhile. Even if you get the brush off (I was lucky), it’s all part of the bit-by-bit process that is gradually destroying the edifice they have created.

    (Lecture over)

    PS: I agree with Richard that, post Copenhagen, the scare is dead. The “deprived world” isn’t interested. Unfortunately, Western politicians have yet to realise that – that is clear from the (key) part of the Huhne letter, something I haven’t discussed here. So the damage continues.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Boris:

    Your post at #48 attempts to avoid answering my question at #40.

    I remind that my post at #40 said:

    Boris:

    At #37 you say:
    “We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”

    Yes, of course we know that. And nobody disputes it.

    Now, please show some evidence that this undisputed fact has any relevance to the hypothesis that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will or could induce discernible alteration to climate at either or both of the local or global levels.

    Please note that the postulated feedbacks which could enhance any effect of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are proved to not exist by the absence of the ‘hot spot’.

    Richard

    Your attempt at avoiding the question includes a statement that either
    (i) demonstrates that you know nothing about the subject you proclaim
    or
    (ii) it is a blatant lie.

    Your fallacious statement says:

    The so called “hot spot” has no bearing on these arguments, which have nothing to do with climate models.

    Say what!

    1.
    The absence of the ‘hot spot’ proves that the postulated feedbacks required to convert any AGW into a discernible effect do not exist.
    Live with it, and rejoice at it because it is good news.
    2.
    Sorry, but the ‘hot spot’ is a clear outcome of those feedbacks as indicated by the models according to IPCC AR4.

    The matter is explained in Chapter 9 of the IPCC AR4 and you can read it at
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

    Figure 9.1 (on page 675) summarises the expected responses to various forcings from 1880 to 1999.

    Figure 9.1(c) shows the expectation from GHG increase and Figure 9.1(f) the sum of all forcings.

    Figure 9.1(c) is the only diagram of the set of individual forcings that provides the pattern of warming which has the ‘hot spot’.

    And both Figures 9.1 (c) and (f) display the ‘hot spot’ because the AGW prediction is that the effect of the increased GHGs is to overwhelm the effects of the other forcings.

    That warming at altitude in the tropics has not happened according to radiosonde (i.e. balloon) measurements taken over the last 50 years and has not happened according to MSU (i.e. satelire) measurements taken since 1979.

    Indeed, the data indicates slight cooling at altitude in the tropics (i.e. the opposite of the expected effect of GHGs).

    So, having dealt with that ‘side-track’ , I repeat my question that you have tried to avoid.

    Please show some evidence that the undisputed fact of carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas has any relevance to the hypothesis that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will or could induce discernible alteration to climate at either or both of the local or global levels.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    yet our surfaces temps continue to rise because CO2 levels are much higher.

    Ho humm, (yawn….)

    Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth respectfully wish to disagree with you. I won’t bore the regulars here by quoting their words yet again.

    Tony, you haven’t raised one point which hasn’t been raised (and refuted) here countless times before. Please read the blog before setting your pinkies to the keyboard again.

    You are aware that the recently deceased Stephen Schneider was a “freezer” in the ’70s. He probalbly realised after a while that the PDO would switch and then he became a “warmer”. Anything to try and keep the rent money coming in.

    Did you read about James Cameron’s recent effort?
    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/296631


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Boris:
    August 27th, 2010 at 6:37
    “We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This has been observed many times over and is pretty well explained. ”
    Yes, Boris, per definition CO2 is a greenhouse gas because CO2 when radiated can show center of negative charge moved away from center of positive charge.
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/greenhouse-effect-co2-and-h2o-69.php
    Therefore Co2 can spin when radiated. The
    But
    1) most of the potential radiation is already absorbed by the CO2 already present.
    2) The earths atmosphere systematically sends heat up in the atmosphere unlike a box.
    3) The mechanism of CO2 to backradiate “heat” from very cold (around – 60K) and thin high atmosphere layers to earth is obviously highly questionable.
    4) The heat supposed to accumulate in 5-15 km hight (which should send radiation back to surface) is not there in stead these layers has cooled (- and if this had an effect we should have seen cooling for decades).
    etcetcetc.
    No we really really need to see that this Co2 hypothesis actually has an impact in the Earths atmosphere worth talking about.
    Dot you think that data from nature would show it easily if CO2 actually had the effect that the global warming peoble believes?

    Then you write: “But if you want a period where CO2 was more dominant you can look at the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).”

    Exactly, When the CO2-warming-data fails for ice ages, peoble mentions PETM in stead, its a classic, and therefore I wrote:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/petm-ndash-finally-an-example-of-co2-causing-heat-179.php

    So, PETM in 4 studies (i think) just shows that CO2 and other organic substances rises strongly in concentration AFTER temperatures increase. The PETM seems to add nothing to the CO2-data-problems.

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #

    it should say – 60 Celsius …!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Climate sensitivity, feedback and tipping points are all part of the AGW lexicon and are stated to be high, increasing and imminent respectively. There is no evidence for this. The IPCC attributes ACO2 as being the forcing agent, F, for this scenario, with water vapor the feedback, f, and temperature, t, the parameter for the change; the interaction of these variables is measured by the state vector, S, which would itself change if F has the effect the IPCC alleges. IPCC represents this dynamic thus:

    dS/dt=S/f+F

    IPCC assumes that f is +ve so if we intergrate by dividing both sides by fS+F, and multipling both sides by f*dt we get:

    (S2+F/f)/(S1+F/f)=exp(f*(t2-t1))

    The problem with this is because it predicts that as the final value of t, t2, approaches infinity, the value of S2 becomes infinite. This is wrong because if there is a climate forcing in operation, at infinite time, the temperature anomaly should approach its finite equilibrium value even if there is positive feedback. This is shown by Venus which is paraded by AGW supporters as being the inevitable result of AGW; but, if there was any greenhouse effect on Venus it has now stopped despite high levels of CO2 and obviously its equilibrium was less than infinity. The correct formula for measuring feedback is done by Spencer and Braswell:

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

    Their equation 2 is:

    Cp*T/*t=-^T+N+f+S

    The difference with S&B’s equation is that it introduces a term for the stochastic properties of clouds, N and breaks F into -^T and f; f is ACO2 and -^T is a total feedback term which must be negative so that an infinite equilibrium is impossible. S&B ran their equation using observed variations in radiative flux related to random cloud movements; their model is therefore much more realistic than the IPCC’s formula which is limited to temperature and ACO2 forcing. S&B found that in the real world, even assuming a +ve forcing from ACO2, climate senstivity and feedback were much smaller than that relied on for AGW. Given this a tipping point based on ACO2 forcing is not possible.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Cohenite

    One day you might be able to explain to me what this was all about. We’ve had the AGW advocates threatening doom and gloom all this time and now, when it becomes patently obvious such is not the case, they display enormous intellectual flexibility to deny their previous arguments.

    If the CO2 isn’t a major driver of climate, what do they hope to gain by taxing it? Ah, that’s right. Money.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Follow the money trail Speedy; throw in a lot of arrogance and some ideological lunancy and misanthropy and AGW defines itself.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony D

    Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth respectfully wish to disagree with you.

    Wrong, they say you are unlikely to find statistical warming in short term cherry picked data.

    He probalbly realised after a while that the PDO would switch and then he became a “warmer”.

    The PDO has cycled many times since then, we keep getting warmer.

    Did you read about James Cameron’s recent effort?

    No, I stick to reading science articles than trusting filmmakers or bloggers.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tony D, you write:
    “…scientists (those that work and study the climate as opposed to those that tinker with science as a hobby) ”

    Tony, my advise is that you just stick to the facts and the science – go for the ball, not the man.

    Only those with a poor case goes for the man.

    Why dont you just write:

    ***
    Tony D
    There are more peoble supporting AGW that gets a pay check than sceptics getting a pay check.
    Therefore all aspects of the climate debate should not be debated.

    **
    ?
    That seems to be your message? If im mistaking your message im sorry (!!)

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    CameronH

    TGony D @ 92. I think you will find that the PDO works on an aprox. 60 year cycle. It switched from a cool phase tp a warm phase towards the end of the 1970′s and has only recently switched back to a cool phase . I do not know where you get the idea that it has switched many times since. You must be thinking about the ENSO.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Tony D:

    At #92 you assert:

    No, I stick to reading science articles than trusting filmmakers or bloggers.

    Say what!?

    The following are the only references posted by you above.

    At #47
    http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
    This is a video of a presentation at an AGU meeting which starts with the disclaimer that it is a presentation of personal opinion.

    At #61
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-CO2-lag.html
    This is an extreme ‘warmer’ blog.

    At #81
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618143950.htm
    This is another extreme ‘warmer’ blog.

    Your assertion is typical of warmers: it demonstrates that you will say anything which seems convenient and will not allow truth, fact and/or reality to influence what you say.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Tony D:

    At #92 you quote Mark (at #86) saying:

    Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth respectfully wish to disagree with you.

    And you reply with:

    Wrong, they say you are unlikely to find statistical warming in short term cherry picked data.

    Twaddle!

    Here is Trenberth’s email to Mann…

    From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Michael Mann
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
    Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

    Hi all

    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

    Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF]

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

    That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.see[2]
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c urrent.ppt

    Kevin

    Where is the “cherry picked data” in Trenberth’s statement saying:
    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”?

    Thereality is that – as Trenberth says in the email – is that they believe there mustbe some warming, but there is no warming so – in accordance with their belief – “the data are surely wrong”.

    That is pure pseudoscience.
    In real science when the data denies the hypothesis then the hypothesis is rejected unless and until the data are demonstrated to be wrong and other data (which agree with the hypothesis) are obtained.

    This again demonstrates that you will say anything which seems convenient and will not allow truth, fact and/or reality to influence what you say.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    All:

    aaargh! I have done it again!

    In #96 my paragraph that says;

    “Thereality is that – as Trenberth says in the email – is that they believe there mustbe some warming, but there is no warming so – in accordance with their belief – “the data are surely wrong”.”

    is gobbleddygook.

    I intended to type:

    “The reality is that – as Trenberth says in the email – they believe there must be some warming, but there is no warming so – in accordance with their belief – “the data are surely wrong”.”

    Sorry.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Richard

    Of course it’s twaddle! Why would the IPCC publish the Summary guide for policy makers BEFORE the actual body of the IPCC report was completed? Because the IPCC policy drives the IPCC evidence!

    That is why they look for the answer they want and, when they don’t find it, it’s a “travesty”.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “Tony D:
    August 27th, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    Eddy, I am deliberately showing that this analysis is lacking substance when compared to science performed by climate scientists.

    Though Frank’s intentions may be noble, his science is naive. You can’t study the effect of CO2 on the temperature without consideration for other forces that were also in effect at the time.”

    Hi Tony, take the following challenge, this would be interesting.
    You claim this and that and refers to some links in stead explaning directly it seems.
    Its better to come with arguments than just ask people to search through your links.

    I suggest that you stay on this debate and we take this argument all the way, can you do that? Untill there are no more loose ends?

    Are you ready for such a challenge Tony?

    K.R. Frank
    (Let the arguments show who is really “naive” here…)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Why did John Brookes get a thumbs down at #73? His post was reasonable with the exception of the reference to the “bloke with a middle initial”.

    I presume, John, that you are referring to Richad S Courtney?
    You keep undoing your good posts with the odd juvenile comment. It’s disappointing.

    Isn’t anybody going to comment about the COOLING EFFECTS of CO2?
    Afterall, Earth loses energy to space via radiation. This radiation comes from GHG’s in the atmosphere. So what happens if the amount of CO2 high in the atmosphere increases? Would that be like widening a highway to allow more traffic to get through?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Actually decreases in temperature following increased atmospheric CO2 concentration is consistent with the extra CO2 causing a cooling effect, so Baa Humbyg’s observation is pertinent. Increase the quantity of a radiating gas and energy transfer out of the system is increased. Note that all the physical and chemical properties measured for gases etc are for steady state closed systems.

    The issue with Trenberth’s statement that “surely the data are wrong” is plain – they assume the theory is right and hence sacrosanct, and when the data do contradict, then it’s the data which are at fault, and not the theory. Trenberth does not seem to understand the application of the scientific method but might be doing what Feynman called “Cargo Cult Science”. Don Scott, publilshed in AIG News 87 called it pseudoscience.

    Data are sacrosanct and theory fallible. Tremberth and company have inverted this relationship. The whole AGW shambles is really a predictable outcome from the assault on Western Society’s institutions by the intellectuals and post modernists some 50 years ago after WWII.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tony stop that nonsense about me not being aware about other sources of supposed warming than CO2. Its just wrong.

    Could you start out just answering the question from this blog:
    Where is the data from nature that actually shows CO2 has a warming effect for the Earth surface worth mentioning?
    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Hi All!

    I’ve been following this thread all day and have enjoyed the debate immensely, as I am still a novice compared to many here I shall leave it to others to fend off the visiting agitators, though I believe frank’s challenge to Tony D @99 may leave Tony floundering.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Boris, you write
    “To determine that you need a far more detailed study of all the forcings. When this has been done, the results are a value for climate sensitivity of around 3.”

    But this is just nonsense.

    From MODTRAN and other places, the CO2 effect is approximately 50% from 0 to 20 ppm, and then we have around 4 doublings up to todays CO2 level.

    Ok, lets imagine that your sources got it correct, the CO2 sensitivity is 3 K per doubling…
    Then CO2 is responsible for roughly 24 K out of the 30 K that all greenhouse gasses should MAX posses all together… So without CO2 in the atmosphere 75% of all greenhouse gas effect would dissappear..

    3 K CO2 sensitivity is nonsence – And those “scientists” that feels confident about this result are on thin ice.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    -and Boris, as I remember it, the 3K CO2 sensitivity was obtained as some kind of average where even a sensitivity of 5K was taken seriously and used as basis for the final 3K.
    A 5 K sensitivity (used to get an average of 3K) would demand that all CO2 from 0 ppm to 320 ppm alone had more greenhouse effect than the MAX 30 K supposed to be the total for all greenhouse gasses influding water..

    No, Lintzens roughly 0,5 K per dobling roughly gives 4K for the combined CO2 contribution which is within the 10-15% that CO2 is supposed to be the CO2 share of greenhouse effect.

    (The question is, if Lintzens estimate is too high since i dont find the arguments for a 30K combined greenhouse effect that convincing to say the least.)
    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Richard S Courtney,

    I could smash many hypothosis with actual physical evidence.
    But NO-ONE is in my field of study. I have NO Peer-reviewers qualified!
    Who studies Planetary Mechanics?
    Centrifugal force was deemed a pseudo-science due to scientists unable to figure it out, yet it is grudgingly used in the most extreme cases. Rotation is NEVER used. Even in quantum mechanics.
    So they use proxies of light WITHOUT the rotational effect.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Ahhh, just in from an enjoyable dinner with the love of my life. Now, what do I see? Yet another attempt by a warmer to turn the English language on its head.

    Thank you Richard for saving me the trouble of a detailed reply; couldn’t have stated it more cogently myself.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony D

     Frank Lansner @ 93
     

    Tony, my advise is that you just stick to the facts and the science

    My advice to you would to try harder if you want to be taken seriously when determining what effect CO2 has.

    Before assuming that a level of CO2 should or shouldn’t have a particular influence on the climate, try considering at the very least, solar forcing, albedo and other atmoshperic gases. Maybe include them in some of your calculations instead of ignoring their influence.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tony D: #92
    August 27th, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    The PDO has cycled many times since then, we keep getting warmer.

    Say what? The full PDO cycle (positive-negative) is roughly 40 – 60years, about 20-30 years in positive and 20-30 years in negative. It’s a VERY long term cycle (in human lifetime terms).

    http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/science/pdo.html

    What planet are you from?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tony, you write:
    “considering at the very least, solar forcing, albedo and other atmoshperic gases”

    Tony, I am considering these.
    What you see in the fig:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/media/CO2signal/CO2TempIceages.jpg
    is that natural forces (yes, that means solar effects orbital changes etcetcetc) can change temperatures on Earth from interglacial level to glacial level whitout help form CO2.

    And so what?? Well, there are scientists that claim that a significant CO2 effect is needed to explain that the Earth can show such big temperature diferences. Since we have no direct data evidence for CO2 effect on Earth, then this indirect kind of Co2-”evidence” is a popular argument.

    What i do is exactly to show that the natural forces (you claim i dont know about) can drive things and thus the indirect Co2 argument 8also) falls.

    I would like you to understand this before going in to further details.

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony D

    CameronH @ 94

    I think you will find that the PDO works on an aprox. 60 year cycle.

    Sometimes. This shows the wide variety of of fluctuations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reconstructed_PDO_since_1660.jpg

    It switched from a cool phase tp a warm phase towards the end of the 1970’s and has only recently switched back to a cool phase .

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-the-Smoking-Gun.html

    This graphs show the disconnect quite clearly.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/pdo_temp.gif


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony D

    Richard S Courtney @ 95

    This is a video of a presentation at an AGU meeting which starts with the disclaimer that it is a presentation of personal opinion.

    You got me there. I do more than just read. Feel free to pick out one of Richard Alleys papers and let me know what problems there are with it.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-CO2-lag.html
    This is an extreme ‘warmer’ blog.

    The difference between the science discussed there and the “science” supported here is that at skepticalscience, every single argument is supported by scientific, peer-reviewed papers.

    Contrast that to what we find here in Franks wishful analysis.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618143950.htm
    This is another extreme ‘warmer’ blog.

    Actually it’s a science site that lists scientific papers from all sorts of disciplines – perhaps you should open the other eye too.

    Trenberth’s statement saying:
    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”?

    He’s talking about the energy balance and how we do have the ability to track it. That’s not a comment about Surface Temps. Go back and read post 86.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    A few blokes in this discussion seem to be telling me that if I can find some way to insulate my house with CO2, it will stop all the heat getting out.:)
    Goodness me, that’s right up there with UK Climate Minister’s whacko reasoning.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony D

    Frank Lansner  @ 99

    You claim this and that and refers to some links in stead explaning directly it seems.
    Its better to come with arguments than just ask people to search through your links.

    Actually it’s better for me to leave the science to those that do it for a living every day. But I am having fun showing why “do it yourselfers” are seriously inept.

    I suggest that you stay on this debate and we take this argument all the way, can you do that? Untill there are no more loose ends?

    When are you planning on releasing this as peer-reviewed paper, as Wayne asks? Or power-reviewed LOL!!

    and Boris, as I remember it, the 3K CO2 sensitivity was obtained as some kind of average where even a sensitivity of 5K was taken seriously and used as basis for the final 3K.

    Different studies try to reduce the uncertainty of climate sensitivity.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Working-out-climate-sensitivity.html

    (gee it’s great being able to search for something and finding it)

    No, Lintzens roughly 0,5 K per dobling roughly gives 4K for the combined CO2 contribution which is within the 10-15% that CO2 is supposed to be the CO2 share of greenhouse effect.

    (The question is, if Lintzens estimate is too high since i dont find the arguments for a 30K combined greenhouse effect that convincing to say the least.)
    K.R. Frank

    Do you mean Lindzen, not Lintzen?

    But he too flounders to get his new paper published after the first debacle. Perhaps you’ll beat him to it.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/

    And still the new paper doesn’t deal with the planet, only data for the tropics is used.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Robin Guenier @84:

    Excellent post. I believe you caught that one very well.

    That’s why writing to your elected representative, drawing his/her attention to the science’s defects, is worthwhile. Even if you get the brush off (I was lucky), it’s all part of the bit-by-bit process that is gradually destroying the edifice they have created.

    When tony Abbott at Jokenhagen was noted to comment something like “This global warming is Bull-[snip]“, I openly congratulated him in an email on his autodidactism (look it up). Later, he announced his own emissions trading scheme (carbon tax) IMHO just to win the upcoming election. I re-iterated all my points from the previous email and chastised him for his failure to speak the truth whereby he instead kowtowed to the MSM (warmist) view.

    It’s always worth trying to get the message across. I’ve written to MSM radio stations and talkback hosts, especially when Monckton was in town. It’s a game of “counting heads” or consensus. If the govt has a strong negative consensus, they rollback their plans until they get the response they want, regardless of scientific justification. Most of it is a belief system.

    It took many years to convince the “consensus” that the Earth wasn’t flat. Same with Copernicus, the Salem Witch Trials and eventually ditto for AGW. I hope the real science prevails before severe economic damage is done due to the green movement and AGW. Seeing that we are all made of carbon, the time will come when people will look back on the carbon phobia of the early 21st century as too incredible to be believed.. ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mark D.

    Tony D. @70 you reply to my comment @ 64 by quoting:

    A common misconception is that positive feedback always means runaway warming’ This isn’t necessarily the case. If the feedback is not too great, what happens is an amplification of initial warming with the temperatures eventually stabilising at a higher level.

    You did not answer my question @64), nor does the excerpt quoted answer my question. (in fact I did read the entire link you supplied)

    I asked you WHAT stops the feedback. The quote from a warmist blog simply SAYS that it stabilizes. IT DOES NOT SAY HOW (by what mechanism) YOUR STRONG + FEEDBACK SIMPLY changes it’s mind and stops.

    I remind you that according to Warmists, the oceans are slow to come up to temperature (as they warm) right? Therefore the Co2 out-gassing described by Warmists would have to continue “coasting” for (is it 700 years?). If your first argument that Co2 is a strong + feedback and the climate is sensitive, then WHAT prevents a runaway?

    I predict you will not be able to answer this question. You Warmists are missing something!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tony, YES or NO:
    Can we agree that AALLL combined forcings of nature can change temperatures on Earth from interglacial level to glacial level without the help of CO2? Or so it seems?

    ((( And Tony, of greenhouse gasses CO2, MH4, N2O and O3 CO2 has obviously the strongest effect in the atmosphere, and then comes CH4. So for MH4 having a much smaller effect than Co2 to really change anything here we should see a Mh4 fluctuating mostly opposite of CO2 with HUUUUUGE opposite oscillations. But as you know, CO2 and MH4 mostly fluctuate together (!), and thats why im not that focussed on MH4 in this context, If i had shown MH4 too you would just have to explain why both CO2 and Mh4 cannot prevent glacials, i think. Special events can make MH4 take its own way compared to Co2 for a shorter period, but in general, when
    showing CO2 trends you basically also show the MH4 trend:

    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/co2-carbon-dioxide-ndash-temperature-73.php

    Here you for example see both CO2 and MH4 shifting trend 800 year after temperature, so MH4 is not likely to help you out..)))


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Tony D @ 57:

    This blog might make sense because it avoids getting into the detail required to fully understand the forces involved during this period. But that’s probably the reason that it comes to a biased conclusion.

    Although your opinions are your own, your science isn’t. Detail isn’t particularly necessary, unless you want to construct an accurate climate model [Hahahahahaaa... thud.. ow!]

    This planet’s about 4.5Bn years old, right? Good. Just 100Mya there was some 10x the CO2 we have today, where life clearly thrived and delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans, the proof of which are the un-dissolved fossils of corals and shellfish cramming our museum shelves. That’s the end of acidic ocean theory. All this CO2 just about YESTERDAY in our history and never a runaway greenhouse or fabled “tipping point”, ever. This is why:

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

    If CO2 had a linear feedback effect, you’d start with Milankovich Cycle warming, then CO2 warming, then more CO2 feedback warming etc., all the way to a runaway greenhouse. The reason it’s never happened is because CO2 in ocean and atmosphere is logarithmic. The more you add, the more those molecules have to fight for that energy to transmit it.

    Another point. It’s proven that temperature change PRECEDES CO2 level change by some 800 years. Any feedback of that increased CO2 from increased temp is still unknown and therefore unproven.

    Try trapping heat with CO2. Notice how you can fry in a desert during the day and freeze at night during a clear sky. CO2′s not trapping anything. It just passes that energy along to the next available molecule until it dissipates to the point of least resistance – space. Notice how overcast nights are usually more temperate? It’s the water vapour (95% of GHG’s) keeping the heat in. Bet you want to ban steam now huh..?

    It’s all too simple. If you want to bury us in irrelevant mathematica to make a SINGLE point in order to think you won the ENTIRE argument, you’ll lose because the simple proven science and observations have never been proven wrong. Don’t just believe me – I don’t have a PHD. Apparently, I’m an idiot in your world and you will only listen to PHD’s on the subject.

    One step ahead of you – I’ve been researching the peer-reviewed studies of PHD’s.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Frank Lansner @ 119:

    MH4? I think you mean CH4 or methane, which is currently around 1780 parts per billion:

    http://www.grinzo.com/energy/graphics_misc/methane_aggi_2008.fig2.png

    Apparently, it has roughly 23x the warming power of CO2, equal to roughly 77 piffling CO2ppm.

    Can we agree that AALLL combined forcings of nature can change temperatures on Earth from interglacial level to glacial level without the help of CO2? Or so it seems?

    Agreed. I can’t argue against that going by the evidence.

    Here you for example see both CO2 and MH4 shifting trend 800 year after temperature, so MH4 is not likely to help you out..
    http://hidethedecline.eu/media/co2%20temperature/b2.jpg

    Well put. It appears (to us laymen) that natural gases from life as we know it, respond to temperature, rather than drive it. There’s proof positive.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew Barnham

    Hi Frank. I won’t be distracted by Tony’s trolling this time. Your article was quite interesting and got me thinking. Some points.

    * for your first derivative plot, did you experiment with sliding time series forward or back to find lead/lag that yields smallest residuals? Although resolution of Co2 and T differ, being able to slide T at T’s resolution at least. Given that we often hear about a 800 yr lag, it would be nice to see is this number can be replicated in the analysis.

    * What is exact correlation coefficient of the scatter plot?

    * did you consider a scatter plot of actual temp vs co2 concentration? What does it look like? What are the residuals (and correlation coefficient)? Eyeballing the graph it looks like temp and co2 correlate well (what this implies in terms of physical processes although is a different matter entirely)

    * I don’t quite understand point of looking a ddT as a function of dCO2 : which is just first differences method applied twice yes? I am not sure that taking a discrete ddT would provide a sensible signal to work with. The data looks somewhat noisy makes very sudden changes (as does all temperature data). As such I would expect second order derivative to be quite noisy and likely to reduce calculated correlation coefficient. As such my intuition is that the lack of a obvious correlation in terms of eyeballing a scatter plot in itself is not necessarily a useful insight into the data. What are your thoughts on this? If you feel that ddT represents an insight into physical processes, please share because it is not obvious to me from the article.

    * in summary. If I am reading this correctly: your main conclusion is that co2 and temperature do not correlate strongly. But it appears to me that they would in raw data itself and on dT/dCO2. Of course, like you’ve said, and I’ve repeated: Correlation alone doesn’t give us much insight into the actual physical processes at work.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony D

    Frank Lansner:  @ 101

    Tony, I am considering these.

    Considering them in your head and writing about them is different to actually figuring them into your equations.

    What you see in the fig:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/media/CO2signal/CO2TempIceages.jpg
    is that natural forces (yes, that means solar effects orbital changes etcetcetc) can change temperatures on Earth from interglacial level to glacial level whitout help form CO2.

    And so what?? Well, there are scientists that claim that a significant CO2 effect is needed to explain that the Earth can show such big temperature diferences. Since we have no direct data evidence for CO2 effect on Earth, then this indirect kind of Co2-”evidence” is a popular argument.

    What i do is exactly to show that the natural forces (you claim i dont know about) can drive things and thus the indirect Co2 argument 8also) falls.

    I would like you to understand this before going in to further details.

    You plot CO2 against Temp and look for a correlation.

    What you need to do is isolate the effect of CO2 from others that also influence Temp. Then you would see your correlation.

    To repeat myself, the Interglacials are not dominated by CO2. No climatologist ever says this! No climatologist says that CO2 is causing the rise and fall of the interglacial temps.

    What they do say is that it contributes to the warming. Taking my own advice to google scholar.

    http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=vostok+co2+temperature&hl=en&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on

    You’ll find many studies that do find that CO2 contributes to the warming period.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pascvaks

    I made a comment earlier at WUWT regarding the UHI at Armagh Observatory that ties in to the mystery of CO2 and Global Warming. If you’ll allow, I think it relates to the discussion:

    “It doesn’t take much thought to go from Armagh’s little UHI to a Global Anthroprogenic Heating Effect (adding up all the UHI’s and other changes people have made that impact Mother Nature). I’m sure that it’s more along the lines of what the AGW climatologistie were originally thinking, but I guess some idiot talked them into limiting their focus to CO2 as the best way to make their point (and the simplest to measure). Unfortunately they latched on to a loser. If someone with a yin for weather knew a kid who was a wiz in programming ever wanted to make a bang in science, it’s easy to see that measuring and adding up all the UHI’s and coming up with the global impact would make a very very dramatic statement in a very NEW way. CO2 would be S.O.L. and concrete and asphalt would be King of the Heap!

    “I still think that instead of digging holes and moving cities underground we need to build them on the bottom of the ocean and let the continents recover, besides, we’d have gravity on our side and wouldn’t have to burn so much coal. Know what I mean? Right?

    “Of course that would heat up the oceans, wouldn’t it? Shuuuucks!”

    ___________
    The WUWT ‘UHI’ article is at –

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/26/uhi-study-of-the-uk-armagh-observatory/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tony D:
    August 27th, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    For the interglacial periods CO2 was not the main driver, the Milankovitch cycles were.
    Today the Milakovitch cycle is still in a cooling phase, yet our surfaces temps continue to rise because CO2 levels are much higher.

    Although the Milankovitch Cycles are believed to be the primary cause of ice ages CO2 has never been shown by empirical evidence to cause substantial global warming. The effects are logarithmic. A doubling of CO2 will have but a trivial impact on climate as the per unit effect decreases.The IPCC posits a runaway effect caused by an increase in water vapor. There is no empirical data from the geological record to support this. Take a look at the graph of temperatures and CO2 levels contained in the following article. You will see that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and temps, period.

    Tony D:
    August 27th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
    Frank Lansner @ 99

    You claim this and that and refers to some links in stead explaning directly it seems.
    Its better to come with arguments than just ask people to search through your links.

    Actually it’s better for me to leave the science to those that do it for a living every day. But I am having fun showing why “do it yourselfers” are seriously inept.

    Translation: Hi I am Tony and I am incapable of critical thought andI am incapable of debating logically. I base my opinions and beliefs on a fallacious appeal to authority. I am having fun trolling and wasting peoples time on this site because I do not have a life. I am very frustrated because I lack the intelligence and intellectual ability to answer any tough questions put to me so I respond with embarrassing and vague links and tell people to search google scholar. I engage in ad hominem attacks because my feeble arguments are so easily destroyed by the posters on this site. I am frustrated but my religious faith in global warming, which has no rational basis rooted in science, is strong!

    Remember my question at #58? The answer was #3, this has been a trolling session by you!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I forgot to post the link to the article regarding temps and CO2. Here it is http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tony D:

    To repeat myself [can we stop you?], the Interglacials are not dominated by CO2. No climatologist ever says this! No climatologist says that CO2 is causing the rise and fall of the interglacial temps.

    What they do say is that it contributes to the warming.

    A distinction without a difference. “Contributes to” equals being one of the causes of. There is no mention of intensity of contribution. Is it 0.0009%, or 0.9% or 90% or what? Any amount over zero, how ever small, would be a contribution. Without specifying intensity and mechanism your claim is nothing but verbal fog that serves only to deflect the discussion from the real issue.

    The real issue is the assertion by the AWG alarmists that man’s contribution (suddenly now a cause) to atmospheric CO2/methane/CFC’s et.al. will result a runaway greenhouse effect that will destroy the biosphere. As a consequence, they are demanding that we give up the use of fossil fuels and return to a primitive low energy life style.

    If you want to make an actual contribution, give us OBJECTIVE evidence that proves the AGW claim and that the AGW prescription will have any substantial result other than destroying technological civilization along with the quality and quantity of human life on earth.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tony, You really dont see the forrest for the trees :-) )
    Please reset your thinking, I dont know what it takes to make you see even simple things when its not from sceptical science etc.
    My YES NO question does not at all demand all the analysis you think!

    Please this time take your time and be open so we can move foreward – if thats what you want.

    *******

    http://hidethedecline.eu/media/CO2signal/CO2TempIceages.jpg

    Look at the period from interglacial peak and 15-20.000 years foreward. ok?
    We see temperature going down to a new glacial period. And yes – JUST AS YOU BELIEVE – this dive is indeed happening due to a mix of ALL forcings in nature, of course.

    But for many many thousand years the CO2 level stays up in the “max” area shown on the picture, red circle.

    Therefore we CAN conclude without any further demands for analysis, that the temperature dive down to glacials appears due to ALL forcings, but not really CO2 as it had concentrations supposed to warm in the period.

    if you dissagree (?) please EXPLAIN without just tedious repeating that there should be more analysis and bla bla and peer review. EXPLAIN what exactly you disagree with.

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    1.
    The absence of the ‘hot spot’ proves that the postulated feedbacks required to convert any AGW into a discernible effect do not exist.
    Live with it, and rejoice at it because it is good news.
    2.
    Sorry, but the ‘hot spot’ is a clear outcome of those feedbacks as indicated by the models according to IPCC AR4.

    Richard,

    You are completely wrong and have badly misunderstood the IPCC report. The tropical hotspot has nothing to do with feedbacks, but it does have a lot to do with the moist adiabat.
    I’m not sure where you get the notion that it does. The IPCC text does discuss some feedbacks and their expected pattern in the atmosphere. Further, the empirical estimates of climate sensitivity that I have discussed previously will necessarily include whatever we don’t know is going on in the tropical troposphere.

    It should also be noted that the firgure you cite from the IPCC report is an equilibrium figure, and we are not even close to equilibrium.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    An interesting post Jo and it certainly engendered a high level of participation. I particularly appreciated Richard S Courtney’s input. Unfortunately I wasted far too much time reading Tony D’s contributions and looking at his links – most of which I have read before. I find it bemusing that climate alarmists want us all to take drastic economic and lifestyle measures (and for the poor, life threatening action), because they can demonstrate it may be possible that CO2 might create an amplified warming effect. We must believe this even if their models which demonstrate this do not survive any serious replication tests, and do not account for other known significant climate changing factors. We must believe their mantras even though they cannot even determine what percentage of past warming is due to man-made CO2.

    I have some experience with econometric models and know how easy it is to come to the wrong conclusions when you don’t know what variables you are missing or what weighting to place on variables.

    It wasn’t too long ago all Michael Mann and all his peer reviewers and supporters were using the ‘hockey stick’ graph as their evidence warming was unprecedented. Al Gore went further and ‘showed’ temperatures exactly correlated to human carbon emissions. At least the IPCC had the sense to dump Mann’s graph from their reports.

    Even the token reviews done of the ‘climategate’ matters identified far too many so called climate scientists were dabbling into mathematical and statistical areas for which they were unqualified. Is it any wonder that their models are unreliable?

    On another matter altogether Jo, I have only just noticed the ‘Donate’ box at the top right hand side of the page. I tend to have an automatic blindness to advertising and promotion when on the net. However I think you are doing valuable work and deserve some support – so can I suggest you make the box more noticeable – or maybe it’s just me that’s been missing it? I’m also looking forward to ‘Joanne’ showing up on my statement to see if anyone makes the wrong assumption!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    1) most of the potential radiation is already absorbed by the CO2 already present.

    Frank,

    This is not at all accurate. There are constantly fewer and fewer areas in the spectrum where CO2 can be absorbed (hence its logarithmic effect). But Co2 is nowhere near saturated. This has been known since the 40s if I recall correctly.

    Can we agree that AALLL combined forcings of nature can change temperatures on Earth from interglacial level to glacial level without the help of CO2? Or so it seems?

    I disagree completely. CO2 is an important feedback during ice ages. Only a flawed analysis makes it seem to have no effect.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Boris, you write:

    “But Co2 is nowhere near saturated. This has been known since the 40s if I recall correctly.”

    Around year 1900 Ångstrom showed – as you probably know – that adding of CO2 had hardly any effect (due to the logarithmic saturatio etc.). And then in the 1950´ies as I recall, it was suggested that under lower pressure, that is up 5-15 km in the atmosphere, CO2 would have a slightly different spectrum slightly more free of water too.

    So after the 1950´ies the CO2 hypothesis awakened again because some believed that this slighly twisted spectrum at lower pressure might be able to trap heat around 10 km hight.
    I believe this was fair an sound science, and thus scientists a few decades ago suggested that the CO2 warming signature thus should be seen in 5-5km hight.
    So far, everythings decent science, important science.
    Then what happens? we can only measure cooling in those altitudes, and after year 2000, 2005 this fact should have made an impression on the IPCC if IPCC where about science.

    So, Boris, NO ONE ever proved Ångstrom wrong that adding CO2 to surface near atmosphere has hardly no effect, and in recent years we can conclude that CO2 has no measured effect in high altitude either as was suggested in the 1950´ies.

    In addition we have Ice Core data that cant actually show CO2 effect, and the PETM where CO2, MH4 etc also just increased AFTER the heat.

    BORIS: When are you CO2-warming going to understand that you have no fundament for your CO2 hypothesis?

    (((On top of this we have a POSITIVE FEEDBACK (rescue) theory that should make the CO2 dangerous even though it creates just a little warm…
    But the Postive feedback theory fails completely too: It is demanding more water in the atmosphere, but this has not occured from 1948 till today. So no CO2 heat has taken more water into the atmosphere and thus created positive feedback in real live.)))


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Guenier

    Richard Courtney (if you’re still here):

    I’d like to thank you very much for your helpful post (#34).

    When disputing with warmists, I have often referred to the ~1910 to ~1940 warming (also to the shorter but steeper ~1880 to ~1900 warming), observing that, if they don’t know the reasons for these warmings (and they don’t), how can they be sure that those unknown reasons do not apply also to the ~1970 to ~2000 warming? They cannot. (BTW, I also enjoy teasing them by referring to this graph – noting, inter alia, the massive ~1690 to ~1730 warming.)

    What I feared (in my ignorance) was that Huhne (who, to be fair, didn’t make the usual “overwhelming consensus”, “Royal Society” points) might be relying on a study referring to empirical evidence demonstrating that (whatever may have been the case re earlier warming periods) the most recent warming was largely caused by mankind’s GHG emissions. But I (a mere lawyer) was unaware of the nature of an attribution study. So thanks for the enlightenment.

    Thanks also to Joe Veragio (#35). The difference between “consistent with” and “fully supporting” is vast: rather like the old egg and bacon story – the hen is involved and the pig committed.

    And thanks Jo for your support on my original post (#13). The many (and continuing) “thumbs downs” it received made me think I must have expressed myself badly. And that’s something I like to think I rarely do. I must say, however, that some of your contributors here seem to be inclined to shoot first and ask questions afterwards.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Andrew Barnham:
    August 27th, 2010 at 11:47 pm

    Thankyou very much for your relevant thoughts!

    You talk about sliding the time a little, perhaps to 800 years – which makes fine sence. I think somthing like that can be done. CO2 Intervals are in average 1500 years – BUT intervals are not equally long… BUT as you say, there are more temperature data so if one went through the data and picked up temperature data near 800 years before (i guess that what you mean?) the CO2 points this is possible.

    What could such a graph show? Well one could do several such temp-intervals (500, 600, 700 , 800, 900 1000 etc.) and then possibly confirm i 800 years is the best estimate of the time lag between temp and CO2?
    Or did you have something else in mind?

    Then you ask to the ddt/dCO2 graph.
    Background: Normaly the GW teams tells that “OK, first comes temperature, but then CO2 takes over and causes the further warming”.
    This explanation supposedly accounts for the little problem that CO2 lags temperature (however it does not account for the fact that temperatures falls all the way into new glacial with CO2 near max)

    The ddt/dCO2 is one more attempt to validate the claim that CO2 lags temperature but thereafter is supposed to be the real reason that temperatures could be so different between ice ages and interglacials. If CO2 really had this effect, we should at least see that when CO2 rise, then the slope of temperature raises somewhat. If temperature trend is moving down, a rise in CO2 should mean that the downward trend was reduced – etcetc.
    And its true as I also wrote in the article, that data are noisy indeed. But If CO2 realy had a significant effect – should not 250 datapoints statistically have a tendensy to show a higher temp slope after rising CO2? The noise goes all directions, but the CO2 signal should affect the noise, I would say. I think the biggest problem is the interval length that may affect the result somewhat.

    What did you think of this illustration:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/media/CO2signal/dt1000CO2.jpg

    ?
    K.R, Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Robin @ 133. As a lawyer you maybe interested in this paper ( if you are not already aware of it )

    http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Then what happens? we can only measure cooling in those altitudes, and after year 2000, 2005 this fact should have made an impression on the IPCC if IPCC where about science.

    So, Boris, NO ONE ever proved Ångstrom wrong that adding CO2 to surface near atmosphere has hardly no effect, and in recent years we can conclude that CO2 has no measured effect in high altitude either as was suggested in the 1950´ies.

    Frank,
    Even if I accept that there has been no warming at altitude (this isn’t true, btw) you are still wrong. CO2 is not going to necessarily warm in the areas where it is actively re-emitting radiation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Tony D is in very good Turing machine mode @115 and elsewhere; he says:

    “Do you mean Lindzen, not Lintzen?

    But he too flounders to get his new paper published after the first debacle. Perhaps you’ll beat him to it.”

    And then after linking to some RC effort about Lindzen and Choi’s first paper says this:

    “And still the new paper doesn’t deal with the planet, only data for the tropics is used.”

    This is remarkably ignorant; L&C’s new paper is here:

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

    L&C acknowledge criticism of their first paper which found tropical net increases in OLR which indicated much lower climate sensitivity than found by the GCMs; they then say this:

    “We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics and extend the effect of these feedbacks to the global climate. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zero-feedback fluxes thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric GCMs forced by the observed SST are less than the zero-feedback fluxes consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The observational analysis implies that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.”

    L&C redid their first paper on the basis of the criticism they received which came mainly from Trenberth; Trenberth’s critique concentrated on the time period of ERBE data L&C had selected to interpret whether there was net OLR; in their 2nd paper L&C addressed that and adjusted their time period and method of calculation so that it conformed to the substantial criticism of Trenberth. It is important to note that Trenberth shares L&C’s conclusion about OLR:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037527.shtml

    The difference with Trenberth is that he still has to make the mandatory comments about AGW even though from his own paper that AGW influence and CS is much less than AGW requires to be true. Trenberth’s conclusions about clouds also agree with what Spencer and Braswell have concluded which I describe at comment 89 above.

    Tony D is just trolling so far and has said nothing of consequence.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Boris!

    Boris: “Even if I accept that there has been no warming at altitude (this isn’t true, btw) ”

    1) Please document that !!!!! Perhaps you hold on to the super adjusted outlier raobcore version 1,4 ?

    Boris: “CO2 is not going to necessarily warm in the areas where it is actively re-emitting radiation.”

    2) But why did IPCC etc. then believe for many years that we would see a specific warming in that altitude, 5km-15km ? (which for a change actually appeared scientifically sound of the GW side)

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tony, i would still like an answer to @128

    and then a comment more:
    Why do we want to see a significant effect from CO2?
    TOny, the CO2 hypothesis is very couragous indeed. Due to the CO2-warming-believers, CO2 – and CO2 only – is suposed to lead to HUGE warming of 3-5-7 degrees K over just hundreds of years.

    CO2 is supposed to totaly undermine the temperature interval that has rules for the Earth for more than a million years:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/media/CO2signal/co2greenblack.jpg

    So of course we are entitled too see some data that actually show that this very extraodinary CO2-hypothesis has got anything to do with reality, data from the real world.

    If Antarctic data cant show a significant CO2 warming effect for one reason or the other, what data can?

    If you cant show data supporting this extraordinary CO2-hypothesis, its really grotesk that it has been taken seriously world wide, and that all countries are supposed to spend their energy, time and fortune on this.

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robin Guenier

    Ross (#135):

    Yes, I have read the Scott Johnston paper: and it contains a lot of useful material. It’s problem is that it covers so much ground that, although well and convincingly argued, like all long papers, it inevitably puts up numerous hares thereby giving opponents plenty of opportunity to point to alleged faults; and thus to raise doubts about its validity. IMHO the way to win this battle (and it is a battle) is, if possible, is to focus unrelentingly on one specific question. And there’s one that’s critical – if the warmists cannot provide a satisfactory answer, their case fails.

    It’s this:

    Are you able to point to published, peer-reviewed, empirical (real-world, not theoretical or computer-based) evidence, accessible for confirmation by independent researchers, showing unambiguously that mankind’s GHG emissions, and not natural influences, were the principal cause of late twentieth century warming?

    So far, warmists with whom I have debated have struggled to find an answer – usually descending to waffle, bluster and vague references to IPCC AR4. Until, that is, I received, from the UK’s Climate Change minister, the letter to which I refer (and quote from) at #13. I was unable to answer it – that’s why I posted here. And Richard Courtney in particular has been very helpful (#34). (I’m continuing the investigation elsewhere.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    2) But why did IPCC etc. then believe for many years that we would see a specific warming in that altitude, 5km-15km ? (which for a change actually appeared scientifically sound of the GW side)

    If you are referring to the tropical hotspot, this is expected to be a result of the moist adiabatic lapse rate. It has nothing specifically to do with CO2 and should occur no matter the cause of warming. In fact it does occur on nearly all timescales (from about 6 month trends to 20+ years), but breaks down markedly at about 30 year trends. (However, there are very few 30 year trends in the data since we have only been measuring the tropical troposphere for a little over thirty years) This is why it is important to consider variability (ENSO has a large effect on tropical tropospheric temps) and the fact that the models show the hotspot at equilibrium. I’m not so sure about transient response, which is what we are experiencing in the real world data.

    I fully expect more and better data to reveal a hotspot on longer time scales. If this fails to happen, it does not affect the CO2 theory of global warming, but will likely have a drastic effect on the way the extra heat is distributed throughout the globe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Robin Guenier @84,

    Fair point; I won’t argue with your “lecture”. But we seem to have somewhat different views of human nature. It’s very hard for me to believe that politicians have not been exposed to the holes in the science to the point where, if they were anywhere near honest and objective, they would be doubtful, if not reverse their opinion. But it doesn’t happen.

    If it could be proven that greenhouse gasses don’t exist and therefore global climate is completely impossible for human activity to influence and if that proof were presented tomorrow, I think it would be shrugged off. And yes, I know you can’t prove a negative.

    My cynicism on the matter is from many years of watching what people actually do; in particular what those in the halls of government actually do.

    ——–

    This offers some hope because politicians pay attention, above all else, to where their votes are going to come from in the next election. Unfortunately I think situation must get much worse before the average person living on side-street, any town, will be moved to act.

    That’s why writing to your elected representative, drawing his/her attention to the science’s defects, is worthwhile. Even if you get the brush off (I was lucky), it’s all part of the bit-by-bit process that is gradually destroying the edifice they have created.

    Welcome to joannenova. I hope you will contribute often.

    Roy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Boris, thanks for fine answers.
    - Nice to talk with a “non-sceptic” with all the way a good tone and focus on the subject.

    Boris,
    We can agree that Ångstroms experiment showing very little effect near surface of adding CO2 does show that near surface CO2 effect is little? I havent really seen many disagree with this.

    But is it your opinion that there should not be a CO2-induced special warmed area further up in the atmosphere?

    But.. I just want to understand you: If the area further up is not warmed measurably by CO2 – how exactly did you imagine that heat should be backradiated toward the Earth surface????? You cant backradiate if you dont have a warming up there. radiation of heat is totaly dependant on the extra warming. ( – a warming that far most baloon and satellite measurements tells isnt there…!)

    Are you sure you really have an idea how this Co2 – warming is supposed to work :-) ??
    In not – you are not alone…

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Boris:

    I am away from my base and communication is intermittent and expensive here. But I cannot let you get away with your assertions at #129 that are clearly intended to – yet again – deflect from your failure to answer my question.

    Your untrue assertions at #129 say to me:

    You are completely wrong and have badly misunderstood the IPCC report. The tropical hotspot has nothing to do with feedbacks, but it does have a lot to do with the moist adiabat.
    I’m not sure where you get the notion that it does. The IPCC text does discuss some feedbacks and their expected pattern in the atmosphere. Further, the empirical estimates of climate sensitivity that I have discussed previously will necessarily include whatever we don’t know is going on in the tropical troposphere.

    It should also be noted that the firgure you cite from the IPCC report is an equilibrium figure, and we are not even close to equilibrium.

    The errors in your assertions are:

    1.
    You wrongly assert:
    “The tropical hotspot has nothing to do with feedbacks, but it does have a lot to do with the moist adiabat.”
    But reality is different and you really are confused.
    The reason for the ‘hot spot’ is the assumed ‘water vapour feed-back’ (WVF) required to provide any AGW with a discernible magnitude. The moist adiabat is a part of that feed-back process in that a change of temperature at altitude is (by definition) a change to the lapse rate.
    So, the ‘hot spot’ IS the warming from the major feedback.
    And you knew that didn’t you? You naughty little troll, you.
    2.
    You follow that blatant falsehood with silly bluster; viz.
    “I’m not sure where you get the notion that it does. The IPCC text does discuss some feedbacks and their expected pattern in the atmosphere. Further, the empirical estimates of climate sensitivity that I have discussed previously will necessarily include whatever we don’t know is going on in the tropical troposphere.”
    How the bl**dy H*ll can an “estimate” include quantification of “what we don’t know”?
    3.
    You conclude with a pure lie when you say:
    “It should also be noted that the firgure you cite from the IPCC report is an equilibrium figure, and we are not even close to equilibrium.”
    Absolutely not! Are you not able to read? The figure shows modelled change and not equilibrium. The figure caption says:

    Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) wellmixed
    greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa
    (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).

    I clearly stated this at #85 where I wrote:

    The matter is explained in Chapter 9 of the IPCC AR4 and you can read it at
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

    Figure 9.1 (on page 675) summarises the expected responses to various forcings from 1880 to 1999.

    But you have presented your set of lies at #129 as a method to again avoid answering the question I posed at #40 and again at #85.

    So, NO MORE EXCUSES. NO MORE LIES. NO MORE SIDE-TRACKS.
    JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT DERIVES FROM A STATEMENT YOU MADE.

    I repeat that the question is:

    Please show some evidence that the undisputed fact of carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas has any relevance to the hypothesis that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will or could induce discernible alteration to climate at either or both of the local or global levels.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Richard has done his usual thorough demolition job on Boris’s repititious claim that the THS is nothing to do with CO2 but everything to do with the “moist adiabatic lapse rate….and should occur no matter the cause of warming.”

    Boris’s reference to the moist adiabat intrigued me and it comes of course from a stock RC reply at comment 137 here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/aerosols-chemistry-and-climate/comment-page-3/#comments

    As Richard as noted it is called a tropical hotspot because it is assumed that the mid atmosphere heating will occur because there will be positive feedback from water which is mostly found in the tropical mid-atmosphere. It should also be noted that the THS is predicted by AGW to warm faster than the surface because it is receiving heat from the warmer tropical surface and will proportionately warm quicker. There is NO evidence this is happening. Given this I am curious as to how Boris thinks the “moist adiabatic rate” can cause a THS?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    cohenite @145

    I love their conviction of their own infallibility.

    The point being none of this is settled. There is no consensus among top scientists and nobody is really sure what the hell is going on.

    [Response: BS. Evans' might like to think that nobody knows anything, but he is absolutely and fundamentally wrong. ]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Thanks for super writings, Richard, Eddy Aruda, Olaf, Cohenite etcetc, really good readings.

    About Boris and Tony: Dont forget that many of these warmers really appears somewhat brainwashed, as if they came out of Jehovas whitnesess like school, or so it seems. So its quite normal that most of them has absolutely no imagination that the alarmist side could in fact just be flat wrong on most issues in the climate debate. This makes some of them arrogant, not listening, apparantly makes them almost feel that they waste their time speaking with the silly sceptics (that makes up their own minds, bastards!).

    So for an alarmist that “knows THE truth”, i think Boris is doing an ok job of debating – and where are we without debate? One has to realise that illuminated platform of “truth” they come from. See the huge difference to Tony with his awfull tone and missing ability to argument much without using just links to the sceptical science.
    I get the feeling that Boris is actually open minded to some degree even though he doesnt show it much. Maybe his friends would cut his hand of him if he showed :-) Ex: In writing 87 i tell him that PETM is no good in defending a CO2 effect. After this he actually stopped talking about PETM… There is hope with this guy :-)

    Olaf: DAWK! Sorry i meant CH4 and not MH4 Arghh!!

    [Frank, if you would like to make a correction to a post, make a clear reference to what you would like changed and one of the editors will take care of it] ED.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Frank:

    I admire your patience, I’d like to think it might pay dividends in the future. If it’s the same “boris” who has made contributions to other sites though, I have my doubts.

    Tony’s reaction to the quote ex Kevin Trenberth was exactly the same as another troll in the past. Leads me to believe that they have this “AGW Believers Resource Kit” that they all draw on.

    How anyone can misconstrue the Trenberth quote particularly in view of a subsequent one where he laments to Wigley:

    “How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter?
    We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we cannot account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geo-engineering quite hopeless, as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”

    The science is one thing, how these leading lights of this “junk science” behave is another. That also goes for people who wilfully turn a blind eye to such behaviour .


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Mark!

    Maybe you are correct, you know Boris much better than me, and in my dialog with him he actualy says that there has been no cooling in the upper atmosphere, and worse, and does not support this ODD opinion even thoutgh I ask him too.

    But still, he uses “arguments” which is better than many other alarmists, that mostly uses retoric and person attacks.

    Se Tony, he actually attack me for writing Lintzen and not Lindzen. DAAAAAAWK!!!

    Im just so used to debate SO bad, that when a Boris comes along, it smeels a little like dialog :-) But maybe im naive…

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    G’day Frank:

    I admire both your willingness and ability to argue a topic like this.

    Re Boris: I only know that I’ve seen posts by a “Boris” at The Blackboard and WUWT. Neither one was a sceptic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jack

    Hi Frank and Jo

    Nice work. Thanks for pointing me to it, Jo. But there is a paragraph in there which is:

    “Estimates of climate sensitivity and support for the “feedbacks” comes from models which depend on water vapor increasing high over the tropics. The radiosondes show that the models are wrong.”

    Not to be picky, but didn’t you leave out the word “temperature” (i.e. the “hot spot”) after the phrase “water vapor”?

    Someone may have asked about this already, but I lacked the patience to read everything!

    John Looney


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony D

    Eddy Aruda @ 125

    There is no empirical data from the geological record to support this. Take a look at the graph of temperatures and CO2 levels contained in the following article. You will see that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and temps, period.

    forgot to post the link to the article regarding temps and CO2. Here it is http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    Just as Frank here fails to properly examine the relationship between CO2 and temperature, Jo Nova has also made that mistake in the past.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-past-climate-change.html

    Lionell Griffith @ 127

    If you want to make an actual contribution, give us OBJECTIVE evidence that proves the AGW claim and that the AGW prescription will have any substantial result other than destroying technological civilization along with the quality and quantity of human life on earth.

    Lionell I don’t think you’d know a hot time if it wiggled on your face.

    The IPCC report has presented plenty of evidence.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

    Frank Lansner @ 128

    EXPLAIN what exactly you disagree with.

    Until you start, at the very least, calculating the forcings involved from more than just CO2, your attempt to find a correlation between CO2 and temp will be flawed.

    Try doing it today between the Sun and Surface Temps. Without removing the other factors the relationship is clouded.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:2011/plot/pmod/from:1980/to:2011/scale:0.1/offset:-136

    We know the Sun is obviously having an effect, but without removing other factors that affect surface temps you won’t see the relationship.

    cohenite @ 137

    This is remarkably ignorant; L&C’s new paper is here

    Ignorant you are to not realise this is the paper I am talking about.

    It is not published and it still doesn’t deal with tropical interaction with anything more than a guess.

    If this is this pinnacle of your low sensitivity papers then you’re in big trouble!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    The reason for the ‘hot spot’ is the assumed ‘water vapour feed-back’ (WVF) required to provide any AGW with a discernible magnitude. The moist adiabat is a part of that feed-back process in that a change of temperature at altitude is (by definition) a change to the lapse rate.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. On every count. A moment’s reflection should have shown you that this is a wil;dly inaccurate view of the water vapor feedback. If the Water vapor feedback were only expected to occur in the tropical troposhpere, then why would surface temperatures rise so much int he same simulations? The surface has warmed as expected by the models and the water vapor feedback occurs throughout the atmosphere. Cite a specific passage in the IPCC report that claims the water vapor feedback will only occur in the tropical troposphere. (Hint: don’t wear out the find button on your PDF reader, this passage does not exist and the idea is an invention of your own.

    And you knew that didn’t you? You naughty little troll, you.

    Ah, people do tend to get testy when you show they are fundamentally wrong. I’ll try to remain polite to mitigate this tendency in your responses.

    How the bl**dy H*ll can an “estimate” include quantification of “what we don’t know”?

    Try thinking about this some more. Estimates of climate sensitivity to other forcings (volcanic, solar, orbital–which is really also solar) will necessarily include cloud feedbacks and even feedbacks we might not know about. Unless you postulate that warming from CO2 will invoke different feedbacks from warming from other sources. That is a pretty nonsensical view, however.

    NO MORE EXCUSES. NO MORE LIES.

    You are really testing my resolve to remain polite! I shall endure, however.

    Here’s James Annan and Julia Hargreaves’ paper on climate sensitivity based on observational evidence.

    http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf

    Note that he uses a lot of good studies of CS from observations to conduct his analysis. Just check the bibliography and happy reading.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tony D:

    Lionell I don’t think you’d know a hot time if it wiggled on your face.

    The IPCC report has presented plenty of evidence.

    Unresponsive!

    I did not ask what you thought. I am not interested in what you think, feel, wish, want, need, expect, or demand about the climate. I asked for OBJECTIVE evidence for the AGW alarmist cry of catastrophic collapse of the biosphere will be caused by man’s burning of fossil fuel AND that man’s stopping the use of fossil fuels will prevent said catastrophe.

    Ths IPCC report is at best only a report that asserts it contains evidence. It is NOT objective evidence for anything but itself. Further, evidence of warming is not evidence that man is causing the warming nor is it evidence that a catastrophe is pending as a consequence of that warming. Neither is evidence that man is having an effect (unquantified and unqualified) evidence for that pending catastrophe.

    Present the actual evidence for a pending AGW catastrophe , that man is causing it, and that man can prevent it along with the relevant meta data. An endless recitation of a tangle of references is NOT evidence.

    1. You must show the mechanism by which that catastrophe will occur.
    2. You must show that said mechanism is actually operative.
    3. You must show that said mechanism is operating to a sufficient intensity to cause said catastrophe.
    4. You must show that there are NO alternative explanations for your observations that are sufficient to explain them in FULL context.

    Logical fallacies are not permitted and, if committed, will invalidate your entire argument.

    PS: I need not prove anything. I don’t even have to read and analyze your numerous undigested links. It is you who is holding that man is causing a pending catastrophe per AGW (aka climate change). It is therefor YOUR responsibility and YOUR obligation to PROVE your case. We need only to discover your errors. Stand and deliver or go away!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Ice Core evidence — where is carbon’s “major effect”?

    The “effect” isn’t there and this has been known for eighty or more years since ice cores have been collected and analysed. This is why no one connected “carbon” with “climate” until Al Gore needed to be recognised for SOMETHING and some others with ulterior motives made a connection to please a few and provide a means to control the gullible


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tony D:
    August 30th, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    Eddy Aruda @ 125
    There is no empirical data from the geological record to support this. Take a look at the graph of temperatures and CO2 levels contained in the following article. You will see that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and temps, period.
    forgot to post the link to the article regarding temps and CO2. Here it is http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    And your erudite response?

    Just as Frank here fails to properly examine the relationship between CO2 and temperature, Jo Nova has also made that mistake in the past.

    Is that the best you can do? How pathetic!

    Definition of PATHETIC

    1: having a capacity to move one to either compassionate or contemptuous pity
    2: marked by sorrow or melancholy : sad
    3: pitifully inferior or inadequate
    4: absurd, laughable
    5: Tony D. attempting to debate or respond to a request for empirical evidence

    How did Frank fail? If only you had the intellectual ability to form a cogent and lucid answer or response! Your comment about Jo is unsubstantiated and another ad hominem!

    The IPCC report has presented plenty of evidence.

    Your reply to Lionel Griffith was an appeal to authority! Is a link to skeptical science the best you can do?

    I suppose I should thank you. Those who are undecided will be persuaded to move into the skeptic’s camp thanks to you, John D., the proud new owner of the Brooklyn Bridge!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Boris:
    August 30th, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    Cite a specific passage in the IPCC report that claims the water vapor feedback will only occur in the tropical troposphere.

    No problemo! The following covers it ell. Just click on the following link and scroll on down. I would appear that WG II AR4 Technical summary does mention it!

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/scXVI/10.1_LearningAR4.pdf

    GCOS SC-XVI Doc. 10.1 (29.IX.2008) ________ Item 10
    Learning from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Possible Implications for GCOS
    (Submitted by the Secretariat)
    Identification of regions where society is most vulnerable to climate change (“climate hot
    spots”
    , see also the Figure below from WG II AR4 Technical Summary);


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Point of clarification. The IPCC does not state that it would be limited to the tropics. However, the tropics are the warmest and most humid area on the planet. If water vapor were to cause a positive feedback as the IPCC claims then the tropics would be the area where it was most pronounced. Obviously, the polar atmosphere would be too cold to contain very much water vapor. If the warming were to cause an increase in water vapor it would cause the upper troposphere temperature to rise at a faster rate then the lower atmosphere. There is no empirical data to prove this and the AGW hypothesis is once again falsified!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Crumple

    Lionell, your logic could equally be applied to those that dig up coaland burn it. Shouldn’t they be made to PROVE that thee will be no long term threat.

    Can you show us PROOF that this is safe?

    Can you show us why a more acidic ocean is OK?

    Can you show is why a warmer planet will still be able to grow sustainable crops when we know that insects and weeds also benefit from higher CO2 levels?

    Can you tellus why the accelerating of ice melt that results in higher sea levels is going to be OK?

    I don’t think the coal industry haas addressed these questions in their rush for profit.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crumple

    Eddy, it’s obvious Frank fails to account for other forcings and therefore the relationship is obscured. Tony hour the nail on the head there. Frank’s simplistic analysis was doomed for failure from the start.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Crumple:

    Lionell, your logic could equally be applied to those that dig up coaland burn it. Shouldn’t they be made to PROVE that thee will be no long term threat.

    Can you show us PROOF that this is safe?

    Oh, proving burning coal is not safe is easy. Burning coal creates a very hot heat. It can burn you do death. Burn coal in an unventilated room and the fumes can kill you. Many of the products of the combustion of coal are seriously toxic and cause cancer, lung disease, and other fatal maladies.

    Burning coal is most definitely NOT safe. It never has been and never will be. That is, it’s not safe unless you burn it correctly taking the appropriate safeguards. Such as is done in the power plants that produce the major fraction of the electrical energy that is produced on earth. Said energy makes life possible and comfortable where it would not otherwise exist. It greatly reduces the struggle required just to live. In fact, a large fraction of the population of the earth would suffer and die without it. Not producing the energy is far far more dangerous to man and his future than producing and using it.

    The moral to this story is that EVERYTHING must be used correctly or it can be harmful in both the short or long run. However, as long as we are alive and wish to remain alive we must both do and use things. Some of which can be very dangerous to use. Giving up using something that sustains and improves our lives simply because it might possibly cause some undefined harm in some undescribed way in some undetermined future is far more harmful to us.

    Now back to the topic of proving the case behind AGW alarmism: the claims of a man caused pending catastrophe and that the cure is stopping the use of fossil fuels. Give up the demand that man is to stop using fossil fuels and I will give up the demand that you and your AGW fellow travelers prove your case. Until that time, the burden of proof is in your camp!

    Stand and deliver or go away.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crumple

    You wish to continue burning coal without being able to quantify its effect note can you effectively dispute the IPPC claims that CO2 produces global warming.

    You Australians are so dependant upon coal for exports that you are quite willing to screw the rest of the world for it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Crumple: #164
    August 31st, 2010 at 5:29 pm says…

    You Australians are so dependant upon coal for exports that you are quite willing to screw the rest of the world for it!

    How dare you!!!! For decades Australia exported coal to countries such as China, which has enabled many millions of it’s people to come out of their poverty cycle.

    You and your ilk, who have gullibly succumbed to the political CO2 pollution rhetoric, are quite ready, willing and able to keep millions more in abject poverty by denying them cheap sources of energy.

    I’ll put Australia and her past, present and future, up against any other country you care to name. Start by naming yours crumble.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Yet another in an unusually long series of “blow-ins”.

    Crumple, you and others like you need to realize that it is up to the proponents of a theory or hypothesis to prove it and falsify it. Sceptics just have to kick it down. If you are not prepared to state a falsification of your “belief” system in terms of empirical data then it doesn’t even get to first base.

    You can go live in a cave for all I care, I’m not going to freeze to death in winter just to make the likes of you happy. Unless and until you can make a wooden computer, stop boring us with rubbish that we’ve seen many times before.

    Read the blog, you just might (gasp) learn something!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Boris:

    At #154 you again obfuscate with lies instead of answering the question that arises from your assertion.

    I have explained your lies with reference and link to the IPCC chapter that shows everything I wrote about the ‘hot spot’ is correct according to the IPCC. Anybody can check this for themselves by using the link I provided at #85 and again at #144. So, your lies are self defeating except that they give you a method to avoid answering the question.

    I repeat what I wrote at #154; i.e.

    So, NO MORE EXCUSES. NO MORE LIES. NO MORE SIDE-TRACKS.
    JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT DERIVES FROM A STATEMENT YOU MADE.

    I repeat that the question is:

    Please show some evidence that the undisputed fact of carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas has any relevance to the hypothesis that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will or could induce discernible alteration to climate at either or both of the local or global levels.

    At present, your repeatedly telling lies about somethuing else is an indication that you do not have an answer.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    cohenite:
    August 29th, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    Thanks for the links @147, Your first link is of particular interest to me.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/my-party-was-trashed-by-the-middle-class/story-fn59niix-1225910722814

    Coming from a Labor orientated family I find the party no longer reflects any of the ideals espoused by my forebears.

    Your second link,

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-vote-that-dares-not-speak-its-name/story-fn59niix-1225910724146

    I find confusing, I have had trouble understanding why people I would expect to be intelligent enough to question global warming, so readily accept it. The only conclusion I can come to is a tertiary education does not necessarily immune one from being gullible.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Wops – this blog woke alive again !? :-)

    Eddy Aruda: thankyou for your intelligent precise writings, its very much appreciated – hope to see you again for the next entry i make at joannes :-)

    SkepticalScience.com…
    Oh what a joke.
    Most subjects of the climate debate is dealt with at Skepticalscience.com – and so, the loyal pro AGW debators think that if they can llink so whatever subject where it is mentioned at skepticalscience, then they have “won” a debate, proven their case.
    So once in a while i (have to) take half an hour to go through the “arguments” at Skepticalscience, the papers they use, and the “arguments” there.

    Every time i have taken my time to investigate Skepticalscience it has been a joke.
    I have seen the no-UHI-claim defended by LONDON timeseries caompared as if som of these should represent true rural sites. And the divergense problem was not really defended directly in Skepticalscience, they just referred to a paper with the funniest “arguments”.

    Today i just happened to come across this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-temperature-and-CO2-in-the-past.html

    They have just done a graph comparing Temps to CO2 LOL .
    But wopswops they forgot to examine if these data shows Co2 as the driver or Temps.
    What a joke.

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    I have explained your lies with reference and link to the IPCC chapter that shows everything I wrote about the ‘hot spot’ is correct according to the IPCC. Anybody can check this for themselves by using the link I provided at #85 and again at #144. So, your lies are self defeating except that they give you a method to avoid answering the question.

    Richard, I cannot find a passage in the IPCC report that claims that the water vapor feedback will only occur in the tropical troposphere. I have the read the pages in question and they do not make this statement. Perhaps I have missed something. If you would be so kind as to quote the relevant passage from the IPCC report. This should only take a moment of your time.

    However, since I know no such statement exists in the IPCC report, I know that you will merely respond with more bolded accusations of lying and tiresome statements about how wrong I am. Really this kind of behavior is unnecessary: either quote the relevant passage or admit that you are mistaken.

    Oh, have you read that Annan paper and the referenced sensitivity studies? Good stuff.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Boris:

    I understand your post at #170 to be a clear admission from you that you cannot answer the question so will try any distraction instead.

    Please confirm that my understanding is correct by either
    (a) providing a clear statement that you cannot answer the question
    or
    (b) continuing to try to talk about something else and stating falsehoods.

    Alternatively, you could answer the question.

    In case you have forgotten I provided the question at #85, I repeated it at #144, and I again repeated it at #167. I again repeat it here: it is

    Please show some evidence that the undisputed fact of carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas has any relevance to the hypothesis that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will or could induce discernible alteration to climate at either or both of the local or global levels.

    I refuse to assist you with your distractions and obfuscations by responding to any of them until you have answered the question that derives from a silly statement that you made.
    And I commend that others who choose to waste their time on you append the question to every post that they address to you.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JaniePo

    John Brookes, Tony D, Boris are all DENIERS!!!

    DENIERS OF THE TRUTH THAT IS!

    THEY SHOULD HAVE STUDIED SCIENCE INSTEAD OF METAPHYSICS!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    “Boor-eess” is back in town

    Well, how about that. Hey Boris, how’s everything with your friends Gavin, Tamino, Lambert and the rest?

    Why not go back there where you belong


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Crapple:
    August 31st, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Eddy, it’s obvious Frank fails to account for other forcings and therefore the relationship is obscured. Tony hour [hit?] the nail on the head there. Frank’s simplistic analysis was doomed for failure from the start.

    Thank you for revealing to one and all what an ignorant fool you truly are! The skeptics have been arguing that climate is a chaotic non linear system. We believe that there are other forcings involved in climate. We also admit that we do not completely understand the forcings that we know of and that there are probably other forcings yet to be discovered. The AGW hypothesis states that CO2 is a major forcing and unless there are other forcings in effect (e.g. volcanic activity) an increase in CO2 levels will cause a positive feedback loop with water vapor and the runaway greenhouse effect will occur. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD TO SUPPORT THE CAGW HYPOTHESIS!

    You remind me of the guy who buys little brown smart pills from a carney. You eat them and complain to the guy who sold them to you that they taste like rabbit turds. You then still don’t get it when the guy says, “You see, you’re getting smarter already.” Quit being part of the green Borg collective!

    Tony D. is clueless and so are you. It is analogous to watching one blind man lead another blind man right off a cliff. Quoting skeptical science? PULEEZ!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian G Valentine: #173
    September 1st, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Ole Boris has been bothering Lucia over at “The Blackboard” for quite a while. Maybe he’s getting bored over there. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    And I commend that others who choose to waste their time on you append the question to every post that they address to you.

    I cited the Annan paper (way back in 154. It’s the full text and everything.) Have you read it yet? So far you are pretending it doesn’t exist.

    Meanwhile, you have not responded with a quotation from the IPCC report that supports your assertion that warming from the water vapor feedback will only occur in the tropical troposphere.

    Just to recap, in bold since you seem to like it so much: I responded to your question with a link to a paper and you have ignored it. Additionally you have not provided a quote for your contention about the water vapor feedback. This is obviously because the quote does not exist. Prove me wrong. Come on. Prove me wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Why not go back there where you belong

    Hi Brian.

    I don’t really comment much on pro-AGW blogs. I prefer to embarrass the Richard S Courtney’s of the world by pointing out their incorrect statements.

    You might want to tell Richard to admit that he’s wrong. I’ve done it before and it does sting, but then we can move on to more interesting things.

    Of course, Richard will insist that he’s right, but we all know he’d love to be able to provide that quotation right now and shut me up. And I promise to if he presents the quotation. I’ll leave here forever, in fact!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The only individual I have known you to embarrass, Boris, is a certain Trotskyite named Boris.

    Consider yourself lucky Boris, for having the privilege to comment on Lambert’s blog AT ALL, because he (as well as Romm and Gavin) won’t print anything I say.

    I don’t see that Richard has “failed” to do anything


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Maybe it’s because you call people names?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Вы говорите русского, Борис?

    If you do, I’d like to show you an interesting recent study that I am not aware has an English translation


    Report this

    00

  • #

    No Boris, Gavin and co also shut peoble out like me. I have never called other people names there.
    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Frank Lansner:
    August 31st, 2010 at 10:46 pm

    Today i just happened to come across this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-temperature-and-CO2-in-the-past.html

    I’ve noticed also that the speed my car is going and the reading on the speedometer are highly correlated — perhaps if I move the needle up, I can make my car go faster?

    Should fly on Skepticalscience.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Boris:

    My post at #171 said to you:

    I understand your post at #170 to be a clear admission from you that you cannot answer the question so will try any distraction instead.

    Please confirm that my understanding is correct by either
    (a) providing a clear statement that you cannot answer the question
    or
    (b) continuing to try to talk about something else and stating falsehoods.

    Alternatively, you could answer the question.

    You have replied with your posts at #176 and #177 that talk about something else and state falsehoods.
    So, I thank you for confirming that
    you agree that there is no evidence that the undisputed fact of carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas has any relevance to the hypothesis that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will or could induce discernible alteration to climate at either or both of the local or global levels.

    However, your agreeement contains additional falsehoods from you that deserve refutation.

    At #176 you say:

    I cited the Annan paper (way back in 154. It’s the full text and everything.) Have you read it yet? So far you are pretending it doesn’t exist.

    Meanwhile, you have not responded with a quotation from the IPCC report that supports your assertion that warming from the water vapor feedback will only occur in the tropical troposphere.

    Just to recap, in bold since you seem to like it so much: I responded to your question with a link to a paper and you have ignored it. Additionally you have not provided a quote for your contention about the water vapor feedback. This is obviously because the quote does not exist. Prove me wrong. Come on. Prove me wrong.

    Of course I had read the flawed Annan paper long before you cited it. Many other direct indications of climate sensitivity show much more realistic estimates (e.g. Google for Idso natural expereiments climate sensitivity).
    But so what? Annan’s flawed estimate is not an answer to my question. Indeed, if it were then you would have said it was each time I posed the question (but, instead, you attempted to talk about other things).

    I did not assert that “the water vapor feedback will only occur in the tropical troposphere”.
    I said that the feedback is expected to be largest in the tropical troposphere and provided the link to both the IPCC Chapter and Figure which show this.
    Indeed, the feedback will be almost nothing near the poles because the atmosphere is too cold for it to contain much water vapour in those regions.

    You are making a simple lie when you claim that I said the ‘hot spot’ is because “the water vapor feedback will only occur in the tropical troposphere”.

    Everything I have said about this is correct. But you keep telling lies in hope that nobody will notice.

    Indeed, your lies are clearly stated at #176 where you assert:

    I don’t really comment much on pro-AGW blogs. I prefer to embarrass the Richard S Courtney’s of the world by pointing out their incorrect statements.

    You might want to tell Richard to admit that he’s wrong. I’ve done it before and it does sting, but then we can move on to more interesting things.

    Of course, Richard will insist that he’s right, but we all know he’d love to be able to provide that quotation right now and shut me up. And I promise to if he presents the quotation. I’ll leave here forever, in fact!

    You have not stated a single error I have presented: not now and not ever. If you were to show such an error then I would not be stung but I would be greateful because then I would learn.

    I am not embarrassed by your lies: I think they (and you) are funny.
    I do not need to present a quotation for something I did not say.

    So, “leave forever” and go back under your bridge.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    I said that the feedback is expected to be largest in the tropical troposphere and provided the link to both the IPCC Chapter and Figure which show this.

    Richard, the figures you show do not mention anything about the water vapor feedback. Once again, quote the text that mentions the water vapor feedback is strongest in the tropical troposphere.

    Please do not keep saying “I gave you the figure!!!!!!” We both agree that you gave a figure, but your interpretation of it is laughably wrong. So, just show somewhere in the IPCC report where the figure is described as you claim. Quote it. Or else admit it is an argument of your own invention.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Oh, Richard:

    I did not assert that “the water vapor feedback will only occur in the tropical troposphere”.
    I said that the feedback is expected to be largest in the tropical troposphere and provided the link to both the IPCC Chapter and Figure which show this.

    Did you not think I would just quote your posts? Really? You have chutzpah, I’ll give you that.

    Please note that the postulated feedbacks which could enhance any effect of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are proved to not exist by the absence of the ‘hot spot’.

    The absence of the ‘hot spot’ proves that the postulated feedbacks required to convert any AGW into a discernible effect do not exist.

    So, the ‘hot spot’ IS the warming from the major feedback.

    QED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    @Boris: (#185)

    QED?

    You seem to be having a spot of trouble with logic, old boy. The first quote from Richard is not contradicted by the following three quotes.

    Perhaps if you could concentrate on reading what Richard actually says, instead of what you wish he said, you could post something rational?

    Nah.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    It’s delightful to witness Boris attempt to throw stink on other people and cover himself with it

    (written while pinching my nose)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Perhaps if you could concentrate on reading

    I think you should take your own advice, BobC. Think about what

    the ‘hot spot’ IS the warming from the major feedback.

    actually means and have another go.

    And, Brian, it’s a shame RC is missing out on such high quality comments by “censoring” you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Boris:

    Water vapor temperature feedback can occur anywhere there is water vapor whose concentration depends on local temperature — Duh! (Of course, this feedback will be responsive to whatever causes temperature to increase — like seasonal changes.)

    However, if water vapor feedback were strong enough to actually cause runaway warming due to the trivial forcing of increased CO2 (or even significant warming), then (according to climate modelers) there would have to be a hot spot created in the troposphere. Since such a hot spot is ruled out by many decades of measurements, the extreme water vapor feedback hypothesized by modelers to justify their extreme warming scenarios doesn’t exist and the warming scenarios are just (bad) science fiction.

    Note that this doesn’t mean that NO water vapor feedback exists — only the extreme amount hypothesized by climate modelers to justify their alarmist claims. Here, apparently, is where Richard exceeded your reading comprehension ability.

    Richard understands this, as is evident from reading his posts. You don’t understand any of it, as is evident from reading your posts.

    If you would like to argue for the existence of strong positive feedbacks (as opposed to nit-picking other’s phraseology while ignoring their clear meaning), then perhaps you could answer the following questions:

    1) If such feedbacks exist, why haven’t they resulted in runaway warming before (despite significantly higher global temperatures in the recent (10K yr) past?
    2) Why didn’t we see the effects of these feedbacks during the 1998 El Nino?
    3) Why don’t we see the effects of these feedbacks in the large forcing change from winter to summer? (Dwarfing the postulated driving effect of doubling CO2.)
    4) Why don’t we see the effects of these feedbacks in the ice core data? (Where temperatures drop significantly as CO2 remains high for 500 – 800 years.)
    5) Why, when measuring daily temperature in the tropics, do we see strong evidence of negative feedbacks (Iris effect, SST limitation by cirrus formation, dumping of heat to space by thunderstorms — continuing well into the night, usually, etc.) and NO signs of the postulated “runaway greenhouse” feedbacks? Note that all of these observed negative feedbacks are the result of water’s behavior in the atmosphere. Only the postulated extreme positive feedbacks are not observed.

    In general, Boris, you could explain why you have such faith in postulated climate responses that are not observed, and ignore (or disbelieve) observed responses that falsify the postulated ones. Not that anyone here would be very interested (unless you came up with some good arguments — not holding my breath waiting for that), but it would at least show an honest attempt at discussion.

    Nah, that’s asking too much.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    IPCC admitted they modelled water vapour feedback incorrectly in the third AR, when the author wrote that GCM did not account for rainfall patterns correctly, notably in Tropical latitudes.

    Rainfall is heat transfer from the upper to lower atmosphere, plainly heat transfer was not accounted for correctly in models that accounted for water vapour feedback from greenhouse “forcing.”

    This issue was not discussed so candidly in AR/4.

    If the “enhanced “greenhouse” effect is to be observed anywhere it will be observed between tropical latitudes, it has to be, there is nothing to dissipate it when the insolation is constant throughout the seasons.

    As a matter of fact, if the “enhanced greenhouse effect” was to be observed AT ALL, the variability of the hemispherical oscillations would be obscured in the Tropics, probably obliterated over decade periods. Such is the magnitude of the “signal” that would have to be seen to account for tropical warming in the lower elevations that could not be accounted for in natural variability.

    Don’t believe me Boris? Ask Gavin.

    Gavin won’t talk with me, maybe he’ll talk with you


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    then (according to climate modelers)

    This is the citation I’m looking for and that Richard won’t provide. Where do these climate modelers make this claim? Cite it or quote it please.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Boris:
    September 6th, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    then (according to climate modelers)

    This is the citation I’m looking for and that Richard won’t provide. Where do these climate modelers make this claim? Cite it or quote it please.

    Check out the discussion at the Blackboard

    You’re welcome. Now, take a crack at my 5 questions, please.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Link to the Blackboard got messed up — see HERE

    [Fixed] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Check out the discussion at the Blackboard

    Yeah, I participated in that discussion and I don’t remember anyone citing climate modelers about water vapor and the hot spot.

    In fact, Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler, says the opposite on RC when he claims the lack of a tropical tropospheric hot spot would merely falsify what we know about the moist adiabat and not really alter warming projections.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Boris:
    September 8th, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Check out the discussion at the Blackboard

    Yeah, I participated in that discussion and I don’t remember anyone citing climate modelers about water vapor and the hot spot.

    Working Group 1 from IPCC AR4 is the answer, apparently.
    Quote from the Blackboard discussion:

    Who thinks the tropical tropospheric hot spot is a fingerprint of GHGs? People who read and believe section 9.2.2 of WG1′s contribution to the IPCC AR4.

    So tell us — why are postulated feedbacks which haven’t been observed more important to you than observed ones? (Other than the fact that the observed ones falsify CAGW, that is.) Science should be about studying the real world, not creating fanciful theoretical ones.

    BTY: I think that your report that Gavin thinks his lack of understanding of how the climate works doesn’t affect his projections is hilarious. Tells you something about what his work is worth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    BobC,

    That discussion is about whether the tropical tropospheric hot spot is a fingerprint of CO2 warming.

    The answer to that question depends on how you define “finegrprint,” but the upshot is that models predict a tropical tropospheric hotspot with nay surface warming.

    That discussion is not at all about the water vapor feedback.

    why are postulated feedbacks which haven’t been observed more important to you than observed ones?

    The water vapor feedback has been observed. In global water vapor data and in the cooling from Mt. Pinatubo, to name but two places.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Boris: Try reading this paper by Kevin Trenberth and Lesley Smith (of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder CO), published 2006, AMS:

    “As the climate warms, climate models tend to amplify changes in temperature with height in the Tropics, largely following the moist-adiabatic lapse rate, signaling the cominance of moist convection for determining the lapse rate in the tropical troposphere. For a given increase in surface temperature this means larger increases with height.”

    They ought to know at NCAR. Perhaps you should argue with them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Well, what you quoted agrees exactly with what I’ve said. The moist adiabat causes the tropical tropospheric hotspot. Notice they mention convection. The water vapor feedback is a radiative process, not a convective one. Therefore they are NOT the same thing as Richard claimed..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Boris: I’m having trouble understanding what you’re getting at. Let me take a guess:

    Are you implying that, despite the climate models getting water and convective processes wrong enough that they predict effects not observed, radiative feedback from water vapor will still cause CAGW?

    What point are you trying to make and can you back it up with any empirical studies?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Yes, getting a localized convective process wrong does not imply that the global radiative processes are wrong.

    As for empirical evidence of the water vapor feedback, see Soden 2001 on the effects of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. Also see Santer 2007 on the increase in atmospheric water vapor and its attribution to CO2.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Boris:

    So, why hasn’t the Earth suffered runaway heating feedback anytime in the last 10k yrs when the temperatures have been significantly higher than today? Or in the last 600 millions of years when CO2 was sometimes very much higher than today?
    (Note, the Earth’s temperature appears to be bi-stable and uncorrelated with CO2, over geologic time.)

    Santer 2007? He uses models to generate “data” that he then “rigorously” analyzes. (So much more convenient than messy, time-consuming old-fashioned observation.)

    “The 22 model control runs analyzed here comprise a total of 8,848 years of data, and they yield 459 independent samples of the unforced variability of (Wo) on time scales of 19 years. This is the information we use to determine whether the SSM/I trend over 1988-2006 could be due to noise alone.”

    (I’ve emphasized the unjustified assumptions he made.)

    Naturally, his “rigorous” conclusion is that the water vapor increase is due to CO2 increase — the models say so! (rigorously)

    The fact that the model runs varied significantly, despite starting with the same general climate state (thus demonstrating that the models had nil predictive skill) didn’t faze him at all — he just assumes that they will accurately predict “variability” (if nothing else). This paper is pretty good evidence that any future climate predictions by these models be ignored but unsurprisingly, Santer doesn’t go there.

    This is laughable. If this is what “science” has become, heaven help us.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    So, why hasn’t the Earth suffered runaway heating feedback anytime in the last 10k yrs when the temperatures have been significantly higher than today? Or in the last 600 millions of years when CO2 was sometimes very much higher than today?

    Because feedbacks aren’t strong enough. You can have significant feedbacks, but not reach a runaway greenhouse effect. One of the main reasons is the logarithmic effect of GHGs, so that each molecule has less effect than the last. No one serious is arguing a runaway effect is possible.

    You misunderstand Santer. He’s getting a range of predicted variability in model runs. No plausible amount of variability can explain the trend.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Keep going gentlemen, this is interesting and people (like me) are still following.

    By the way if I ran a score on the debate Boris would be behind.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Boris:

    No one serious is arguing a runaway effect is possible.

    So, I guess you would agree that James Hansen isn’t “serious”? (link).

    Are you really arguing that all the scary scenarios that have been floated to justify government control over energy use are just the work of “unserious” people? Earth to Boris: These people are deadly serious about taking control of your life. I would think you would be just a tiny bit upset that your life has almost been seriously impacted by “unserious” arguments promoted in the name of science.

    RE Santer:

    You misunderstand Santer. He’s getting a range of predicted variability in model runs. No plausible amount of variability can explain the trend.

    Well, as long as you define “No plausible amount of variability” to mean “The models can’t reproduce it”. But the plausibility of the models is the point, isn’t it? How else could you justify substituting model runs for data?

    How would you know if they were or weren’t plausible? The only possible way is to evaluate the predictive skill of said models. Since, however, the models never get the same answer twice, even started at the same place, it seems kind of obvious that they have no predictive skill.

    Santer simply assumes, without proof, that an ensemble of model runs will be an accurate measure of the real world, even if no individual run is.

    I’m reminded of the logic behind buying credit derivatives: While investing in a single bad loan is ill-advised, it’s OK to invest in a lot of bad loans, since that “spreads the risk”!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    So, I guess you would agree that James Hansen isn’t “serious”?

    tipping points =! runaway greenhouse effect.

    Are you really arguing that all the scary scenarios that have been floated to justify government control over energy use are just the work of “unserious” people?

    Once again, you are conflating a runaway greenhouse effect–something like Venus–with a high sensitivity. These things are not the same.

    Well, as long as you define “No plausible amount of variability” to mean “The models can’t reproduce it”. But the plausibility of the models is the point, isn’t it? How else could you justify substituting model runs for data?

    In order to know what unforced variability is like, we need to run simulations. We cannot simply go back in time and rerun the Earth’s climate–and we certainly can’t do it 10,000 times.

    Now, certainly, you can argue that climate models don’t fully capture unforced variability. But then this just widens the error bars and you’d get a range for climate sensitivity of, say, 0.5C to 12C. A range like that would force action because 12C would basically end civilization (probably 8C would as well, so you’d have a 30% chance of ending civilization, making draconian actions the preferred choice. Incidentally, this is one of the strengths of the James Annan paper I cited upthread. He basically eliminates the high sensitivity ranges (above 4C) but skeptics don’t like his results because he also excludes anything below 2C)

    How would you know if they were or weren’t plausible? The only possible way is to evaluate the predictive skill of said models. Since, however, the models never get the same answer twice, even started at the same place, it seems kind of obvious that they have no predictive skill.

    Unforced variability is essentially unpredictable. But we can get ideas of how accurate the models are by using other metrics besides global temps (eg seasonal patterns, circulations, etc.) It’s not perfect, but is there another way to estimate unforced variability?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Wow, Boris;

    You seem to be arguing here that, the worse the models are, the more immediate action is needed to prevent what they “predict”:

    Now, certainly, you can argue that climate models don’t fully capture unforced variability. But then this just widens the error bars and you’d get a range for climate sensitivity of, say, 0.5C to 12C. A range like that would force action because 12C would basically end civilization (probably 8C would as well, so you’d have a 30% chance of ending civilization, making draconian actions the preferred choice. Incidentally, this is one of the strengths of the James Annan paper I cited upthread. He basically eliminates the high sensitivity ranges (above 4C) but skeptics don’t like his results because he also excludes anything below 2C)

    Do you really not understand the absurdity of that argument? So all one has to do to force action by society is create bad enough models? And why wouldn’t the ice core data falsify such bad model results? Would you accept the models and just assume that we had been fabulously lucky for the last 750,000 years?

    And where did the “…30% chance of ending civilization…” come from? The worse the models, the higher the chance of ending civilization? (Is this one of those statistics described by: “95% of all statistics are made up on the spot”?)

    Now if you were talking about the chance of making “climate science” irrelevant ….

    Unforced variability is essentially unpredictable.

    Why do you suppose that is? I can think of two reasons:
    1) We don’t know enough about the system (climate) to model it accurately, hence can’t predict it.
    2) The system is chaotic, hence we can never know enough about any beginning state to predict it more than a short time ahead, regardless of the accuracy of our models.
    There is evidence that both of these are correct. (It was the attempted modeling of weather — just what GCMs try to do today — that got the whole mathematical field of chaos theory started in the first place.)

    And, not only can we not predict the climate (as you have just admitted), we also can’t predict the effects of any potential human actions on the climate. If you still insist we must do something (for emotional reasons, apparently), why not meditate? It’s just as likely to be beneficial, and much less likely to crash the economy.

    It’s not perfect, but is there another way to estimate unforced variability?

    Yeah, it’s called “historical data” — generally more reliable than “play-station data” created by bad models, and certainly less likely to be biased (unless massaged by Hansen, perhaps).
    Here for example, is some ice core data from NOAA that shows what the unforced (by Man) variability of temperatures is — note that the variability over millennial times greatly exceeds anything we have seen in the last 500 years. (And yet the climate scientists, on the basis of their bad models, claim that the last 100 years is “unprecedented”.)

    Also, you should know that the “argument from ignorance” is not valid: Because you don’t know how to estimate something well, doesn’t mean that bad estimates are acceptable. It means that you don’t yet know. Science isn’t about guessing at things we don’t know, but rather finding out those things by observation and experiment.

    Here is a classic paper on a set of “natural experiments” (observations, really) that attempt to measure climate sensitivity (rather than estimating it from models of unknown reliability). Note the author doesn’t assume his conclusion at the beginning — like the modelers do with their hard-wired parameters standing in for unknown processes, and like the people who “estimate” sensitivity from ice core data by first assuming that CO2 is the driver. Instead, he uses observations of different times and places with different amounts of solar input to get a measurement of climate sensitivity.

    Incidently, Idso gets 0.4C as the likely result of doubling CO2. This is the only estimate I know of based entirely on empirical measurements.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Boris, let’s cut to the chase:

    The people (like you) who are claiming that we must take immediate action to prevent a climate disaster base their arguments on the predictions of climate models.

    To data, none of those models have any demonstrated predictive skill. Do you see any problem here? (If you don’t, is there any action you wouldn’t take, based on an unsupported claim?)

    This is nothing to do with science — science is not about making unsupported statements that might be true — and everything to do with politics and power.

    This whole scenario is perfectly described by the Aseop fable “The boy who cried ‘Wolf!’”, including the inevitable loss of prestige of the scientists who are participating. (This is not even the first time they have issued a (false) dire warning — we are half-way through the fable already.)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] this chart and the associated post by Frank Lansner at Jo Nova's [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bjchip

    So Lansner is actually looking at the cooling part of the cycle… the slow collapse into the next glacial period.

    Does he say what he thinks drives that change?

    No… and THAT change isn’t driven by CO2 concentrations. Which is something we already knew. Hmmm… why is the change slower?

    Basically this is meaningless calculation as without any clear analysis of the forcings that cause the cooling we can learn absolutely nothing with respect to the CO2 forcing in that period.

    Something else IS forcing the temperature back down. Except in this interglacial it isn’t working so well. That something has to be identified and quantified if the effect of CO2 is to be separated from it and analyzed.

    One wishes we had much more data about the past million years, and in particular the normal cooling process into the next Ice that has occurred so regularly over the past interglacials. We don’t. We also do not have a control planet where we haven’t whacked the CO2 up 50 times faster than any pre-historical record or proxy we can identify. This is not a really smart experiment to be making with the only planet we have.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bjchip

    So, why hasn’t the Earth suffered runaway heating feedback anytime in the last 10k yrs when the temperatures have been significantly higher than today? Or in the last 600 millions of years when CO2 was sometimes very much higher than today?
    (Note, the Earth’s temperature appears to be bi-stable and uncorrelated with CO2, over geologic time.)

    Well… if you go back 600 million years the SUN WAS A LOT COOLER… but that is a thing that happens to you on million year time scales. No forcing exists in isolation… and analyzing JUST one means accounting for all the others… and you’re wrong about the CO2. Declining CO2 levels over 100 million year time frames do in fact correspond with our transitioning into cooler and cooler states, the formation of the permanent ice-caps came relatively recently. This would naturally reverse in time as the Sun gets hotter still… another billion years should make things quite toasty no matter what, but… the time frame is different from the CO2 time frame.

    Keeping track of the timescales of these changes in forcings is a seriously good idea, because that is one of the things that we humans are really not that good at…

    Minute/Day/Season/Generation anything longer is “many”… sort of like caveman counting ( 1, 2, 3, 4, Many ) and we all have that same problem with respect to time.

    We handle it mathematically but not instinctively.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bjchip

    So the warming spreads to the tropics right? and the oceans continue to warm causing more out-gassing right? WHAT STOPS THIS positive feedback?

    Try the fact that the concentration in the ocean diminishes at the same time, reducing the ability of the ocean to provide increasing amounts of CO2, and the partial pressure of the CO2 increases, preventing it from being so easily released into the atmosphere from the saturations in the ocean.

    You can’t assume an unlimited source and the relationship to temperature is not linear.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bjchip

    That’s enough. This is clearly a place where political considerations dominate. The notion that scientists have political motivations is so bizarre (having worked with them I know that they are as apolitical and difficult to organize as a herd of cats), that it can only mean that I am wasting my time.

    Please try to achieve an understanding of the science and scientists independent of the various political organizations that have latched on to the issue. The science is NOT related to the political aspirations of socialists or libertarians… it is simply science. It says we’re doing something inherently risky and profoundly dumb with our planet. It doesn’t care WHY… that’s political.

    Have a nice day.

    ————————–

    REPLY: All first time commenters go straight to moderation until at least one comment is cleared. That’s why your comments were held up. The cheque from Exxon hasn’t arrived yet so that we can hire full time moderators. OK? — JN


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      BJChip says:

      The notion that scientists have political motivations is so bizarre (having worked with them I know that they are as apolitical and difficult to organize as a herd of cats), that it can only mean that I am wasting my time.

      Mr. Chip, are you familiar with one scientist James Hansen? Perhaps you define “political motivations” differently than me. It is clear to many that influencing politics IS a significant motive of these climate scientists. I’m surprised that you lack the skills of perception necessary for you to realize this. If the subject of climate were ONLY in the world of scientists, we wouldn’t even be here typing. What should be obvious to anyone is that the subject of climate IS thoroughly steeped in politics. Scientists may behave like a herd of cats but politicians know that people can be made to behave like a flock of sheep. That soon followed by their collective fleecing.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    bjchip: Do tell us how you know that the world is supposed to be colder than it is right now. No one else pretends they can predict the exact end of a 10,000 year interglacial period to the decade.

    Lansner is looking at the rise and the fall, not just the cooling part (read the post).


    Report this

    00