John Cook might be skeptical about skeptics, but when it comes to government funded committee reports, not so much.
The author of “skeptical science” has finally decided to try to point out things he thinks are flaws in The Skeptics Handbook. Instead, he misquotes me, shies away from actually displaying the damning graphs I use, gets a bit confused about the difference between a law and a measurement, unwittingly disagrees with his own heroes, and misunderstands the climate models he bases his faith on. Not so “skeptical” eh John? He’s put together a page of half-truths and sloppy errors and only took 21 months to do it. Watch how I use direct quotes from him, the same references, and the same graphs, and trump each point he tries to make. His unskeptical faith in a theory means he accepts some bizarre caveats while trying to whitewash the empirical findings.
In the end, John Cook trusts the scientists who collect grants funded by the fear-of-a-crisis and who want more of his money, but he’s skeptical of unfunded scientists who ask him to look at the evidence and tell him to keep his own cash.
These two graphs are not the same
…
The climate models predict a hot-spot over the tropics. The weather balloons show there is no sign of it. Quote the CCSP report graph (A) is described as: "PCM simulations of the vertical profile of temperature change due to ...well mixed greenhouse gases."
Thousands of radiosondes, and three decades of satellite measurements show unequivocally that there is no hot spot, not a hint, or glimmer, nothing within a standard deviation of what the catastrophic models expected. Watch Cook struggle against the vast weight of the empirical evidence. He “knows” the hot spot pattern is there even though the thermometers disagree… “Unfortunately, that elusive hot spot has been devilishly hard to measure.” Devilish indeed. The rest of the global atmosphere is measurable, but up there in the critical zone above the tropics, the radiosondes hit the Bermuda Triangle of equipment failures.
Ground thermometers are so clever that John’s happy to trust they give accurate readings of trends, even when people build airports next to them. But up in the sky, repeated day after day for decades, the thermometer results around the climatically weird zone are still so uncertain that a completely clear unambiguous result is, err, obviously “wrong”. He doesn’t trust the simple temperature sensors in radiosondes, but he does trust a computer algorithm that converts wind-shear to degrees C. He won’t trust weather balloons, but he trusts the impenetrably complex atmospheric simulations. He won’t trust the long term data, but he does trust monthly analysis using the same equipment. Cook is a study in faith, hope, and flawed reasoning.
Either the models or the radiosondes are wrong. The radiosondes agree with the UAH satellite, and all of the measurements are based on far fewer assumptions than climate models are. Occam’s razor suggests it’s hard to believe the models get it right when the simpler data that is measured by two different methods definitively disagrees. The other satellite set, by the way, RSS, hardly supports the models either (see more on that below).
Catch me? No misquote me
So what’s my biggest misunderstanding? It’s a misquote. His. Right from the start he gets things wrong, quote: Jo Nova leads with the headline “The greenhouse effect is missing”. Except I’ve never said that and the headline is “The greenhouse signature is missing”. It’s a totally different point.
Cook’s big (wrong) claim
Cook gets ambitious and goes out on a limb with what is really a major assertion: “…the hot spot is not caused by the greenhouse effect.” Which shows how little he reads from his own heroes, Hansen and Santer et al. All of whom disagree.
Graph A above is what the models predict will happen due to “well mixed greenhouse gases”. That includes the effects of the feedbacks, as well as the direct effects of CO2. But the largest feedback is water vapor, and it’s a greenhouse gas. Look in the IPCC AR4, Chapter 8, or read Hansen et al 1984 : they call it “Water Vapor” feedback. The IPCC (for a change) don’t mince words, “Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.” Hansen is specific in his 1984 paper. His reference to “infrared opacity” is another way of saying “greenhouse effect”:
Water vapor feedback arises from the ability of the atmosphere to hold more water vapor as temperature increases. The added water vapor increases the infrared opacity of the atmosphere, raising the mean level of infrared emission to space to greater altitude, where it is colder.
Not to put too fine a point on it, check out the IPCC graph (below). Which feedback factor has the highest theoretical influence? Would that be water vapor on its own, or water vapor pegged back by the lapse rate negative feedback? “WV” is way out ahead of the rest of the pack — clouds might rock, but their feedback is half the effect of humidity, and the much vaunted effect of snow-and-ice-albedo-changes is a mere quarter of the effect of increasing humidity. (NB: Climate scientists use the term “WV”, the rest of us just say humidity.)
Compare the power of the feedbacks according to the IPCC
Ergo, Cook’s on his own with his claim, and he doesn’t try to explain why the so-called gurus of global climate science are wrong. Maybe he just forgot that the greenhouse effect can be caused by other things than CO2.
He goes on to say “In fact, we expect to see an amplified warming trend in the troposphere no matter what’s causing the warming.” Now he’s back to talking about the idea of a greenhouse “signature” and as if it was only ever skeptics who referred to that graph as the signature of the greenhouse effect. But the CCSP Document I quote from has the word “fingerprint” all over it. So the original graph was intended to be the signature pattern the models were looking for, and if they had found it, you can be sure they would have kept using the term. But since they didn’t find it, the modelers use the fall-back that strictly any form of warming ought to increase evaporation, increase humidity, and in the world of climate models, raise the level of warming 10 km up over the tropics (ie, create a hot spot). Strictly that’s true, but it’s not a point Cook probably wants to push.
The obvious reading we take from the measurements is that the theoretical feedback that’s meant to drive the catastrophe doesn’t occur no matter what forcing is at work. Rephrased: the models are worthless, no matter what’s driving the climate. Rephrased again: the models contain a large amplifying feedback due to water vapor, and the missing hotspot reveals that it doesn’t exist.
Sloppy sloppy sloppy
If scientific accuracy was important you’d think he would be more careful: “The hotspot is actually due to a basic law of physics called the moist adiabatic lapse rate (MALR).” Except it’s not a law of physics, it’s just a measurement. It’s the rate at which fast humid air cools as it rises, and the answer can vary depending on how saturated the air is — from 4 C/km up to 9.8 C/km. Not a law, not basic, and not something I disagree with.
Measurements don’t usually change the climate by themselves either. The MALR is not a “thing” like clouds, humidity, or radiation. Some thing must cause the rate to change, and that’s what matters. So what affects the lapse rate? Stuff like radiation coming in, radiation going out, latent heat being brought in, and convection stirring it all up.
Inasmuch as anyone can tell, the hot spot is created (in the models that is, not in real life) by several mechanisms, but one of the main ones is the extra water vapor that is supposed to be “thickening the blanket” 10km above the tropics. The models assume relative humidity stays constant, and if it did, that would mean an increase in the greenhouse effect due to water vapor. Note that the same radiosondes that record no rising temperatures in the upper troposphere also record that relative humidity fell (Paltridge 2009), which is what you’d expect if there was negative feedback, but not what you expect if you trust computer models.
The lapse in judgment
Lapse rate is an unintuitive term. Imagine a packet of moist air rising. As it inevitably expands, it cools, and there comes a point when moisture starts condensing into cloud — when that happens, latent heat is dumped into the atmosphere. This is the heat energy that was picked up from the oceans when the water evaporated. This cycle is the world’s evaporative air conditioner. It transports heat energy from the ocean up to the sky, and that means that the atmosphere can radiate more heat out to space. In a sense, the convection carries heat up through the blanket of greenhouse gases (which is mostly water) and if it goes high enough it will also allow more energy — in the form of photons — to escape the planet, be free and warm Jupiter, Mars or the rest of the galaxy.
Cook himself acknowledges that the warming effect of latent heat release up high in the troposphere partly offsets the cooling (by allowing more radiation to escape the atmosphere).
The Santer 2005 paper, which he refers to, weakens his case. Cook shows one graph (A) the short term one, but leaves off the other (B) which is the long term effect (see both below). In the long term trends you can see the result that Cook won’t acknowledge outright — the observations that really matter are far away from the “theory”. The theory, the models, the idea behind the big scare: it’s demonstrably wrong. Who’s in denial?
Models predict upper tropospheric warming that observations don't find. (Click to see the large version)
I know I hardly need to add any more, but indulge me.
Douglass et al, responding to Santer, concluded:
Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modeled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modeled and observed trends have opposite signs.
From the CCSP report. The models are compared to actual observations. If the models are aiming to predict the climate this is not what I call "a direct hit".
As I mentioned already, RSS might agree with a couple of the outlier models, but notice (red squares) it didn’t find any amplification: O°C . It’d be a reasonable guess that the models which the RSS values agree with are also not the same models that project catastrophic temperatures. When people talk about “broadly consistent agreement” this is what they are referring too: one data set out of four is just barely overlapping with about 4 of the 47 or so models. And when John Cook acknowledges that Satellites still show tropospheric trends less than expected, remember, he’s describing results that are so far less-than-expected they’re actually negative.
It’s been nine years since the radiosonde and satellite data came in from the last long warming period (1979 – 1999). The well funded team of the faithful adherents have been reanalyzing the data and denying the obvious ever since. The best results they can scratch together after all these years and many adjustments is that the errors bars were wider that what they thought (Santer 2008 ) and really the hot spot is there (it is!), it’s just invisible in the noise, darn it.
If we can’t measure the hot spot with thermometers, how the heck can we do it with wind gauges
Cook calls Allen and Sherwood’s analysis “independent” because they chuck out the temperature readings and use wind-shear to measure the temperature. Normal people would call it “imaginative”, “creative”, or more likely: desperate. If we can’t measure the hot spot with thermometers, how the heck can we do it with wind gauges, and if we can’t get weather balloons to tell us the temperature of the air as they pass through it, why would anyone think we could “measure” the temperature of the air 10 km up using computers in New York that are 3,000 km from the equator? This is like sooth-saying with a silicon crystal. It’s the kind of reasoning you get when a government pours $79 billion into supporting a theory and none into finding holes in it. Researchers are so used to spouting self-satirical bluster and getting away with it, they actually believe their own PR.
I might add that in the very short form of The Skeptics Handbook I mentioned that believers of the catastrophic theory would say “Santer” and “Sherwood”. Even with the booklet right in front of him, Cook jumps through those hoops.
The unskeptical scientist
If Cook is hoping to be accepted as a skeptical scientist he needs to turn his skeptical brain on full time. At the moment it’s a patchy affair. For him to keep believing in the coming catastrophe he needs to assume a satellite set and two radiosonde sets that agree with each other are both completely wrong; that wind-gauges are a good way to measure degrees C even though they were never designed to do that, and that weather balloons aren’t good enough to measure the temperature (or the humidity), but climate models a magnitude more complex have most of it figured out.
If sanity prevails, I’ll welcome him. The world needs real skeptics. The fake-ola ones help provide cover for the freeloading parasites that want to scare us out of our wits and our wallets.
Hat tip to Joseph DB for the notification 🙂
References
Hansen, J., et al., 1984: Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In: Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity [Hansen, J.E., and T. Takahashi (eds.)]. Geophysical Monographs Vol. 29, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 130–163.
IPCC, AR4, Chapter 8, page 632.
Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Mears, C., Wentz, F.J., Klein, S.A., Seidel, D.J., Taylor, K.E., Thorne, P.W., Wehner, M.F., Gleckler, P.J., Boyle, J.S., Collins, W.D., Dixon, K.W., Doutriaux, C., Free, M., Fu, Q., Hansen, J.E., Jones, G.S., Ruedy, R., Karl, T.R., Lanzante, J.R., Meehl, G.A., Ramaswamy, V., Russell, G. and Schmidt, G.A. 2005. Amplification of surface temperature trends and variability in the tropical atmosphere. Science 309: 1551-1556
Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.
B. D. Santer *, P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor1, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, F. J. Wentz: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, Intl. J. Climatol., Vol. 28, 2008, 1703-1722. DOI: 10.1002/joc
Allen, R. J. and S. C. Sherwood, Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal wind observations. Nature Geosci., Vol. 65, 2008, 399-403.
I have a lot of experience designing and building scientific instruments. Perhaps I should apply for a grant to build a “politically correct” thermometer – there may be a lot of money in it. It would be a complicated device, including GPS and NASA/CNN/NPR news feeds with AI analysis — after all, you can’t output the temperature until you know what the temperature is supposed to be at your location!
Making this small enough to fit in a radiosonde will be a challenge.
Of course, to folks who can ignore any evidence whatsoever, ignoring thermometers is probably easy.
30
Actually Jo, Cook is right that the adiabatic lapse rate is a law of physics. Or at least two:
1) Conservation of Energy
2) Gravity
A really good discussion is going on at scienceofdoom continuing the debate of Goddard and Motl of Venusian atmospheric processes and how radiation transfer equations do not explain everything (and any other planet). Dr. Weinstein is extremely patient with those willing to learn the processes involved.
Other than that, well debated!
20
A law physics cannot be a consequence of two other laws of physics, because laws are first principles from which the explanation/description of scientifically observed facts is derived.
Jo’s definition/designation of MALR as a “measurement” is correct in the sense that it’s an “experimentally observed fact”.
20
A true believer in global warming believes that CO2 traps heat. In effect, each CO2 molecule is a tiny thermos bottle holding the heat to itself. Yet, at the same time, this trapped heat warms the globe. To do that, the trapped heat must escape its trap and warm the air about it. This would seem to contradict the notion that CO2 traps heat.
Now, if CO2 is truly a tiny thermos bottle, then its external temperature will be ambient while its internal temperature rises without limit. If so, no global warming. There would be nothing but 400 ppm tiny thermos bottles who’s internal temperature simply keeps rising and who’s external temperature stays the same causing NO measurable global warming.
Apparently then, the hot spot both does not exist and the CO2 at the level of the hot spot is very hot – though we cannot measure how hot. This explains why the hot spot is really there even though we cannot see it. It also explains why we can have continued global warming even though we can’t measure it. If we stretch the idea far enough, we can use the idea to explain why the polar ice caps and glaciers are rapidly disappearing even though we can still see them and find they are, on the whole, close to normal in extent.
I suggest they are taking their scientific advice from Alice’s Mad Hatter. They have evaded the simple principle that when your thinking leads you to conclude that a thing both has and doesn’t have the same attribute in the same way, your thinking is mistaken in one or more ways. This is the most fundamental principle in logic: contradictions cannot exist. It is the foundation of all knowledge, science, and technology. It is ultimately the only thing that allows us to discover error. But, they are not using logic so none of that bothers them.
20
Intrepid, thanks, though I’m not much swung with the notion that MALR qualifies as a law of physics. It sure works because of laws of physics (as you mention), but you could say the same thing about your car. 🙂
10
intrepid_wanders:
You are plain wrong when you assert at #2:
An effect of a Law and/or an effect of a combination of two or more Laws is not a Law. If it were then every effect of everything would be a Law.
For example, the trajectory of a cannon shell is an effect of Newton’s Laws of Motion. The trajectory is an effect of the Laws and is not a Law. And the trajectory can be measured so its deviation from the expectation provided by the Laws can be used to determine e.g. side-wind and gravity fluctuations along its length.
Similarly, Ms Nova is completely and unreservedly correct when she writes:
And the fact that an estimate of lapse rate can be computed from Physical Laws does not mean lapse rate is a Physical Law (just as the fact that an estimate of a cannon shell can be computed from Physical Laws does not mean trajectory is a Physical Law).
Anyone who disputes this needs an education in the basic principles of science, so I will not bother to look at the discussion you commend.
Richard
10
I agree that the moist adiabatic lapse rate is not a law of physics; the perfect or ideal gas law is a law of physics. PV^γ=constant
10
Phillip Bratby:
At #6 you correctly state:
I agree, but I have a question.
Can you please tell me where I can find an example of a perfect gas?
Richard
PS
Please note that my question is serious and is not posted for rhetorical effect. Applying the Laws of Physics and assuming they provide adequately correct indications in the (varying) real world often generates inadequately accurate conclusions; e.g. see my missile trajectory example at #5.
10
Phillip Bratby:
In retrospect, and to avoid trolls jumping in, at #7 I should have made the trivial point that
PV/T = k
is a more common form of the Ideal Gas Law.
Richard
10
How original! A skeptic slamming skeptics of AGW! LOL!
————————-
[William – I know you are being tongue in cheek – but you do realize SkepticalScience is an ambush site don’t you? — JN ]
20
thump, thump, thump, another one bites the dust……
Thanks JO!
20
Richard Courtney:
You are correct; we need to be specific that the Ideal Gas Law is PV = NRT. As the name suggests, it is essentially theoretical, only really applicable under specific conditions such as low density and high temperature.
10
Keep up your good work, Joanne.
10
Richard S Courtney: #8
Too late Richard – see #9 🙂
10
I apologize for my ‘lapse’. Yes, indeed, a “law” is a strictly observable concept. It should never describe a mechanism or process.
As to the fallacy of law combinations, I do not concede. A classic example mentioned upstream is:
Boyle’s Law + Gay-Lussac’s Law = Combined Gas Law
Throw in Avogadro’s Law = Ideal Gas Law
10
Actually William, skeptics argue with each other all the time because they believe in logical debating of unclear issues and care about the truth.
Believers, on the other hand, simply repeat the catechisms of the AGW faith — logical discussion and respect for facts have never caught on with them.
10
My wife hates physics problems because they never solve a real problem in the real world, only problems in a virtual world where enough has been left out to make the problem solvable, but not so much (you hope!) that the answer is irrelevant.
Reminds me of the old joke where a physics problem starts, “Assume a spherical cow…”
10
intrepid_wanders:
Your entire post at #14 says:
I did not state “fallacy of law combinations”, and your assertion that I did is a ‘red herring’. At #5 I said;
Please read my comment at #5 that your comment is answering and take especial note of the quotation it contains from Ms Nova which correctly explains that ‘lapse rate’ is a process that depends on several variables (notably humidity).
Having done that, then please try to detect the logical error in your post that I quote here.
Any response to this post other than an apology to Ms Nova for your erroneous dispute of her words will demonstrate that you are a troll (there has been a team of trolls working in a relay here recently).
Richard
20
Jo wrote:
“Some thing must cause the rate to change, and that’s what matters. So what affects the lapse rate? Stuff like radiation coming in, radiation going out, latent heat being brought in, and convection stirring it all up.”
This is true when we talk about “Lapse rate” in general but when we talk about “Saturated Adiabatic lapse rate”(I never heard it called “Moist adiabatic lapse rate” when I was a working meteorologist)the key word is “adiabatic” which means no energy coming in to the parcel of air from outside so the things Jo mentions aren’t in play. In practice, once you get condensation in a parcel of moist air moving upwards the SALR is an excellent approximation to what really happens.
Some of you are a little too keen to jump down intrepid_wanders’ throat and owe him or her an apology.
20
BobC,
There are a few exceptions. Superconductors, superfluids, Bose-Einstein condensates, photons and a lot of other quantum mechanical related effects to present ‘ideal’ properties at a macroscopic level.
George
10
Thinking of the ideal gas law and enthalpy leads me to think of the ammount of heat stored in water in its various phases and we find by looking at steam tables that stored head is a combination of
1) the sensible heat (related to the temperature of water and the specific heat capacity) and
2) the latent heats of fusion and evaporation as water changes state from ice to liquid and liquid to vapour.
Keeping these two things in mind, if we imagine a situation where we evaporate 1Kg of water at 15 C and pressure of 1 atmosphere which rises 5000 metres into the atmosphere where it precipitates at a temperature of -18 C and a pressure of 0.54 Atmospheres then the heat transfered from the surface to the atmosphere would be the difference. Just using the difference in AHvap at 1 atm 2257 Kj/Kg and AHvap at 0.5 Atm 2305Kj/Kg leads to an an extra 58Kj/Kg of energy being radiated from the process of condensation in the atmosphere. A measurable negative feedback.
I am sure someone with greater expertise in atmospheric physics could translate what this means on a global scale.
10
I think the classic part of Cook’s piece is the following section:
Why do we keep seeing this over and over again from AGW supporters. Short version: Oh darn the data do not match the model… it must be the data that are wrong. Only someone with blind faith can accept this as scientific argument. It is the antithesis of scepticism which is fundamental to scientific reasoning.
Also, why do we not see the same level of doubt about temperature stations… could it be, now correct me if I am wrong, could be out on a limb here… because the temperature stations show what they want to see?
It is exasperating.
10
enthalpy,
The energy is not so much radiated away, as it is applied to heat up the water that condenses, which then radiates it away and/or transfers it to other gases in the atmosphere.
Evaporation has a very strong negative feedback effect, which is illustrated by the following plot:
http://www.palisad.com/co2/sg/wc_st.png
This is a scatter diagram of the relationship between surface temperature and atmospheric water content, as measured by satellites over the last 25 years. Each of the tiny dots (>20K samples) is the monthly average for one month and one 2.5 degree slice of latitude. The larger square dots are the averages for each 2.5 degree slice with magenta representing the northern hemisphere and blue representing the southern hemisphere.
As you can see, the effect incremental water vapor has on the temperature drops precipitously as the temperature rises, so much that it saturates at about 300K.
Empirically, there are 2 common sense reasons. First, the latent heat of evaporation removes heat from the surface, thus cooling it. The second is that rain is always cooler than the surface it’s falling on, further cooling it. This puts a surface cooling effect on both sides of the water evaporation/precipitation cycle. The data is pretty clear that these 2 effects become so strong that the surface temperature saturates. This plot is something that I believe to be positive proof of negative water vapor feedback, at least to the extent that water feedback dominates the climate system.
George
20
There’s a bunch of things that bother me about the “Skeptical Science” spiel. I’ve added some emphasis:
… then to conclude …
Surely you aren’t entitled to call anything “a basic law of physics” until after you get past the “data uncertainty” and difficult to detect stage?
I’m also bothered by the “Surface Warming over Short Time Scales” graph where there is a heavy black line just called “Theory” but all of the models are strongly biased to the low side of this black line. So if the models don’t match the theory then what exactly are the models based on? What goes into a model other than theory?
I can only conclude that some heuristic fudge factor has been injected into the models so they don’t run as high as the theory, or possibly they are just tracking input data from surface temp charts, which makes you wonder what they are modeling.
The other problem with the “Short Time Scales” graph is how they get an empirical reading over these short time scales. John Cook says “over short intervals (say months to a year)” but anyone who has even briefly looked at the surface temperature measurements knows how they can vary haphazardly over the short time scale. How can they claim a good fit for such short time scale measurements of warming? The same guys are out there saying that the recent decade of cooling is “not statistically significant”.
10
Tel,
Models tend to be based partially on theory. By this I mean there are a lot of unknown constants and variables in the various theories. These are inferred by finding the best combination, within the individual uncertainty of each, that produces a result closest to some set(s) of measured data. There is so much uncertainty in some of these ’empirical constants’, that the model can be easily forced to match past data, but at the expense of increasing the uncertainty of being able to predict the future.
George
10
co2isnotevil: I think this mechanism of radiation and mixing at altitude in the tropics is what Linzen reckons is Earth’s thermostat. It also makes the models of radiative balance considering the Earth as a black or gray body nonsense. What counts is transporting the surface heat to high altitude and in particular by moving water up there where it radiates to space. Don’t forget there’s a LOT of tropics and thousands of convective towers reaching to the tropopause every day.
Water is what counts on this planet, not CO2.
10
There once was a lady named Nova,
the warmers all thought she was over,
but no quitter she,
she rattled their tree,
and down they came falling all ova.
20
Jo,
Semantic quibbles about laws and measurements aside, there are a few things that should be pointed out.
You state that John “unwittingly disagrees with his own heroes“, on the basis that he argues that “the hot spot is not caused by the greenhouse effect. In fact the sentence which follows is “In fact, we expect to see an amplified warming trend in the troposphere no matter what’s causing the warming“.
I wouldn’t be so rude as to assume you cannot understand that John is referring to the fact that it is warming that causes the hot spot, not the greenhouse effect per se. Yes the greenhouse effect can contribute to warming, but so can solar variations, Milankovitch cycles etc. We would expect to see a tropospheric hot spot regardless of the cause of the warming. Your ‘Skeptic’s Handbook’ is rather misleading in this respect, stating, as it does, that “If greenhouse gases are warming the earth we are supposed to see the first signs of it in the patch of air 10 kilometres above the tropics“. You could have just said “If the earth is warming we are supposed to see the first signs of it in the patch of air 10 kilometres above the tropics”.
As a result of your misunderstanding of John’s article you get carried away with an argument about WV. In fact, the quote from Hansen has nothing to do with John’s simple assertion that ANY warming (not just AGW) should create a tropospheric hot spot.
In this blog you argue that:
This is strangely at odds with your conclusion in ‘The Skeptic’s Handbook’, where you assert that “Something else was causing most or all of the warming. And the models don’t know what it was“. So which is it? Is there no warming? Or as you indicate in ‘The Skeptic’s Handbook’ is something other than humans causing the warming that may or may not exist? In fact you conclusion demonstrates your ignorance on the basic physics, as it quite clearly indicates you were under the illusion that only AGW could create a tropospheric hot spot, as you appear to think that an absence of one indicates another source of warming. Anyone with a multiplicity of brain cells can see you’ve mucked up here. Time for a re-write?
One last thing: a quote from Paltridge’s study on decreasing humidity, measured by radiosonde:
I prefer to trust the satellite data, universally recognised to be far more reliable.
You also know Paltridge used a model to get his results right? And there was me thinking you hated models…
10
The models show/predict a hot spot that is not there, because the world is cooling now.
Therefore the models are wrong.
Why would then John Cook expects a “warming trend”? “No matter what” is causing it??
The last remark indicates to me that he doesn’t understand why the models are failing, but cannot admit that they are failing.
The correct scientific conclusion would be: either the logic of the models is wrong or there is an important theoretical component missing, or both.
The warming that existed until some 16 years ago was caused by increased solar radiations during the XX century, modulated by an important variation of Earth’s magnetic field, oceans oscillations, etc.
That’s what I believe Jo is implying in her comment that “something else” was causing all or most of the observed warming of last century.
Her comments seem very clear to me.
20
It is astounding that Cook is still, amongst other things, advocating the THS in the context of Model skill; I see Jo has referred to Fig 8.14; in his recent talk David Stockwell referes to Fig 8.11 at slide 22 which indicates the IPCC models are hopeless at predicting the feedback of water [in all its forms, vapour, clouds, precipitation];
http://landshape.org/data/StockwellCSP.ppt.pdf
It is beyond doubt that AGW theory has completely misunderstood water feedback; and since the climate sensitivity of CO2 increase is miniscule and declining the fact that water feedback is moderating [ie it works against temperature trend] means that AGW theory is without foundation.
I also see that Cook has referred to the Sherwood paper on wind shear; this relegates Skeptical Science to the troll category of climate discussion sites; the Sherwood paper, as well as being typical of model preference over reality in the AGW lexicon, is also one of the worst of this AGW modis operandi;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/ten-of-the-worst-climate-research-papers-a-note-from-cohenite/
I really must update this list of worst AGW papers; trouble is, I’m spoilt for choices.
20
George @27, you feign politeness oh so badly.
So what is your faith telling you? Is there warming or not? Is that warming what was predicted or not?
If you believe there is warming, is that warming caused by solely by humans? Is there no other possible cause?
10
Just to clarify; it is a myth that the tropospheric hot spot is a signature particular to anthropogenic warming.
Here is the modelled tropospheric signature from a doubling of CO2 – http://www.realclimate.org/images/2xCO2_tropical_enhance.gif
And here is the modelled signature from a 2% increase in solar forcing – http://www.realclimate.org/images/solar_tropical_enhance.gif
Spot the difference? No me neither.
10
Mark D,
My research tells me that the earth is steadily accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance – see http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml
The models have been largely accurate – see http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf and http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
As the planet is accumulating heat, humans are dramatically increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, and radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements have shown that CO2 traps heat, I think it would be fair to conclude that the warming we are witnessing is being caused almost exclusively by humans (and the accompanying feedbacks).
There are other possible causes. The main one is the sun, but as the sun’s output has remained stable since 1970 and temperatures have continued to rise, this would seem unlikely. The same applies to cosmic rays.
11
“There are other possible causes. The main one is the sun, but as the sun’s output has remained stable since 1970 and temperatures have continued to rise, this would seem unlikely. The same applies to cosmic rays”.
You’ll have a hard time proving that, George.
Read here that the sun’s output in the 20th. century was the highest in hundreds if not thousands of years
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sunspot_record_041027.html
That’s just one reference from a quick Yahoo search. There are many more if you care to check.
1998 showed the highest number of high energy X-class flares on record, 87 from memory. It’s possible to make a case that those flares caused the very strong El Nino of that year.
Not to mention that for the last two years Ol’ Sol has gone sleepy-byes with record low sun spot numbers. A very famous person (Phil Jones) disagrees with you about temperature over the last 15 years. No significant warming, he reckons.
20
Indulge an ignoramus please. The tropics warm, moist air rises, clouds form, storm clouds convey heat to their upper levels and that heat dissipates to the upper atmosphere and beyond. Why is is necessary to have an accumulation of heat at the 10 km level? Why won’t convection via storms carry it away?
Second point. I had the priviledge of hearing David Archibald speak at an Anthony Watts presentation and of reading his little book “The Past and Future of Climate”. David has put a very convincing argument that we are on the verge of a cooling period brought about by a quiet solar cycle. The sun was at it’s most active in 8000 yrs during the 12.5 year long SC 23. SC 24 is shaping up to be very quiet and short at 9.5 years. The historical record shows a close correlation between short SC and lower temperatures and correspondingly higher temps associated with long SC.
The current discussions over siting of reporting stations and hot spots could well become totally irrelevant with the cooling effects of SC23. Such cooling would completely destroy the theory of AGW and place the sun in it’s rightful place as the driver of climate. Sure, we will have predictions of the warming commencing when the sun becomes active again but then that should simply prove the point. We need a few more years for the cooling trend to be established to the extent that even the BoM and CSIRO can’t deny it. In the meantime expect data manipulation to run rampant. It would be wise to download as much raw data as can be found before it becomes “lost”.
Julia Gillard, our new PM, has said that she wants to gain a consensus of the people on CC although she is a believer in MMCC. I wonder will that desire to reach agreement include listening to the likes of Plimer,Carter and Jo or does it mean being brainwashed by Steffen and Flannery?
10
George, indulge me please, explain “Co2 traps heat”?
Consider what Lionell has said @ post 3.
Also please reference other than J. Hanson as you’ll find that here political activists are not always respected for their science, if you don’t mind.
10
George does not appear to have heard of clouds as he does not include them in the factors that could influence global temperatures significantly. Clearly it must be CO2, and CO2 alone that is causing all this warming. Irrefutable…
No, we don’t think it is fair to throw out all other factors that could be in play here George… it would be incredibly naive to assume that all else is equal in the climate system. I see you have unswerving fate in the assumed feedbacks as well. Expect not so much support for those assumptions based on assumed model parameters here.
10
Mark D:
…and let’s not evern get started on the joke that is Real Climate. A web site best known for its “moderation” prowess in respect of all opinions not aligned with the authors and not easily refutable. They don’t like answering the difficult questions at RC. I know from first hand experience.
10
This is more to do with yesterday’s topic but I put it here to ensure you see it. Nigel Calder again comes up with a brilliant post on his blog.
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/wisdom-of-kilgore-trout/#more-1220
10
Bulldust, good point!
I think that RC hits must be down because it appears “they” are here drumming up business. I suppose we should treat them with similar “kindness”
Maybe Rereke (with his professional talents) can confirm my idea that the recent increase in Troll activity here, is due to the push for cap and trade voting in the USA in the next months? The warmists are worried about the political winds-a-blowing.
10
BTW I see RC is running an emotive little thread comparing global CO2 emissons to 5,000 Gulf oil spills. These guys expect to take them as serious scientists when they blatantly go for emotive schmaltz like that? It would be one thing if it were truly a scietific blog, but clearly they are more interested in evoking emotional responses.
Of course this is far surpassed by their latest effort defending the indefensible in their article about the PNAS paper:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/06/what-do-climate-scientists-think/
Seriously Geroge, try to find a web site worth reading… I only go to RC to have a laugh at the pompous antics of the Gavin, Mike, Eric and the rest of the mob. They can’t begin to explain their attrocious behaviour as witnessd by all in the ClimateGate emails.
10
Your research is inadequate George; OHC is the last resort of the scoundrels of AGW but it is a strange story being told; the official OHC data shows a decline since the ARGO epiphany;
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
The ‘surge’ in OHC immediately following the ARGO transition is obviously a measurement error:
http://landshape.org/enm/possible-error-in-ohc/#more-3180
The argument now coming from the AGW side of the fence is that abyssmal ocean heating is continuing apace despite top 700 metre cooling; for instance see the Johnson et al paper and note the concessions to limited data and mesurement techniques:
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/gcj_3f.pdf
However the new paper by von Schuckmann showing rapid increase in OHC below 2000 metres from 2003 to 2008 has been the talking point; there appear to be 2 main problems with the Schuckmann paper; firstly, how heat gets to the abysmmal depths without leaving a heating signature in the upper ocean which as NASA and various papers including by Willis and Levitus show is cooling; there may however be an answer to this question in the above paper by Johnson et al, which provides a mechanism for abyssal heating by non-ubiquitous deep convection currents.
However, the second problem is more profound; Cazaneve and Ablain have written 2 recent papers about steric sea level rise, which has a declining rate since 2003; The Cazaneve paper calculates steric sea level rise (thermal plus salinity) from 2003 to 2008 from Altimetry minus mass balance (two different ways) as 0.31mm/year, and independently calculates the value by thermal expansion from ARGO data as 0.37mm/year. This uses 0-900m ARGO data. It concludes:-
“The steric sea level estimated from the difference between altimetric (total) sea level and ocean mass displays increase over 2003–2006 and decrease since 2006. On average over the 5 year period (2003–2008), the steric contribution has been small (on the order of 0.3+/−0.15 mm/yr), confirming recent Argo results (this study and Willis et al., 2008).”
The point here is you can’t have rapid OHC increase as found by Schuckmann with a decline in steric sea level rise.
The other issue with a rise in the EEB is that it requires a decline in TOA outgoing LW radiation; that is by no means what is happening with the Lindzen and Choi paper showing an increase in outgoing LW; the fact is Trenberth and honest leading pro-AGW scientists have not got a clue where the extra heat from AGW is going; the problem is it is the models which are claiming this extra heat not the reality.
10
Lawrie (#33): “Julia Gillard, our new PM, has said that she wants to gain a consensus of the people on CC although she is a believer in MMCC. I wonder will that desire to reach agreement include listening to the likes of Plimer, Carter and Jo or does it mean being brainwashed by Steffen and Flannery?”
Lawrie, I had not heard this. It is truly sad. I mean, I know she’s a politician, and as such public opinion is key to her. But “consensus of the people” is NOT where she should be heading. Consensus of the people will only tell her what stance is most likely to get her re-elected, it won’t tell her what is the best course of action. She should try thinking instead.
10
Steve@41,
Quite agree Steve. Heard Julia on Radio national yesterday say she had phoned Obama for a chat and was pleased because they shared the same visions.
All the more reason why I would not support Labor policies.
10
Off topic but since there seems to be a few AGWers having a sniff around I’d like to offer this challenge.
When I look at temperature graphs that have the decency to extend back past 1930 I dont see straight lines, I see saw tooth graphs. Since that saw tooth trend does not seem to correlate too well with CO2, I think I can assume its natural. OK, so there is a slight rise in the saw teeth but they go way back to 1900 and I think one could assume that this is a global trend that goes right back to the global minimum at the end of the Little Ice Age. Have you seen the glacial retreats in Europe and North America pre-1900? So that trend doesn’t correlate with CO2 either, so that must be natural too. “Homogenised” temperature graphs that still show these two natural trends and then claim they are CO2 related are dishonest. Pure and simple.
So here’s the challenge – Take a temperature graph that goes back pre 1930 to 2010 and remove all the trends that are natural and show me what the residual is that is “unnatural.” Or are we supposed to be stopping natural climate change too now? If that’s the case, explain to me again – How, if the two dominant trends are clearly independent of CO2, is stopping CO2 emissions going to turn these trends around?
10
Richard,
JoAnne Nova turned down my suggestion to IMPROVE her knowledge of the adiabatic phase lapse in order to increase the understanding of the group as a whole. JoAnne Nova has produced a piece of literature that I can refer people to. I am attempting to create a diagram/CGI that demonstrates these chaotic systems so that awakeners like “Lawrie” have a solid concept to grasp upon to.
I will not apologize for suggesting that two or three laws combined give us a “foggy notion” that is happening in the REAL WORLD. Your ego is clouding your judgement. Fight the parameters, not the laws (even combined).
I hope that the following “apology” is sufficient…
“very likely disgusted”
10
George: #27
June 26th, 2010 at 10:49 am
And at #30 you say..
That’s just not true now is it George? Might you be trying to change the goal posts? tch tch, you naughty boy you.
Some quotes from the IPCC AR4 WG1 are in order.
From the FAQ’s document, page 120-121..
And from chapter 9 page 674..
From the same page…
You need to read up on chapter 9 of AR4 George. Specifically, you need to study fig 9.1 on page 675.
Alternatively, you can educate the rest of us by telling us what other types of warming would produce a tropospheric hot spot response.
10
Of course Joanne could write a paper herself on the subject and publish it – but as we know sceptics don’t publish – http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=681:be-sceptical-of-climate-sceptics&catid=112:blogs – even on the one occasion they do it turns into a McLean et al roadwreck
Especially hard if friends are doing all the real writing.
And very inconsiderate to not inform us that any warming from any source would give us a hotspot.
George above has said it all.
What bunk !
10
“William Pinn: How original! A skeptic slamming skeptics of AGW! LOL!
Actually William, skeptics argue with each other all the time because they believe in logical debating of unclear issues and care about the truth.
Believers, on the other hand, simply repeat the catechisms of the AGW faith — logical discussion and respect for facts have never caught on with them.”
I know, BobC. I was doing a bit of satire. Note the LOL in my comment. It is ironic that a self-proclaimed skeptic would slam climate skeptics.
10
@George
I don’t know what your real name is but you are the latest in a series of trolls that have been visiting this site lately. You are obviously part of a guerilla campaign to disrupt this site and those who post here with mind numbing minutia of a nature that is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
My mission, and I have decided to accept, is to soften you up for the intellectual heavyweights that often post here. I look at it this way, things could be worse, I could be you! Before we get started, are there any mental impairments or shortcomings I should be aware of? You see, after you have been “processed” by me and you start becoming aware of the magnitude of your transgressions and the depth of your folly as well as the propensity of your apparent habit of waxing ignorant, I do not want to bear the responsibility for any actions you may take against your own person should you, by some strange twist of fate, experience a moment of clarity and be forced by the weight of your own conscience to face the consequences of your own intellectual intrangency!
You embarrassed yourself and stepped on your own tongue by saying:
So, warming causes the hot spot? Wow, fancy that! The problem is that the “hotspot” in the troposphere is non existent and therein lies the problem for AGW lemmings such as you and the rest of your intellectually challenged ilk! Dude, it is the AGW theory that predicates global warming in conjunction with the hypothesized hot spot. You know, the non existent hot spot? The other influences that you mention are independent of the alleged effects of CO2 on the climate. If CO2 played such a dominant force in the grand scale of the earth’s climate then the other influences would have to be massive to overcome that comic book superhero of the warministas, CO2. Yet, the silence is deafening when the climate cabal and its useful idiots, such as you, are pressed to identify these overpowering climate forcings. Solar variations, Milankovitch cycles, etc.? Homeboy, the depth of your ignorance is a chasm that searches for a bottom. The AGW proponents wrongly trivialize the influence of solar radiation. The Milankovitch cycles only come into play when there is a land mass at one or both of the poles and there is an impediment to the flow of ocean caused by the alignment of the continents. Otherwise, with but a few possible exceptions, ice ages cannot occur. (Don’t you trolls exchange notes? If you did then I could avoid the inconvenience of having to repeat myself!).
Your post then continues with a torrent of illogic that beggars the imagination that ends with a disappointing non crescendo:
From: http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~hopkins/wx-inst/wxi-raob.htm The radiosonde is a balloon-borne instrument platform with radio transmitting capabilities. Originally named a radio-meteorograph, the instrument is now referred to as a radiosonde, a name apparently derived by H. Hergesell from a combination of the words “radio” for the onboard radio transmitter and “sonde”, which is messenger from old English.
I hate to break the “bubble” which best describes your intellectual inability of your brain to form an intelligent thought but the satellite data which you authoritatively refer to is actually in substantial agreement with the balloon (radiosonde) data you discount. Such an incongruity in your pathetic attempt to attack Jo’s argument should be an embarrassment to the wannabe climate gurus who have done such a piss poor job in preparing you for your intellectual kamakaze mission!
Yet there is more stupidity!
Real Climate? Good God, man! You would do better quoting the National Tattler or some Sunday tabloid! You remind me of some communist Party apparatchik quoting Pravda as if it were the unvarnished truth. You are in need of some serious help! Hey there, oh deluded one, please quote me the model that ever correctly forecast future weather!
Your “research”? Heat does not accumulate in the atmosphere and the ocean shows no sign of doing so. The heat has gone AWOL! Have you ever noticed on most nights that it tends to cool off a bit? Also, winter is cooler than summer and it seems to happen on a consistent basis. It is a good thing because if the heat “accumulated” instead of reradiating into space the world would have fried to a crisp.
If I were an attorney trying to commit you to an insane asylum I would rest my case on that ridiculous quote alone! Hansen’s forecasts have been wrong and you have exposed yourself as the AGW rube that you are. Jim “world to end at ten, film at eleven” Hansen is a candidate for fraud prosecution. Geez, you trolls should be better prepared! Butt, then you were obviously expendable for the greater good of the “cause”!
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is analogous to the linoleum on the first floor of a 100 story skyscraper. Man’s contribution is a scratch in the aforementioned linoleum best viewed with a microscope. Again, the planet is not “accumulating” heat. Can you show empirical evidence that the earth is accumulating heat and, if so, that humans are “dramatically” contributing to the CO2 content of the atmosphere? If not, you have committed the fallacy of “Begging The Question”.
And the empirical evidence would be? Don’t strain that 1200 cc. brain of yours as there isn’t any proof, you dolt! Another fallacy, the deductive fallacy!” If so, … then…” Logic dictates that you prove that there is warming that can only be caused by humans and no other factors.
Well, congratulations, you finally spoke the truth! Unfortunately, you continued with your imbecilic post! You continued with unsubstantiated claims and suppositions.
You remind me of Commander McBrag from the Bullwinkle cartoon. I can picture you in a housecoat with a pipe pontificating about myriad topics of which your ignorance is gargantuan!
If I were you, George (thank God I am not) I would quit while I was ahead. There are intellectual dynamos that frequent this site that you do not want to even contemplate tangling with!
10
What Bunk:
June 26th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Jo is an accomplished presenter of scientific information. In fact, she built her early career on it. To discount what she says because she hasn’t been published is another attempt by the pack of trolls who have been frequently posting on this site to deflect our attention from the evidence which completely falsifies the AGW hypothesis. It is also another lame appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).
Richard Courtney often posts here. He has had papers published in peer reviewed literature as have many “skeptical” scientists. That is amazing considering the concerted effort by the criminal climate cabal to prevent it from happening. But hey, don’t take my word for it! From one of the chief conspirators at the CRU”
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see
it.
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Mike,
For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn’t that strongly worded as the first author
is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
It isn’t peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
because
the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn’t
happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn’t) and doing
this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40’s trends in the lower atmosphere
are all physically consistent where NCEP’s are not – over eastern US.
I can send if you want, but it won’t be out as a report for a couple of months.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [email protected]
NR4 7TJ
UK
10
George @ 31:
Next time you quote Hansen, remember his innate ability to fudge the numbers:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980-sml.gif
If I wanted to know the climate of the past, I would consult a geologist, if I wanted to predict future climate, I’d currently be best served by a.. geologist.
George, you’d be better informed by watching the 4 part series of Bob Carter, instead of trying to bunk Jo Nova:
Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 1 of 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
10
What Bunk: #46
June 26th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
See my post at #45 and Eddys at #48
The strategy of shifting goal posts has failed every time so far. Try a different one. Oh, and do let the IPCC know that THEIR hot spot hypotheses is fallacious.
10
@ Baa Humbug
Great post at #45. I have been preoccupied (beer) and I should have hit the refresh button before i posted as you covered all the bases quite well. It could have been worse, I could have composed a song (e.g. Gilligan’s Island theme song) only to realize that you had beat me to the punch (all my thought stolen by the not so ancient)! I have had enough of these trolls and I am contemplating taking the gloves off! Well, at least it was therapeutic intellectually pummeling George the Troll into silly putty! 😉
10
What Bunk @ 46. This list of papers is probably not up to date but it should it keep you going for a while and should educate you abit
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
10
This nonsense being sprouted by 46 should be nipped in the bud; there is not an equivalence between a hot spot from any source and a THS from “well mixed greenhouse gases”. AGW’s THS is clearly shown in Fig 9.1(c), p675 of AR4. The THS theory is also plain; a heating surface from ghg backradiation will warm the tropical troposphere to a greater extent due to Stefan-Boltzmann increase in radiation from the warming surface, combined with the greater amount of water vapor at that level causing a decline in the moist adiabat; the extra CO2 will also push the troposphere higher and cool the stratosphere as the extra CO2 emits at a higher level and that emission takes energy/heat with it.
None of this is happening. Some salient points:
1 A Solar THS would heat down not up and warm the Stratosphere.
2 To get an equivalent solar hot spot AGW has to increase solar output by 2%:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
This is patently absurd since the average solar variation during a solar cycle is about 0.1%
3 Fig 9.1(c) shows ghg caused THS having warming of between 0.8-1.2C based on the obstensible temp change from 1890-1999. This has not happened; the Tropical troposphere has warmed less than the surface which has warmed less than 0.7C.
4 The moist adiabat has not changed.
5 The Stratosphere has not cooled but if, as AGW demands, it were cooling that would cause global cooling. The reason for this is that a cooler, denser Stratosphere would both increase the jet stream and move it towards the equator; this would increase the size of the polar circulation cells and shrink the equatorial and temperate ones; a more powerful jet stream would also block heat transfer to the poles thus accelerating polar cooling.
An increased THS is junk and since it is a mandatory part of AGW, so too is AGW.
10
Hi Eddy.
Long time since we conversed.
Go ahead take the gloves off mate, I’m right beside you, shoulder to shoulder.
10
George and all the silly numbskulls should have a look at this multi nation peer reviewed science from the NGRICP (2004), this is what you call real increase in temp plus no increase in co2.
Our present increase in temp is 0.7c over the last 160 years, but 115,000 years ago as the warmer Eemian moved into the last ice age there was an increase in temp of 5c in just 50 years.
Then at the start of the Holocene 10,500 years ago the temp increased by 10c in just 50 years.
Not a bad increase compared to 0.7c or seven and fourteen times our present increase in temp in a third of the time.
Remember too our present increase comes after the end of a minor ice age, just makes it more dismal again.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25353
10
Eddy Aruda @ 48
Excellent post, I think if George was half way to being intelligent he would now retreat. Somehow I doubt he will, possibly his masters wont let him.
Your reference to the climategate emails @ 49 will also miss it’s mark, as true believers see nothing more sinister going on there than two school children having a smoke in the toilets. Nothing to see there move along.
10
@ Baa Humbug
Although we have not conversed I have noticed and admired your efforts to help and assist Jo in the seemingly endless fight against the AGW dreadnaught. I am honored to be considered worthy to stand by your side in this ongoing battle against the misanthropic legions that are trying to drag us all down to that green hell where free thought is strangled and all are forced to exchange the truth for a lie.
10
@ Bob Malloy
Thank you for your kind words and your keen insight into the dark soul of a troll.
10
You go girl! Sack the bugger with facts:-)
10
NASA DATA SETS………..
On the subject of surface stations, at http://data.giss.gov/gistemp/station_data one can click anywhere on a world map and bring up temperature graphs of the surface stations in that area used by NASA’s GISS to help calculate global mean temperature.
For Tasmania it appears that up until 1993 there were 25 stations being used. At the end of 1992 most of those stations were dropped for data gathering purposes, leaving only the ones at Launceston and Hobart Airports for the next six years. This wiped out many rural areas, all our high stations and also those on the colder, more exposed West Coast.
Two coastal stations appear to have been resurrected around 2008 – Eddystone Point on the warmer north-east tip of Tasmania and Cape Bruny on Bruny Island south of Hobart in the D’entrecasteaux Channel. They are probably now automated.
I have no idea why so many stations were dropped all at once, but interestingly, in examining the charts I found that almost all had recorded a sharp drop of between 1.2 to 1.4 degrees Celsius in the four years from 1988 to 1992, which of course would have been a rather uncomfortable fact for those pushing the AGW theory. Without the colder areas and combined with the known UHI effect at airports, Tasmania would presumably have been contributing warmer mean temperatures to the global calculations after 1992.
However, at the risk of being accused of “cherry-picking”, Launceston Airport may still be an inconvenient truth for the AGW lobby, particularly Tasmania’s “catastrophic man-made global warming” alarmists, Christine Milne, Bob Brown and the Greens. The trend line has been remarkably stable and refusing to record any local or global warming in that area. The first recorded annual mean temperature was 12.1 degrees in 1939 and 70 years later in 2009, 11.8 degrees. The 1939 mean temperature has only been exceeded five times in that 70 years and only twice with any significance – by 0.4 of a degree in 1962 and 0.6 in 1988.
A brief look at other parts of Australia show that many stations were dropped after 1992.
It would be interesting to see the results if other posters here checked the stations in their own areas. Any takers?
=================
I have also noticed that the NASA GISS website has 2 data sets for each station. One set is ‘after combining sources at the same location’ and the second set is ‘after homogeneity added’.
The first data set seems to be close to the original raw data but the second data set is their adjustment to the first. In many cases, the second set has the earlier temps decreased so that the warming looks worse than the original data set.
However, sometime in the past month or so, I noticed for many Australian stations the second data set has been changed to reflect the first set.
Try this. De Bilt in Holland is the only station used for that country. Check the ‘adjustment’ from data set 1 to data set 2.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=633062600003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=633062600003&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1
10
This blog is wonderful…. I like how intrepid_wanders, poses a question. Nothing wrong in positing something.
… and straight away the wrong assumptions by Intrepid are corrected in a courteous way with excellent examples.
Richard S Courtney’s comparison of MALR to that of the trajectory of a canon ball, ballistic curve….. Beautiful example. Very clear.
Measurement of effect…. Not a law of physics.
10
Ross – I’m sorry E&E isn’t a publication. It’s a magazine for sceptics who can’t get published elsewhere. Soft reviewing standards.
And face it guys – you beloved Aussie sceptics don’t publish. Can’t – won’t.
Jo’s only writing this as her boyfriend has penned it for her. Wake up. If it’s any good – get it published. I won’t be. Just more blog nonsense to distract from record Arctic melt and rising satellite temperatures. Despite a weaker Sun. It’s a diversion guys.
So a solar warming should have the same footprint. Sceptics love satellite data – can’t get enough of that UAH data. But suddenly for the hot spot ruse it must be wrong.
Come on – you’re all over the place. What a hoot. Which is it?
10
“Cook is a study in faith, hope, and flawed reasoning”.
You captured something there Jo.
They are busy propping things up with these confidence tricks lately. As if rallying the troops to stem the erosion of the belief system, they are doing these little numbers with a feigned authority and nonchalance to calm the uneasiness setting in everywhere. Just keep dissecting them like this and it keeps listing. A bit like the old cowboy movies – whenever they pop their heads up they get shot. They either give up or die.
10
63; “So a solar warming should have the same footprint”; I have replied to this nonsense at 54; ‘what bunk’ I strongly suspect you are related to luke from Jen’s place.
10
Classic elitism WB. In your world it is the name of the Publication and not the quality of the Science…
Plus, If you had read the CRU emails. ClimateGate, you would know the problems of cronyism within the peer review process.
Please read those so that you are informed on the subject and aware of the problems;-)
10
What Bunk @ 63 They are all peer reviewed papers . We know from the climategate emails what level of peer review applied to some of papers in Science and Nature etc.
As for your other childish comments –grow up and go back to Real Climate.
10
What Bunk:
You make a fleeting appearance like one of those film cowboys Matty @ 64 refers to, shoot from a scatter gun hoping to make a hit, not by providing any real science.
[snip… OK. Let’s stick to science or Rhetoric ok? — JN]
10
Apologies for the OT subject but Richard North has posted this.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/06/perverse-consequences.html
Let alone the inanity of warmist theory. If this is their idea of sound, sustainable energy policy then they really are moon-screaming, barking mad!
What’s that? Oh, we already knew that.
10
What Bunk @ 63
Please see the link on a memorandum given to the parliamentary committee from the editor of E&E to see the real facts about the state of peer reviewed publications. It seems like the E&E publications have a true scientific attitude to what peer reviewed publications should be.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
10
Jenifer @ 61
Before you place any credibility on NASA “raw data” read Case Study 12 of D’Aleo and Watts (“show this to Jim then hide it” page 95)
which shows that it is apparently standard practice for them to alter “raw data” and then delete the original and still call it “raw”.
And when you’ve digested that read
Follow this link to where NASA itself says its data is even worst that the Uni of East Anglia for heaven’s sake.
10
Sorry – Made a complete ass of the links But you’ll get the message This is the second link
10
Now come on guys – are you serious? E&E as a journal of quality !
Bob says “not by providing any real science.” – well gee do you think you’re getting any here. It’s an echo chamber for back slapping sceptics.
Brendon has scorched you guys in recent days. It’s embarrassing to watch.
George above proved the philosophical bankruptcy of your intellectual position.
Anyway if you guys want to get your science advice from TV personalities, boyfriends, cranky old geologists and misc disaffected retirees go ahead.
10
CameronH – here’s your E&E quality for you http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
10
RE: What Bunk at #73
“Philosophical bankruptcy of your intellectual position”.
We aren’t about philosophy here at all. Underneath your verbiage, it’s about ALL you ARE about. I’m glad you call yourself “What Bunk”
10
Intrepid Wanders:
I thank you for your clear statement at #44 that you are a troll.
Since you both admit and demonstrate that you are a troll, I shall not bother to read anything else you post and I suggest that others do the same.
Richard
PS I fully understand and accept why you have not answered the points I made in my post. Trolls never do.
10
What bunk:
I always get great pleasure at the frothy-mouthed apoplexy exhibited by posters like you. It really irks the fascists that someone dares to resist “assimilation”.
[snip –JN]
10
Jennifer @61.
I checked your references. When they adjust they adjust. Why would the temp in 1880 suddenly drop 1.5 or 1.6 degrees. Well the trend line looks like it’s warming where before there was nothing outstanding in the late 20th century. The pivot point ( my word) appears to be about 1956. Is that date significant? or is it a convenient point to work back from? Has anyone asked GISS the purpose of this adjustment?
What I fear is that as more and more sceptical types ask the inconvenient questions will GISS and BoM here start deleting historic raw data so we can’t look at it?
I think you have raised an interesting point about our need to check all the Australian stations and to collect as much raw data as we can. I have absolutely no confidence in either CSIRO or BoM to play straight. CSIROs latest missive “State of the Climate” is nothing but pure AGW propaganda. On page 2 for example they graph the number of record hot days per decade. Most occured in the current decade. Mind you they only chart the past 50 years although BoM has records going back over 100 years. Why? The 1930s would be hotter than the 2000s. Pathetic really but that folks is the level of “science” from our pre-eminent scientific organisation. When I asked them about the selective use of data I was referred to such sites as RealClimate.
10
@ What bunk
[ snip — please guys can we stick to the topic a bit and try not to get to colourful? Essentially Scott suspects that What Bunk can’t read all that well, and suggests that he might have to help Brendon and George who have been corrected ad lib by everyone else here. — JN]
10
Eddy Aruda and Baa Humbug:
Great responses to the foolish person(s) posting here as “George”. However, with respect, I point out that you omitted to comment on the most stupid of the errors by George.
At #27 George asserts:
OK. But even George admits the ‘hot spot’ is missing. So, if – as George asserts – “it is warming that causes the hot spot” then the absence of the hot spot indicates there is no warming.
Which is it that George wants to claim,
(a) the absence of the hot spot indicates there has been no global warming from any cause,
or
(b) the absence of the hot spot indicates there has been no global warming from a human cause?
Please note that if (a) is true then (b) must also be true. So, in either case, George’s assertion that “it is warming that causes the hot spot” is an assertion that there has been no global warming from a human cause.
I really do wonder how these trolls became so intellectually disabled.
Richard
10
Cohenite:
I write to apologise that my post at #80 failed to mention your excellent post at #54. This was an oversight on my part and not intended as a slightin any way.
Sorry.
Richard
10
In news that is weather, not climate, today was Perth’s second coldest morning since records began, the coldest was in 2006. Yep bring on that warming 🙂
10
What Bunk:
You say
You would prefer we get it from Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore?
[snip]
10
Richard S Courtney: #80
June 26th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
I always learn something new when you post regularly Richard. Heck, I’m still reading some of your old stuff at the late great John L Daly site.
Isn’t it amazing, ten years on but nothing new, absolutely nothing new from the warmists. Still missing the hot spot, still looking for missing heat, still pointing at receding glaciers and ice sheets and still pointing at unusual weather events as evidence of AGW.
10
What Bunk:
At #63 you mistakenly (or deliberately falsely) assert:
As a Member of the Editorial Board of E&E I can assure you that your assertions are wrong as to be laughable.
The “reviewing standards” of E&E are much, much more stringent than the populist science journals such as Nature and Science.
For example, the thoroughly discredited ‘hockey stick’ papers of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH) were published in Nature despite refusal of MBH to reveal their source data. These papers would have been rejected for publication in E&E because the refusal to reveal source data prevents proper review of the work the paper purported to present. Therefore, the “reviewing standards” of E&E would have rejected those very flawed papers from publication prior to their presentations for reviews.
However, the first refutation of that erroneous work by MBH was published in E&E (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 24, pp 751-771 (2003)). And E&E published what is perhaps the most important of the studies by McIntyre S & McKitrick (M&M) of that work by MBH (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 16, no.1 (2005)).
Other serious scientific journals adopt the high “reviewing standards” of E&E. For example, Physical Transactions B of the Royal Society does. So, when Briffa published a similar paper to those of MBH in that journal its Editor demanded provision of the source data or retraction of the paper: this resulted in the so-called ‘Yamal Controversy’ because examination of source data revealed that Briffa’s findings for past temperatures of the entire Northern Hemisphere were generated by analysis of a single (and ‘cherry picked’) tree.
It is to be hoped that the populist journals will overcome their present control by the CRU cabal and thus become able to adopt the high and rigorous standads of peer review practiced by E&E and similar serious scientific journals.
And it could be hoped that AGW supporters would stop sprinkling blatant lies across the blogosphere.
Richard
10
Seems you can have a consensus of one now:
http://news.suite101.com/article.cfm/new-global-warming-scandal-consensus-on-sun-is-one-expert-a253855
10
Richard @ 85
I got the impression from CA that the Royal Society had to be prodded by some of their members to enforce their own data archiving rules.
10
Everything you are reading on this blog is published. It is available for viewing by any member of the public, anywhere on Earth.
10
Hi all,
Lots of interesting comments, which I thank you for. I suppose it’s only to be expected that anyone disagreeing with the zeitgeist of a particular website will be declared a troll – seems a pity though. Suffice to say I’m not in anyone’s pay, I haven’t been sent here by anyone, and I’m not part of some determined plan to bring down the ‘skeptics’. I just have an interest in climate change – something of a hobby – so I like to correct mistakes and have my own point of view challenged in turn.
I’m rather busy fixing a motorbike at the moment so can’t respond to all your put downs, but if I could just respond to Richard at #80, as it appears he alone has managed to point out the most stupid of my errors.
Richard,
The confusion which my post perhaps creates is simply a result of having to grapple with Jo Nova’s own internal contradictions. As I pointed out, in the article above she writes:
And yet in the ‘Skeptic’s Handbook’ she is vigorously defending, she writes:
As you can see from my initial post, I posed to her a question similar to that which you now pose to me:
I can appreciate the issues which you raise, but I was merely refracting Nova’s own arguments.
The existence of these mutually exclusive arguments comes as no surpris;, in fact Jo makes something of a habit of ruining her own arguments. The four central arguments of the aforementioned ‘Skeptic’s Handbook’ are:
1) CO2 isn’t causing the observed warming;
2) CO2 doesn’t cause warming;
3) The observed warming that CO2 isn’t causing isn’t happening, and;
3) The CO2 that doesn’t cause warming is already causing as much of the observed warming that isn’t happening as it can.
Each of those arguments in themselves are worthy of discussion, but to put them all in the same document, where they busily undermine each other, in an attempt to disprove AGW, strikes me a bit silly.
I can only apologise for my inferred intellectual disability and hope you have the good grace to waste your superior intellect and inestimable talents corresponding with me.
Yours,
George
10
And a quick one to Eddy, who wrote:
Actually Eddy, regarding humidity, the radiosonde data at the tropics does not agree with the satellite data. If you’d read Paltridge (2009) ‘Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data’ – http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf – then you would know this.
If your interested, try comparing that data with the data used in this study – http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~kaas/forc&feedb2008/Articles/Soden.pdf
No need to apologise.
10
Classic troll post George, sentence parsing, quote mining, hair splitting.
Zzzzz…
10
George:
At #89 you write to me (claiming you are addressing my post at #80) saying:
No, I will not until you answer the substantive point in my post at #80. I recognise from your writings here that you have a severe lack of mental ability, so – to avoid straining your clearly few operating brain cells by trying to find it – I quote the point for you.
You have
1.
not answered either question, and
2.
not disputed the clear logic that says “in either case, George’s assertion that “it is warming that causes the hot spot” is an assertion that there has been no global warming from a human cause”.
Do those two things and I may consider it worth my time to discuss with you. Otherwise, go away, troll.
Richard
10
Dear Richard,
Thank you for taking the time. And thank you for providing me with the quote – no doubt I would have been here all day searching for it.
In answer to your question; I have not ‘admitted’ the hot spot is missing, in fact I’ve made no comment on whether it exists or not. In fact the study I just quoted – http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~kaas/forc&feedb2008/Articles/Soden.pdf – would indicate that it does. However, I agree that the available evidence for a tropospheric hot spot is not very strong. As a sceptic, I accept that this puts a hole in the AGW theory.
I base my conclusions on the weight of evidence, but the more that evidence gets knocked the more uncertain I become, constantly revising my viewpoint based on the latest findings and discoveries. I note that there are a number of problems with Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, and yet it has not been dismissed. It is perhaps an incomplete theory which has nevertheless emerged as a highly successful model of gravitation and cosmology.
I think the difficulty in demonstrating the existence of a tropospheric hot spot is one of the biggest problems faced by the AGW theory. Not that that should matter; theories aren’t football teams, no need to support one through thick and thin. As it stands I believe the weight of evidence rests behind AGW; I understand you disagree. I will reassess my stance as more facts come to light.
I certainly haven’t disputed the clear logic that you wield. All I have done is demonstrate that my argument was refracting Nova’s own internal contradictions. Perhaps you can appreciate this and offer comment?
Yours,
George
10
‘Classic troll post George, sentence parsing, quote mining, hair splitting.
Zzzzz…’
And apparently, once again, avoiding answering specific questions re: Richard #92
10
George #93… If you agree that the observations do not substantiate the “fingerprint” of Anthropogenic Co2’s effect on the climate…. Why waste so many sentences obscuring that fact????
Also, I can’t see your point about Jo Nova being hypocritical in this post as opposed to her booklet….. Could you make you point more succinctly please.
10
J.Hansford,
Of course. Very simply, in ‘The Skeptic’s Handbook’ she says that the absence of a tropospheric hot spot indicates that something other than GHGs are causing the warming – quote “Conclusion: Something else was causing most or all of the warming. And the models don’t know what it was.” And yet here she states that “The obvious reading we take from the measurements [the lack of a tropospheric hot spot] is that the theoretical feedback that’s meant to drive the catastrophe doesn’t occur no matter what forcing is at work.“, i.e. there is no warming.
These statements are obviously contradictory. Is Jo claiming there is warming or not? As I pointed out in my post at #89, these internal contradictions abound in ‘The Skeptic’s Handbook’.
10
Mark @86 Good link!
Circular logic, circular (self) review, Consensus of one.
IPCC = Incredible Pile of Cow Crap
*
*
*
*
*
George @ 89
Your problem is that you assume Jo to be the “authority” because warmists like yourself always need an authority. Recall that this is a blog, it is a skeptical blog, Jo CAN rightfully hold all of those opinions at the same time primarily because the crap (data) from your side is not trustworthy.
For example, I am still waiting to see trustworthy data that I could call “undeniable proof” that there is ANY warming. At the same time I could (as a skeptic) accept (for the moment) some evidence you produce showing there is modest warming and even concede for the sake of discussion that your evidence is worthy. Do you understand the difference?
Picking on Jo over this point is silly. It is typical of warmist trolls though, to attempt personal ridicule instead of substance.
Why don’t you instead go back and defend your own stupid at #30:
Hint: look at #54 above by cohenite and what Richard Courtney has pointed out about your sense of logic @ 80 before you type.
while your at it, if you don’t mind, explain why you and a half dozen zealot trolls have descended here this week? (you being just the hobbyist and all)?
10
Oh I’m sorry guys. Really who cares about the hotpsot. So boring.
[Snip — Yes I’ve snipped people from both sides. No hint of scientific content or rhetoric… — JN]
10
Evening All.
Despite the blustering of a couple of posters, the bottom line is that the IPCC’s stated predictions of the tropospheric hot spot didn’t eventuate. Faced with this reality, the AGW crew have, in their own inimitable way, made up ever more convoluted stories to explain why it actually has happened – but the temperature change isn’t the sort that can be measured by thermometers. And then, when this didn’t wash, they try to say that the lack of a hot spot doesn’t matter anyway.
It only takes 1 (ONE) piece of confirmed evidence to demonstrate that a hypothesis. (I don’t think we should dignify AGW as being a theory). The non-existent Hot Spot is a fatal blow to the AGW hypothesis. When the AGW hypothesis is found floating in the river with bullet, bomb and knife wounds, poison in its stomach and a rope around its neck, then one of the causes of death will be the Missing Hot Spot. But it will be only one of many.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Dear George and others:
I am not a climate scientist; in fact I am not a scientist of any kind. My background is linguistics but I do have a university degree and consider myself to be of above average intelligence.
As a lay person who has followed the debate – such as it is – since 2007, here is my understanding of the science to date:
No one of sound mind disputes that there has been some warming. There has been a warming of 0.7 degrees C since the end of the Little Ice Age circa 1850. As I understand it, this is not disputed by any serious climate sceptics (this would include Jo Nova).
The argument is about the feedbacks: whether they are largely positive (= causing accelerated warming) or largely negative (= causing decelerated warming).
Those arguing that the feedbacks cause accelerated warming are working largely from computer model projections, saying that the feedbacks may result in warming to 3-6 degrees up from current world averages by 2100.
Those arguing that the feedbacks cause decelerated warming are working largely from observed evidence, saying that the feedbacks will not exceed 1 degree and may well end up resulting in only ½ degree warming by 2100.
Re the hotspot: Jo is not disputing there has been some warming of the average atmospheric temperature; she IS disputing that there has been a warming of the troposphere where the IPCC models said there would be one if CO2 were the main culprit.
Please correct me (anyone) if you think I am on the wrong track!
10
Mark D,
Jo can rightfully do whatever she wishes, and I can rightfully point out that her arguments undermine each other. I certainly wouldn’t call pointing out mistakes in ‘The Skeptic’s Handbook’ as personal ridicule; I’m not saying Nova looks like an overcooked prawn (something Monckton said about John Abraham recently), I’m simply critiquing her arguments.
Regarding my ‘stupid’ post at #30 and subsequent responses; the figure in question (Fig 9.1(c), p675 of AR4) is showing the actual radiative forcings over recent decades. It’s not modeling the possible radiative forcings and effects on the troposphere. Non-CO2 forcings have been small, so the tropospheric response has been small. The extent of the tropospheric hot spot depends on the extent of the temperature rise.
It’s perceived absence indicates one of three things:
1) Our measurements are shoddy;
2) Our understanding of the moist adiabatic lapse rate is wrong;
3) There is no warming.
I think that’s all open for discussions.
I stand by my comment that “it is a myth that the tropospheric hot spot is a signature particular to anthropogenic warming“. The IPCC (not that you should be listening to them anyway, as they are an Incredible Pile of Cow Crap) are simply saying that the tropospheric hot spot should act as a signature of AGW because they can detect no other sources of warming currently capable of forcing the climate to the same extent. As I’ve pointed out, if it is shown to be absent then that brings into question the extent of warming, period.
Yours,
George
10
Mark D,
One last thing, I have ‘descended’ for no particular reason. I’ve been keeping an eye on Jo’s blog for about a year, along with all the other climate change blogs. I follow the skepticalscience blog, noticed the argument, and thought I’d add my thoughts.
Hope that’s OK.
10
Friends:
The person(s) posting here under the name of George wrote at #27:
Several here have commented on that, and I specifically commented on that statement at #80.
Then at #89 the person(s) posting under the name of George replied to the post I made at at #80,and at #92 I pointed out that he/she/it/they had not addressed my point posted a #80.
Now at #92 the person(s) posting under the name of George has written:
So, not content with refusing to address my response to his silly argument, the person(s) posting under the name of George has changed his argument! And he/she/it/they has ‘moved the goal posts’ off the planet!
Clearly, the person(s) posting under the name of George is a troll. I shall ignore the posts of him/her/it/them, and I commend others to do the same.
Richard
10
Anne-Kit Littler,
I only have one minor correction.
Those arguing that the feedbacks cause accelerated warming are not only working from computer model projections, they are also working from observed evidence of past changes in the Earth’s climate as a result of forcings and subsequent feedbacks.
The debate here is about climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is expressed as the global temperature change for a particular forcing (eg – °C change per W/m2 forcing).
Estimates of climate sensitivity vary quite a lot. Normally between about 1°C and 4°C. It is generally accepted that 3°C is the best estimate, and this is supported by a multitude of studies (to which I could link you if you are interested).
Observed climate change in the past (both warmer and cooler) would have been impossible without positive feedbacks (note positive feedbacks don’t necessarily mean feedbacks that cause warming, they are just whatever feedbacks amplify the initial forcing).
Changes in the Earth’s orbit (Milankovitch cycles) are not sufficient to trigger ice ages without the support of feedbacks. A couple of specific events you could investigate are the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, the K-T boundary, and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. All of these events involved changes in temperature triggered by forcings but amplified by feedbacks.
Hope that’s helpful.
Yours,
George
10
Dear Richard,
Thanks for taking the time again, I know it must be a chore.
If you’d be so kind as to explain how saying this:
“John is referring to the fact that it is warming that causes the hot spot, not the greenhouse effect per se”
and this:
“I have not ‘admitted’ the hot spot is missing, in fact I’ve made no comment on whether it exists or not.”
constitute moving the goal posts ‘off the planet’, then that would be great.
As you can see, the first quote is correcting Jo’s misinterpretation of what John has said. Perhaps the sentence would benefit from the caveat ‘should‘, before ’cause(s)’.
The second quote on the other hand lays out the reality that at that stage I had not proffered my personal opinion on the existence of the tropospheric hot spot.
I thought I had addressed your response to my silly argument; was there something I missed?
I understand that as you have declared me a troll, you are now ignoring me, and therefore I shan’t be receiving a reply. This is a great pity, but I shall resolve not to lose sleep over it.
Nice talking to you.
Yours,
George
10
So George, you first post:
and now you say:
So you are a skeptic? My apologies for missing that at first.
10
Richard [103], if I may make one response to George in respect of his link at 93 to the Soden et al paper which makes the claim that increased SH is creating a THS; the Paltridge paper refutes that despite being the subject of a concerted campaign of villification which is described here:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/03/04/a-peek-behind-the-curtain/
Unfortunately for the pro-AGW assertion of increased SH, especially at high altitude where cloud forcing is positive [unlike low cloud forcing which is negative; see Pinker at al], the recent Soloman paper also rains on that parade:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488
This is not news; Miskolczi shows a constant OD and generally decreasing SH over the past 60 years:
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/optical-depth-trend-1.png
In his new paper, to be soon published in E&E, Miskolczi argues that SH is not a positive feedback at any level:
http://landshape.org/enm/new-miskolczi-manuscript/
10
Friends:
The troll posting under the name of George has made another post that is typical of all his/her/its/their posts in that it is both illogical and erroneous in fact.
Please try not to respond.
Richard
10
George:
June 26th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
I ask you to re-read the quote above…but with my emphasis added.
You see George, if you had been following this blog for any length of time, you would know that Ms Nova has never ever stated that there has been no warming…NEVER, not once, never ever.
What she said in the quote you provide is that the FEEDBACKS didn’t operate the way the IPCC claimed they would. It was always the feedbacks that would cause CATASTROPHIC warming. No CATASTROPHIC warming does not mean no warming at all does it George. (an extra degree or two would be just wonderful for all Gods creatures actually George, wouldn’t you agree?)
Now George, surely anybody with a primary school education would have comprehended that from the quote you cited. So when a blogger, pretending to be informed and intelligent, misrepresents the said quote, the rest of us assume that the blogger did this on purpose for nefarious purposes, so we tag them as trolls and time wasting alarmist Richard Craniums.
So which are you George? too uneducated to understand a simple paragraph, or an alarmist troll Rishard Cranium?
10
Cohenite:
Yes, I agree your points at #107. And discussion of your points would be worthwhile. But the troll’s ‘goal post’ moving makes rational discussion with him/her/it/them impossible.
There are some problems with the way Miskolczi wrote his paper, and that has induced some misunderstanding of his argument. But, as you say, his argument is basically sound.
Richard
10
Mark D,
I am always sceptical. Of everything.
cohenite,
I thought the Paltridge paper was a good honest piece of work that recognised its own shortcomings. On balance I’d say it was good that it was published, however, bearing in mind how dodgy the data is I think it might have been a bit of a pointless exercise.
To his credit, Garth Paltridge has been a professional to the end. Here’s a couple of quotes from the study itself:
Despite these caveats, Paltridge does, quite rightly I feel, argue that “the NCEP data for the middle and upper troposphere should not be “written off”…Since balloon data is the only alternative source of information [as opposed to that taken from satellite measurements] on the past behavior of the middle and upper tropospheric humidity and since that behavior is the dominant control on water vapor feedback, it is important that as much information as possible be retrieved from within the “noise” of the potential errors.”
What you have to understand though, it that on the recommendation of the Elliott and Gaffen study (1991), Paltridge’s study only covers the reanalysis data from 1973 to 2007 and limits its examination to particular latitudes between 50° S and 50° N, and atmospheric pressures up to up to 500 hPa everywhere, together with the summer season data from 400 hPa, and the data up to 300 hPa in the tropics. This is because the radiosonde measuring system isn’t accurate enough to measure changes in humidity in locations where humidity is already at comparatively low levels and because any radiosonde humidity measurements prior to 1973 are unusable as a result of instrumental changes and deficiencies.
Paltridge also basis his findings on a combination of observations and models (you know, the things Nova hates).
This report – http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ekalnay/Kistleretal.pdf -notes that “gridded variables, the most widely used product of the reanalysis, have been classified into three classes”; moisture variables, upon which Paltridge would have relied, fall into the category, ‘Type B Variables’, which the report describes as being “influenced both by the observations and by the model, and are therefore less reliable [than Type A Variables which “are generally strongly influenced by the available observations”]”.
In addition, on both the NCEP reanalysis website and the NCAR reanalysis website a ‘problem report’ is given, discussing the issues associated with the data. One such issue is titled ‘Spurious Moisture Source/Sink’. In brief, it states that “a poor approximation was used for the humidity diffusion which created spurious moisture sources and sinks”; amongst other things this “can be expected to increase/decrease humidity”.
10
Baa Humbug
That’s a strange quote bearing in mind point 3 in ‘The Skeptic’s Handbook’ is:
10
[snip ad hom attack. — JN]
10
Baa Humbug:
Yes, I know that at #112 the troll is comparing ‘apples and oranges’ (i.e. different time scales). But please do not fall for it. He/she/it/they keeps dangling these tid-bits of nonsense as bait. Grab at the bait and you get ‘hooked’ into another distraction that will ‘turn off’ any who read this discussion with a view to gaining understanding, so they are likely to stop reading, and that is the intention of every troll.
His/her/its their fallacious point is so simply refuted that he/she/it/they must be anticipating a reply. But anybody who reads both statements in their contexts can see for themslves that he/she/it they is posting a falsehood.
Richard
10
Congratulations Jo, judging from the increased participation from AGW devotees you are having a positive effect. The fascinating thing is that while their intention is to derail a thread I, and I expect others, learn more about the science as I follow the various arguments, more from the skeptic side however as you tend to get informative posts rather than ‘cut& paste’ links.
I wish that we could get at least one warmer with a sense of humor but I doubt that will happen. Imagine the frustration of wanting to reduce C02 when your every activity, every breath, adds to what you perceive to be a major problem add being a member of a doomsday cult where each day brings another “its worse than we thought” revelation must make it pretty well impossible to have a sunny disposition.
10
Friends:
The troll publishing under the name of George has posted a list of falsehoods about me at #113. I see no need to refute the lies.
However, if anybody does want to know something about me (God alone knows why they would) then they can see some facts about me on page 25 of the item at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
Richard
10
I’ve got a pedantic point to bring up- there’s no such thing as “Moist Adiabetic Lapse Rate”. Adiabetic means there’s no outside energy going into a gas as it rises and expands. With condensation of water vapor- you remove some of the gas, reducing the pressure of the parcel, and you add the latent heat given off by the condensed water vapor. The process might better be described as “pseudo-adiabetic”.
10
Richard Courtney, congratulations for being part of an industry that has increased our prosperity.
George making a personal attack from anonymity is the action of a lowlife,crawl back under your rock.
10
[ Snip extended ad hom attack…. Richard is getting to you eh George? ]
10
George:
You have added another two more lies about me and another falsehood about Cambridge Uni. (it my be true now – I do not know – but was not in the past).
I said I will not refute your personal lies. So, I will leave it to others to determine your lies for themselves.
But to help you, I will declare the following.
1.
I am probably the Devil Incarnate who appears in this world as an ignorant, uneducated fool but is unaware of my true nature.
2.
The words, deeds, and arguments of anybody – including me – should be judged on their merits and not on the basis of who or what they are.
And if you think I have misrepresented myself in any way then you can complain to the Methodist Church and so get me struck off the List of Preachers. Oh, sorry, I should have remembered that some of your compatriots tried that and the inquiry absolved me of that misdemeanour.
Go away, troll!
Richard
10
[SNIP. No, I don’t want the blog descending into personal mindless attacks from nameless cowards .–No more “George”. — JN]
10
George @119,
You have stooped to a new (unprecedented at JoNova) low level with your comments at 119.
Permanently ignore this troll.
10
Troll:
At #121you ask me:
I answer because that is my title.
Now, I have some questions for you.
Who and what are you?
Why do you think you have a right to tell lies about me?
Why have you attempted by several means to disrupt this thread?
Why do you attempt to mislead when almost every statement you have made above demonstrates that you know little and understand nothing about the subjects you pontificate on?
Richard
10
George: #112
June 26th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
George George george you disingenious little untruth peddler you. Why did you leave out the rest of point 3 from Jos handbook? Did you think you could fool anybody? You sad case you. Here is what the rest of point 3 says…
“Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001.”
As to your post regards Richard S Courtneys achievements in life, I for one would be proud as punch if I had achieved just one tenth of what Richard has.
You’re on a hiding to nothing in trying to discredit a man who has already earned the respect of many. The question is George, WHAT HAVE YOU ACHIEVED IN LIFE OTHER THAN MAKING A DICK OF YOURSELF ON THIS BLOG?
Remember the old saying George, people in Greenhouses………..
10
Richard,
If the words of someone who does respect you for the right reasons mean anything, George will keep going as long as you do. He’s obviously here for the fight with anyone he can fight with.
10
Baa Humbug and Roy Hogue:
Thankyou.
Richard
10
From the Simpsons:
Marge has had it up to here with Homer, who has formed a millennarian cult (sound familiar) but whose repeated predictions of the end of the world have all failed:
Marge: “You couldn’t predict six o’clock at five-thirty!”
10
Richard,
I’m a relatively young man, of relatively modest means. I live in the UK. I work full-time. My job has nothing to do with climate change, nor is it reliant on AGW being proven or disproven.
I’m not a member of any pressure groups or political parties.
I don’t have a scientific background, nor any scientific qualifications. In fact I have a BA in English literature. Like I said, the AGW debate has become something of a hobby.
I came here to put across a scientific argument and was met by your ignorance and rudeness.
So you do have a doctorate? Would you care to tell us what it is in and where it is from? You didn’t mention it in the presentation you posted.
Yours,
George
[George, your comments are slipping off topic and offensively personal. consider this your fair warning that you’ll face the sin bin] ed
10
Friends:
I am accepting the wise advice of Roy Hogue at #125.
Richard
10
Richard,
Shame, [snip]
Yours,
George
10
Dear editor,
Glad to see you’re being even-handed.
10
Richard, I think that is a good call. (I see he has caught the eye of a moderator)
Thank you for the post pdf on wind power. It nicely summarizes the folly of many supposed “carbon reduction” schemes.
10
Mark D:
Thank you for your support for my taking the advice of Roy Hogue at #125. I am especially grateful because I was in the process of responding to the troll’s outrage at #130 when your comment came in and gave me the courage to resist that temptation.
Richard
10
C’mon George, it’s 2am here and I’m still waiting for your reply re: handbook point 3.
10
Richard, Pax tecum
I can only stand so much troll spit myself 🙂
10
Bad form George. Are you willing to comment on the topic at hand? or is it too much for you?
10
@ What Bunk
The peer review processed has been rigged, see my pot # 49 you dipstick!
The burden of proof that man’s contribution of a trivial amount to what is a trace gas in the atmosphere is causing warming that, if unchecked, will cause catastrophic global warming lies with the proponents of the theory. The theory has been falsified and should be discarded. How do you sleep at night George? If the “scientists” that have been milking the AGW taxpayer funded gravy train had a shred of decency they would publish their raw data. Instead, they do everything in their power to keep anyone out of their little clique from obtaining it. Then, when the CRU was faced with having to comply with a FOIA request the emails show that they would rather destroy the information than divulge it. Conveniently, the raw data was “lost.” So much for “real science”!
Your other troll buddy that has conspired with you. Brendon, got his intellectual ass handed to him several times. As soon as I read your asinine comment about Brendon I knew you were in cahoots with him and Ronhon. I am not sure if I should call you the three trolls or the three stooges as both apellations are applicable.
Allow me to retort, if you trolls want to get your science from green funded proganda front sites like desmog blog, realclimae and skepticalscience go ahead! If the science is so settled then the scientists would be more than happy to discuss the subject. As we know from the climategate emails there was a conspiracy to hold posts from getting published and there are a lot of posters, many of them who post here, that are blackballed from posting at Realclimate. If the science is so solid, and it isn’t, then why are they afraid to deal with the skeptics? You have come on this site and personally insulted Jo and yet your comments have been uncensored. We are not afraid of the truth and your feeble and fallacious arguments are so easy to debunk. You insult Richard Courtney who has been published in a journal that the climate criminal at the CRU cannot control and you can’t do anything about it but wax juvenile. Why the emphasis on peer reviewed literature? It obviously isn’t that important to the hacks at the IPCC. The alleged “gold standard” is riddled with magazine articles and press releases from green activist NGOs and the scandal is still unfolding (Glaciergate, Africagate, etc. ad nauseum.) And you have the gall to post on this site anything about peer review!
Well, at least you have confessed to being the dirtbag slime ball troll that you are! Are you lonely? Maybe it goes back to your rlaltioship with your mother? Wow! You are a pathetic loser!
10
It’s best to not call them trolls nor follow their tangents either… Just bring them back to the topic at hand and keep it courteous…. They win if the topic becomes all about them.
Pick them to pieces pleasantly. In the end, it is always about the science.
10
J Hansford:
I agree your substantive point at #138; viz.
but write to disagree with your contention that:
If that were so then AGW would have been forgotten long ago. In the end it is all about money and power.
Richard
10
Richard S Courtney:
June 27th, 2010 at 3:02 am
LOL… Ya got that right Rich.
I was indicating th’ ideal… Silly me:-)
10
Hi All, phew sorry I was away today. Can’t wait for those Big-Oil cheques so I can hire some help and be on call to answer questions 24/7 ;-).
So I post (again) on the single stark essential flaw that wipes out any credibility about the so-called crisis, and the best the warmistas (give us your money) can come up with is character attacks, quibbles with wording, (she used to say the models were wrong on greenhouse gases, now she says they’re wrong on every cause)…. it’s just rearranging the deck chairs. They’ll discuss nearly anything except the evidence that matters.
The-anonymous-George: John Cook said the sentence: “the hot spot is not caused by the greenhouse effect” which is wrong. I point out why. The fact that he might not have meant to say that because he was confusing “signatures” and “effects”, which he did several times in his piece, might explain why he mistakenly made such a ridiculous statement. In effect his two sentences say: the greenhouse effect doesn’t cause the hot spot, but everything causes the hot spot. Being self-contradictory all within the same paragraph makes it all the harder (and more meaningless) for people like me to discuss what he means.
George the deeper you drill the worse it gets for you.
The line of mine that you quote is exactly correct, as is your alternative. So? I’m the pro bono worker offering people a 150 word summary so they can understand what matters in 44 pages of official words produced with tax-payer money. They call it a fingerprint of greenhouse gases. If you are concerned about “misleading statements” I presume you’ve written to the CCSP /IPCC to insist they issue a retraction and clarification? See this CSSP chapter and this one. I’m paraphrasing them. When I say signature I refer to the whole graph. You take it as just the hot spot.
No. The Hansen quote was to show that that theoretical hot spot is due to the greenhouse effect. It’s a killer response to the line “the hot spot is not caused by the greenhouse effect” eh?
“Mucked Up?” No sir. The old version is not “at odds” it’s just not as detailed, but I could make it even better and more incisively cutting. Perhaps you could donate to help me?
Or perhaps you could ask the paid public servants who created the 44 pages of the CCSP chapters why they were misleading the public by not drawing attention to those two graphs, placing them side by side and explaining the significance ie. the models are wrong?
Alas for you, the skeptics handbook still stands fine in its present format. The predicted fingerprint pattern of AGW (Graph A) is still the predicted greenhouse fingerprint. The modelers were so sure this is what the atmosphere would look like they weighted things so that the hot spot was definitively visible and only visible with greenhouse gases. See the pics. Sure, in a parallel universe, under extreme circumstances, in theory, B C D or E might generate a hot spot, but the models were pretty sure that none of these would even remotely have a chance of doing that this century on earth.
Remember they were saying CO2 will cause 3.5 degrees of warming, maybe 6! (Maybe 11!) They did not specify that CO2 will cause 1.2 degrees, and feedbacks will cause the rest (not in their public ad campaigns or 90 minute doco’s). They’re not trying to help anyone understand the fine points, and they have budgets of billions. Your dogged pursuit of an irrelevant potential inconsistency shows a decidedly one-eyed skeptic approach.
Since the handbook is mainly interested in CO2 (because that’s all markets and legislation are dealing with) – and since it is so brutally short I see no reason to spell out possibilities for other era’s or other planets. The analysis that something other than CO2 caused most or all the warming is also still reasonable. CO2’s direct effect is paltry, and is even smaller with negative feedbacks.
I may do an update to the handbook. I could change the wording from greenhouse signature to “feedbacks signature” because even though the feedbacks are mainly “greenhouse effects” it’s confusing people like you.
10
Jo,
Can’t wait for you to get cracking on the other recent posts at skepticalscience:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-CO2-lag.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-past-climate-change.html
Then maybe you could get onto these:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_jo_nova.htm
Yours,
George
10
@ George
Temperature’s are not rising.
George, you pedantic twit, there has been no warming for the past several years! Your idol Trenberth thinks it is a tragedy that they can’t find the warming. Boo Hoo! Ironically, your high priest Hansen said a couple of decades ago that we were going to hit a tipping point and the world would would get much warmer. It didn’t happen. It was just another failed prophecy. The AGW crowd reminds me of fringe group religious fanatics who wait in the desert for the end of the world and the second coming of the lord. There predictions are about as scientific as Hansens!
10
George, I take you give in then, and I accept your apology for your baseless insinuations… Jo
10
#143 Eddy Aruda:
June 27th, 2010 at 3:39 am
Travesty Eddy. He said Travesty…. Makes it even “worser”;-)
10
@ J. Hansford
Thanks for the correction! I perhaps took a little too much license.
10
D’oh!…. That’ll teach me to have a squiz at a site like Skepticalscience. Climate Propaganda for the wonder kinder of CAGW… That last link of wee Georgie’s there….
Pet Arguments by Jo Nova vs What the Science Says (in quotes are Jo’s “pet theories”)
“CO2 effect is saturated” : Direct observations find the CO2 effect is not saturated.
“CO2 has been higher in the past” : If current CO2 gets to higher ancient levels with the current solar output, the earth will experience gigantic global warming.
“CO2 lags temperature” : Recent CO2 increase has caused recent warming without any time lag.
“Hockey stick is broken” : All recent professional analyses agree that the high global temperatures since 1970 are unprecedented in the last 1,000 years.
“It’s cooling” : The last 12 months were the hottest on record.
“It’s cosmic rays” : Cosmic rays show no trend over the last 30 years and have had little impact on recent global warming.
“It’s microsite influences” : Micro site influences on temperature changes are small; urban and rural sites agree.
“Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity” : Lindzen and Choi’s paper is viewed as unacceptably flawed by other climatologists.
“There’s no tropospheric hot spot” : This statement is irrelevant to global warming caused by humans.
LoL… Apparently the Hotspot modeled by AGW Science to show the “fingerprint” of climate effects caused by Anthropogenic CO2 and which appears in the AR 4 paper….. Is irrelevant…..Go figure!
So what’s Georgie boy doin’ here then? He should be pesterin’ those IPCC guys… LOL
10
@ Jennifer #61
Thanks! I looked at the graphs and it looks like the typical AGW magic trick.
10
Hi Jo,
Not quite. It was more that I didn’t think you’d actually managed to present an argument for me to respond to. It’s funny that you say all the ‘warmists’ can come up with is character attacks an quibbles over heading, as the main thrust of your argument consists of quibbles over John’s wording, and your comments thread is full of people itching to call those that disagree with them ‘trolls’.
I happily concede that you have picked up on a number of semantic errors from John – his calling the lapse rate a law of physics and his misquote of your header – but the point still stands that in your ‘Handbook’ you very much give the impression that the creation of a tropospheric hot spot is unique to AGW, when in actual fact it’s not. You can quibble over intricacies if you like, but perhaps I could refer you to Roland Barthes essay ‘Death of the Author’ and leave you to ponder on that.
Like I said, I very much look forward to your responses to John’s other posts.
Yours,
George
10
@George
June 27th, 2010 at 3:34 am
You are such a dweeb tool! I went clicked on your link to skeptical science’s explanation of the CO2 lag. You are indeed a useful idiot!
So far, so good. But then:
You pathetic cretin, don’t you ever do your homework? The first twenty parts of CO2 have more of an effect on temps than the rest combined! The effects of CO2 are logarithmic. The IPCC rests its theory on a positive feedback temp loop which has never been proven to exist in the real world. See http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/268.htm The theory attributes too much to CO2 but its contribution is trivial compared to what the IPCC attributes to water vapor. An observation of the geological record for the last 600,000,000 years shows NO CORRELATION BETWEEN TEMPERATURES AND CO2!!! Yet, you cite skeptical science? So much for objective third party evidence. I really enjoyed how the posters in the comment section destroyed the argument made in the article! Moreover, the observed data shows no statistically significant warming in over a decade. If the effects of CO2 were monotonic and there were no other significant forcings or feedbacks at play, the temps should have warmed. Ironically, when other factors, such as solar output, the PDO and AMO are taken into consideration they explain the temps quite nicely. Also, nothing in the article explained why temps continue to rise for hundreds of years after CO2 levels decline. The article also mentions that temps rise first at the end of the ice age and then CO2 takes over. What a red herring. They lied by omission because what the ice core records show is that, whether interglacial or ice age, temps rise first and CO2 follows and temps decline and then CO2 follows. The article gave the false impression that the lag was related to the end of an ice age!
“Warming cause more CO2 and more CO2 causes warming” Actually, the oceans lag the continents by hundreds of years in temp changes. As the oceans warm they outgas CO2. More CO2 causes very little additional warming as it is absorbing almost as much of the radiation as it can. If that were true, temps would not fall as CO2 continued to rise. EVERY ice record shows this. Not one shows a runaway greenhouse effect. This happened whether or not there were other forcings or feedbacks. The AGW hypothesis has more holes in it than swiss cheese!
Another thing, man’s meager contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere started just a few hundred years ago. Prior to that, all sources of CO2 were natural. The article states that more CO2 causes warming which causes more CO2. Outside of the oceans outgassing CO2 or the occasional volcano, where was this extra CO2 supposed to come from? A small amount from the extra decaying plant life and a few other sources but these are trivial compared to the oceans. The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink on the planet, except that which has been locked up in rocks over time. The only reason CO2 levels rise, absent the occasional volcano, is when the oceans warm. There is no feedback of CO2 causing CO2 to rise. If that were the case CO2 would rise first, not temps. The fact that temps decline while CO2 continues to rise invalidates the feedback theory because EVERY ice core sample shows it and in most instances there are no other forcings to explain it.
Lastly, if the heat was accumulating it would have to be somewhere. It would be physically impossible to hide it. Its not in the oceans or the atmosphere because it does not exist!
10
George: #149
June 27th, 2010 at 4:58 am
George. It isn’t a “quibble” as you so underwhelmingly put it…. The Tropical Troposphere as modeled by AGW proponents and presented in the AR 4 IPCC paper indicates that the “fingerprint” of Anthropogenic effects of CO2 will manifest itself as a warming of a rate two and half times or more, of that of the surface temperature….. It’s the IPCC saying that.
If you have a problem with the actual AR 4 paper, as you seem to be. Go and approach those that wrote it. Don’t knock Jo for pointing out its errors as well as those of John Cook who apparently is redefining the AGW hypothesis as presented by the IPCC.
10
@ George # 149
You are more akin to a cockroach than a troll.
You vomited:
Read this very carefully you rube, nobody disputes the adiabatic lapse rate. The AGW theory states that as the tropics warm the troposphere at 10 kilometers should warm at a faster rate because of the positive feedback from water vapor. This excess water vapor is supposed to be generated by rising CO2 levels. The increase water vapor then cause the temperature in troposphere at 10 kilometers to to warm faster than temperatures rise at the surface. IT HAS NOT HAPPENED! There is no positive feedback you idiot! Now buzz off You dim witted troll!
20
J Hansford:
The point you make at #151 is, of course, unarguably correct.
However, I still think the most damning thing about the fallacious assertion that the ‘hot spot’ is caused by any warming is that it does not change the fact that the absence of the ‘hot spot’ is proof of than man-made global warming is not happening (see my post at #80 if the reason for this is not clear).
Quibbles about whether or not the ‘hot spot’ is unique to global warming are merely a ploy to distract attention from the fact that absence of the hot spot is proof that there is no discernible man-made global warming. Hence, there is no possibility that the promoters of the myth of man-made global warming will challenge the IPCC’s AR4 and/or the CCSP about the fact those documents clearly state the ‘hot spot’ is a “fingerprint” for man-made global warming.
Promoters of the myth have no interest in facts, evidence and or reason: they only care to promote the myth, and they demonstrate that they think any ploy is acceptable in the promotion. This quibble about the cause of the ‘hot spot’ is merely one example of many such ploys.
Richard
10
J.Hansford,
Please see my post at #101. It answers all your points. I’m not seeking to defend the models, just pointing out Nova’s past misunderstandings. I think her Handbook could well do with an update as she’s obviously getting there with her facts.
Eddy,
There’s a lot scientifically wrong with your posts, but your vitriol puts me off answering them.
Yours,
George
10
[snip]
10
@ George 154
A lot scientifically wrong? If there was, a troll like you would be all over it like white on rice, Vitriol? After you numerous brain dead posts you deserve no better. You are so way out of your league it is ridiculous. You are nothing more than comic relief! You have some nerve after posting the comments on here that you have, hypocrite!
10
[ snip ]
10
George:
You claim you live in the Uk as I do. So, please provide your name and address so I can sue for the defamation at #157.
Richard
10
Dear Richard,
Perhaps you could clear up the confusion by explaining what you have a doctorate in, where it’s from and why you don’t list it as a qualification in your papers.
Running a google search of your name will bring up a number of websites which you might want to add to your ‘to sue’ list.
Yours,
George
10
George:
Name, address. Provide them. I gave a link to mine.
I tried to sue the worm who runs a web site under the alias of Eli Rabbett but although Holpern runs that site (which only exists to defame climate realists) it is not possible to sue him because his use of an alias means that it cannot be proven he wrote any post there unless he admits it.
So, your name and address? Or are you similar to Holpern?
And you have had all the personal information about me you are going to get until we face each other in a Court of Law.
Richard
10
@ George 157
You are at least consistent. You dodge the questions, segue from the topic of discussion and libel Richard S. Courtney. Like Richard, I do not hide behind a screen name. I have yet to read a post from a troll who had the intestinal fortitude to post under his real name. You are a coward and a fool. Do you wear a diaper and suck your thumb prior to your little temper tantrums? If you cannot make an intelligent argument then get the hell out of here!
10
I get it now, skepticalscience must be trying to up their hits by skimming off readers from here…..
both our recent trolls; George and Robhon are posters there as well as Glenn Tamblyn. (I didn’t look extensively for others).
In reading posts there, it amazes me how well some of them have connected “all the dots” whereby claiming to understand all kinds of atmospheric and oceanic systems in the future, present and really well in the pre-history of earth. They are really brilliant……….almost soothsayers and crystal readers they are…..
Interesting though, it seems they have several non-believers (like us) giving it to them pretty well! I see extensive use of argue authority though. (imagine that)
10
[snip… this ad hom chain is pointless. Especially with an anonymous troll. “George”, can either apologize or reveal his real identity, or no more posts from the coward who throws rocks at random from a deep hole in the ground. Put your head up and stand behind your words. He is based in the UK Richard. Does that help with defamation? –JN]
10
@ Mark D. #162
Thanks for the info. I wasn’t sure of the site but I surmised it was a conspiracy. I went to the link provide by Georgy boy regarding CO2 lag and I was surprised by how the posters who replied to the article tore the arguments presented by skepticalscience to shreds! How can any person of average intelligence buy into the crap posted over there?
If these fools want to tilt at windmills they have come to the wrong site!
10
George:
No deal! Name and address is minimal. The name and address of your lawyer would also be appreciated.
In this case you have overstepped the mark. What you think it is “reasonable to conclude” does not matter. Recant and apologise or provide the needed information to correct the matter in Court. Your name and address is minimal.
Richard
10
@ Georgy
Wow, what a pussy! Does your mommy and daddy still tuck you in at night? Do they read you fairy tales from the IPCC? Do they still have to change your diaper? You are not a man. The only thing long and hard on you was the third grade!
Obviously, another troll that is into pain!
10
George:
June 27th, 2010 at 6:17 am
J.Hansford,
No George you seem to be sayin’ the same things….. Where to start…. They are not Jo’s “misunderstandings” They are the “misunderstandings” of the AR 4 Authors. She is eloquently pointing them out as per their method… not hers.
George #101
Aye George. You use the word “Should”… That is your emphasis in italics. But it is not what is presented in the IPCC paper. There is no point in wishing shoulds….. If wishes woz fishes we’d all cast nets, matey.
If the IPCC wish to reject their AGW Hypothesis and re-present another… they should do so:-).. now who’s wishin’ eh;-)
Yes I know, it is modeled at 2 and a half times the Rate of that of the Surface temperature rise. What’s you point here?
I’m glad that you can see that there are problems with the model that represents the fingerprint of anthropogenic warming as it is represented in the TT….. It’s just that you seem to be arguing in total agreement with us…. I find it strange.
Perhaps in her booklet, I think you are confusing IPCC assertions as Jo’s assumptions…. In that answer you may find enlightenment.
10
George:
You seem as ignorant of the law as you are of climate science. You have defamed me with a lie. The law says that the fact of the lie is all that matters and not what you thought was “reasonable to conclude”.
I will not respond to any more of your posts but my lawyer will address the matter when you provide your name and address.
Richard
10
@ George
Wow, you went from being a troll to intellectual road kill!
10
George, you are misreading the previous statements by Joanne. When you grasp what she is saying, there is no contradiction.
1) In the first quote, Jo says that the signature of the strong positive feedback (presumably from water vapor) doesn’t exist in the data, hence the strong positive feedback doesn’t exist.
2) In the second quote above, she is talking about what forcing is causing the observed warming (whatever that is — I assume she is accepting a warming for rhetorical purposes, since the data has been fudged so much that it is impossible to tell exactly how much, if any, warming has taken place). It can’t be CO2, because CO2 does not cause enough warming unless you postulate the aforementioned strong positive feedback that the data shows doesn’t exist.
So, Quote 1: Talking about the non-existence of enhanced positive feedback from H2O — Quote 2: Talking about what is driving warming (assuming warming is happening). Two different topics, and not contradictory.
10
Nicely put BobC.
10
To George (troll):
My last post was composed before I had read all the previous ones. I have to agree with Richard that you have stepped across a threshold by baseless accusations of lying, and I strongly suggest Jo ban you from the site.
That aside, one of your previous statements needs a reply:
It doesn’t really matter what your degree is in — however it does matter that you can’t follow written arguments well and/or can’t draw logical conclusions from them. If you really want to “put across a scientific argument” by more than just parroting “authorities” (which logical fallacy won’t get you far here), then you need some acquaintance with logic.
When I went to school (back in the Stone Age) everyone was required to take (and pass) a formal logic course, even Eng Lit majors! Part of the tests was reading statements (like the ones from Jo that you seem to have a hard time understanding) and determining if they agreed, disagreed, contradicted, etc. I don’t think you would have gotten out of my small, regional college.
10
Well well,
I see that we have a snotty loudmouth TROLL on the loose named George.Post after dripping malicious irrational postings he makes,that can only tell us that people like him are scraping the barrel.
I am laughing at his feeble attempts in trying to convince us about the “hotspot” not being a “fingerprint” of AGW or whatever suits his fancy at the moment.
Here is a LINK
Here I quote a noted Lukewarmer Lucia from Blackboard blog who writes:
The very revealing chart is in the link.
Give it up George you have nothing successful to contradict the IPCC with.They make it clear they (the IPCC)think it is “greenhouse gases” that is expected to cause the hotspot.
10
Excuse me all, for going completely off-topic. But! Perth readers, be aware: it’s almost time to Rev it up!
10
Richard S Courtney:
June 27th, 2010 at 6:00 am #153……
Sorry Richard, I missed your response in between watching the soccer and responding to wee Georgie there.
Aye, I agree with you absolutely….. I was mainly interested in pointing out to George that his problem lies with the IPCC… Not Jo. Jo is only presenting observations that undermine the IPCC’s model on the TT warming.
But it would seem George is not really interested in that, he is more interested in missing the point, than understanding it.
10
George,
The IPCC make it clear what they are talking about here:
9.2.2 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of the
Response to Different Forcings and their
Uncertainties
Quoting from the link from page 13 of the report,
You are actually fighting the IPCC and not JoNova.
LOL
10
Ooops,
the quote is from page 12 of the report and the chart is on page 13.
The IPCC never stated the words “hot spot” but their descriptions and the charts make it clear they considered CO2 by far as the primary forcing of warming in the Tropical Troposphere.
10
What an obstinate little pig this one turned out to be.
One last try George. Below is the note under fig 9.1 of the IPCC AR4 chp 9 as posted by Jo above.
OPEN YOUR EYES, TAKE OFF THE BLINKERS and R.E.A.D.
Did you get that? The HOT SPOT only appears under GHG forcing. This is what the IPCC and Santer presented to the world. Unfortunately Jo Nova came along and skewered it, leaving alarmists like you clutching at straws.
Now grow up, you’re making a turd of yourself.
10
Oh dear George… what a pickle. Let me take a step back for a second and look at your argument.
You say we should see the hot spot in the tropo regardless of what causes the warming. But the IPCC and warmists tell us that it is now almost beyond a shadow of a doubt that most of the warming of the last XX (50 is it?) years is caused by CO2. So should we not be seeing a tropo reaction caused by the CO2 warming?
So which is it? Has it not been warming all that much? Are the models wrong (the gods forbid)? Which is it? Even using your assumptions of reality you have not a leg to stand on. Surely we should be seeing something by now… where is it? Assuming you are going to have to fall back to wind shear or other garbage proxies, don’t bother… quit while you are behind mate.
10
George,
By now you’ve alienated everyone who even reads this blog who has any grip on reality. Not content to make a fool of yourself you’ve gone on to make a personal attack on Richard Courtney, a man who can run circles around you on any matter germane to the subject of global warming. Then you go on to add the accusation of lying on top of everything else.
Do you have any idea how many like you have come and gone again just in the time since last November when I started following joannenova on a regular basis? And you, George, are the sorriest of the bunch yet you still seem to expect enough respect that someone will, for some inexplicable reason, agree with you if you persist long enough.
I think the sad truth is that as I said back at post 125, you’re just here for the sake of a fight with anyone who will butt heads with you. Joanne will soon enough tire of your repetitious nonsense and lock you out. In the meantime, you don’t have a shred of credibility or respect left. Your presence here is unwanted and frankly under the circumstances, not welcome. You should demonstrate a little bit of wisdom and fade out of sight before you get yourself banned.
10
Regarding #15: “skeptics argue with each other all the time because they believe in logical debating of unclear issues and care about the truth. Believers, on the other hand, simply repeat the catechisms of the AGW faith — logical discussion and respect for facts have never caught on with them.” — Well stated.
As an aerospace designer for 30+ years, I’ve met my share of people (or was one at times) that are so sure of their cause, and so full of themselves (or their graduate degrees) that their bias/ego completely dominate, then ruin any potential for impartial discussion or conclusions. After all, it is easy to be the teflon-man (nothing sticks) and deflect all contrary inbound views, but sometime VERY difficult (for some) to admit that they may be wrong, or have more to learn. Entrenched positions cut both ways, so it is important for combatants to not only talk, but listen (no, really process thought), as only then can the truth be distilled.
Oh, BTW, after 30+ years I’ve learned two things; (1) Figures can lie and liars can figure; (2)Models are fine to expand ones learning & understanding or to use in planning. In the end however, reality tends to be even more complex and chaotic than planned. “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.” — John Lennon
We all know, at one time, that ALL of the worlds self-ordained scientists and wise men knew the world was flat and knew the Earth was the center of the solar system. Opposition to this “truth” came with severe consequences – as it seems today. Have an opinion? You are called names (“sticks & stones” mate). Go against the grain? Lose ones fine new lab, grant, notoriety, no more trips to fun international locations, no new house/car? I think not.
“Notice that the stiffest tree is most easily cracked, while the bamboo or willow survives by bending with the wind.” –Bruce Lee
10
Baa Humbug
Wrong. What you mean to say is that the hot spot has only appeared under GHG forcing since 1890, as that’s what fig 9.1 demonstrates. the hot spot should appear under any sufficient forcing. None of the natural forcings since 1890 have been sufficient – hence fig 9.1. See my post at #101 for a fuller explanation.
Bulldust,
See my post at #101
I don’t pretend this isn’t a problem for AGW. As I’ve said before, theories aren’t football teams, so I’m happy to change my mind when new evidence emerges.
There are three reasons which can explain the perceived absence of the hot spot:
1) There is no warming;
2) The models are wrong;
3) Our measurements aren’t accurate.
I certainly don’t buy point 1. I’m prepared to entertain point 2, but my suspicions lie with point 3.
Which one do you go with?
10
[snip more ad hom excuses … ]
10
Seems to me that we have all forgotten the gift the “whistleblower” at the UEA / CRU gave us with the release of the “Climategate” emails and documents.
Surely these documents show that the whole foundation of climate science is based on a lie, where a group of people bent the facts to suit their theory.
How can there be any meaningful debate on the finer details when the foundations are corrupt . Anthony Watts has convincingly shown the raw temperature data is flawed. And by admission, the raw data is “massaged” to give a desired outcome, and raw data of the past is lost. All we have today is a bunch of numbers spat out of a computer.
Society has, over the past 40 odd years, has been convinced that computers do it better than we can, and we put blind faith in the computers output, never questioning what data was input, the results are all that matters. No one ever questions the ability of the computer and fall into the trap of believing the results. Even when the data fed in is accurate, the results can be suspect, as shown with tests. Read this, “Why the Pentium4 can’t add up !” Sure Intel fixed that problem, but are there others ? We will never know for sure until we stop having blind faith in computers ability to give accurate results.
So, it seems to me, we have questionable data fed into a machine, with fixed, questionable algorithms (Harry_Read_Me.txt), the machine could be faulty internally, and then we (some people) believe the output. The only time we ever realize our mistakes is when the whole thing blows up ! (BP and the gulf oil spill)
So what is the point of debating a subject when the foundation is flawed . We might as well debate what cheese the moon is made of because someone said the moon is made of cheese. The foundation of the argument is a lie.
The whistleblower showed us that we are on very shaky ground and the only way out of this mess is to start over and put some real accurate science back in play and then we just may find out what this planet is doing. Until then, we are just wasting time.
“None is so blind as those who won’t see”
.
10
@ George
Stupidicus maximus, do you ever tire of demeaning yourself?
You spewed
CO2 levels have been higher in the past. In fact, the earth’s CO2 level is currently the lowest it has ever been with but a few exceptions such as the late carboniferous period. In fact, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has been thousands of ppms greater. Did the laws of physics not apply then? Certainly, if the AGW theory is correct, the hot spot must have been there then? Actually, it wasn’t there then anymore than it is here now. Even the gods of the IPCC and the CRU cannot find it. Where is the area in the mid to upper troposphere that has warmed fasterthan the surface temps? Previous posters have shown that it is IPCC dogma. Well where is it, George?
10
George:
LOL typical warmist – when the model isn’t supported by the data you immediately assume that the likely problem is the data. Of course the model of a highly complex system like the climate MUST be right.
I find it exceedingly more likely that the model hasn’t fully captured the complexities of the climate, and given that those models don’t have the foggiest about clouds, just as an example, I would say there is a lot of work that needs to be done yet.
The fact that you put so much faith in these models is alarming. Models are not science mate… they are simply complex guesses often poorly supported by historic data. Given how sensitive these models are to tweakings of various parameters which are for a large part assumed… you can imagine how much faith I put in them.
I spent a lot of time at university modelling economic markets and can attest how difficult that is, and how meaningless the vast majority of those models were. GIGO applies as much to climate modelling as it does to any other field.
10
@ George the Troll
You pontificated:
You are right on the first two counts! 1. There has been no statistical warming for over a decade despite all the failed predictions. 2. The models are wrong. They are absolute garbage when it comes to forecasting future weather. 3.We have substantial agreement between the satellite data and the weather balloons.
There is a fourth possibility. The starving climate scientists fudged their data and lied their asses of for money, power and prestige!
I choose number 4! 🙂
10
Ahhh but Eddy… like Costanza said in Seinfeld:
“Jerry, just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.”
Some of them truly believe it, so perhaps they are from the Seinfeld school of it ain’t really a lie then. Trouble is we can’t, in science, disprove faith.
10
Eddy, Hi.
You correctly assert that CO2 levels have been higher in the past. Sadly you then go on to imply that this somehow serves to disprove the theory of AGW.
Nova actually puts this graph in her second ‘Skeptic’s Handbook’ – http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/nova_past_climate1.gif
There’s loads wrong with it (unlabelled error bars, stripped out temperature jump at the K-T, no allowance for the logarithmic effect of CO2), but it provides a basic picture of past CO2 and temperature.
As you can see, the further back we go, the higher CO2 levels rise. However, as we go back in time solar activity also falls and in the early Phanerozoic the solar constant was about 4% less than current levels.
Royer (2006) – http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf – combined the radiative forcing from CO2 and solar variations to find their net effect on climate. Here’s what he found (cooler climate is indicated by shaded areas which are periods of geographically widespread ice) – http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/nova_past_climate2.gif
As we can see, Royer found that when solar variations are taken into account, the “total radiative forcing” correlates excellently with past temperature reconstructions. In layman’s terms, this means that when the sun is less active, the CO2 level required to initiate a glaciation is much higher. For example, if the CO2-ice threshold for present-day Earth is 500 ppm, the equivalent threshold during the Late Ordovician (450 million years ago) would be 3000 ppm, making it perfectly possible to have widespread glaciation accompanied by comparatively high levels of atmospheric CO2.
Do you have time machine? If you do could I borrow it? I’ll go back to a time when the internet didn’t enable the ignorant to spread misinformation.
10
The trouble with (3) is that it automatically implies (1) is equally likely.
I’ll make a case for (2) at any rate: the models were designed with a presumption that the atmosphere does work like a greenhouse. Thus, the water vapour is modeled as rising up to the “lid” of the troposphere and dumping it’s latent head at that fixed top level, just like a real greenhouse prevents the convection from carrying the heat through the glass or plastic roof. This model generates a hot-spot because heat is indeed trapped.
However, the real atmosphere has no “lid” and the water keeps rising until it cools (what else could it do?) so the water always finds a way to get rid of the latent heat. The only way this would stop happening is if water had so much energy that it boiled off the planet into outer space and never came back (i.e. if we make a steady loss of water). I cannot possibly believe that any heating effect CO2 might have would be sufficient to boil water off into outer space.
The other George (co2isnotevil) has already posted a number of graphs showing that the feedback effect of water vapour causes a “knee” in the system gain at approx 300K which is the point where the “heat pipe” effect kicks in and the water carries away any additional energy. If you want additional support for this theory, look here:
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg
Note the ACE has highest in the 15 years from 1991 to 2006 and has rolled off since then. Those were also the years when warming effects were most noticable (e.g. 2005, 2006, 2007 were the years with the lowest arctic ice in NH winter based on IJIS satellite), and I think that everyone has noticed that recent years have been significantly cooler.
This demonstrates that when we have a warm year, convection does indeed carry away the heat. It also demonstrates that long-term heat buildup resulting in the sort of temperature rise that IPCC has predicted (i.e. 3 degrees rise by 2100) will never happen. Further, the recent downturn in temperature (while CO2 continues to rise) demonstrates that correlation to CO2 is not particularly good and variation caused by other factors is much larger than any trend caused by CO2.
10
Oh and Eddy, I already rubbished your assertion that there is substantial agreement between the satellite data and the weather balloons (at least in relation to humidity). See #90. Repeating lies won’t make them any more true old bean.
10
George,
Forgive me but peer review won’t fly here. We have no problem with it because we understand that it means absolutely nothing about the correctness of an author’s conclusions. So strike one! You can’t interest me with that.
Since you do not use your full name (if George is your real given name) I conclude that you have the need to hide who you are. Strike two. Your apparent acquaintance if not cohort Glenn Tamblyn uses his name (at least you and he post at the same blog, skepticalscience). So why don’t you? It goes to your credibility because…
You have the science absolutely and unequivocally wrong. Strike three.
Too bad this is not baseball.
Please note that I have not engaged in any name calling. Your admission that you find it entertaining confirms my suspicion that you’re just here to pick a fight with whoever will butt heads with you. Perhaps strike four?
Now I have no intention of trading barbs with you endlessly. So don’t bother with a reply.
10
George @ 129
I’ve read Royer. He used a pH adjustment in his temperature proxy data. The CO2 level was used as an input to the pH adjustment. He then found a correlation between temperature and CO2 level. This is not surprising, just good pea-and-thimble work, similar to Mann et al.
Without the pH “correction”, the correlation between temperature and CO2 vanished.
But there was an ice age in that era, and the CO2 levels were over 5000 ppm.
Cheers
Speedy
10
@ George 191
You Frontal lobotomized:
In my post at #48 I was talking about the hot spot. You know, temperature? The humidity, whether “measured” or not, is irrelevant. If there is to be a hot spot the humidity would have to be there according to the AGW theory promulgated by the IPCC. The fact is there is no hot spot, period. The only rubbishing you do is when you post something! You need to take your medicine or shall I call your caretaker for you?
CO2 levels were higher. So much higher that the solar constant being 4% is irrelevant. There was no correlation between CO2 and temps. Look at the graph on the link I gave you. There were times over the past 600,000,000 years when both CO2 and temps were high, CO2 and temps were low and times where one was high and one was low. Sometimes there were other forcings causing temps to change and sometimes there were not . Once again you pathetic fool, there is no relationship between CO2 and temps over the last 600,000,000 years, period. I can’t wait for you to demonstrate your inability to learn from your idiotic mistakes!
10
George
To my statment:
You then fallaciously asserted:
You illogical retard, the hot spot does not exist now and therefore the AGW theory is falsified. I do not need a time machine to know that the laws of physics applied in the past just as much as they do in the present!
Crawl back under your bridge, troll and go gnaw on a bone!
10
Speedy,
Re: Late Ordovician ice age.
See Young’s paper 2009 – http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/10/951.abstract
Also this – http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/11/03-02.html
His study of strontium isotopes suggests that large scale volcanic activity prior to the Late Ordovician glaciation drove up atmospheric CO2 levels, triggering an increase in the rate of chemical weathering, which then continued after volcanic activity dropped off. This would have brought CO2 down to around 3000 ppm, enough to trigger an ice age.
The Late Ordovician ice age was comparatively short, and as Berner’s Geocarb III model averages CO2 levels out over 10 million year intervals, it’s not surprising we don’t necessarily see a direct correlation.
10
Eddy, Richard, Baa Humbug etc
The class is listening. Keep up the good work.
Like every class there are noisy f/wits at the back.
A 20 metre sea level rise this century.
Well it’s 2010 and in Brisbane we have our first
installment (the WHOLE 2 metres) on back order.
What happens when science is taken from nature
and run by the government.
10
What Bunk @ 63:
Where?:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
It looks no different than any other time, no different than 1997. Funny how you won’t quote “record Arctic melt” in the Northern winter..
10
George: #182
June 27th, 2010 at 10:09 am
I can see why people get short with you. You are a very obstinate fool.
Instead of refering me to one of your earlier posts (which I had already read), try reading what was posted for you.
Do you see this part of my quote from fig 9.1
So the hot spot hasn’t “only appeared under GHG forcing since 1890”, the hot spot has only appeared in GCM’s
Take a deep breath and follow…
* The GCM’s back-cast atmospherick responses to 1890
* That back-cast, or simulation, shows that ONLY UNDER GHG FORCING does a hot spot appear.
* Since the GCM’s simulated the warming from 1890-1999, and since they show that a hot spot should exist, a hot spot should be measurable in reality
* No one has been able to show that a REAL hot spot exists. Radiosonde don’t show it, satellites don’t show it.
* Either the theory punched into the GCM’s is wrong, or the thousands of IPCC scientists and the billions being spent can’t yet detect it.
* It therefore follows that whilst most bloggers here currently accept the former, you accept the latter.
On a further note, if the warming since 1890, that’s 120 years, has not been sufficient enough to show a hot spot, a hot spot that’s supposed to be 2 to 2.5 times that of the surface, then there couldn’t have been much of a warming in 120 years could there?
Can you actually follow that very very simple and basic logic? No?
OK we’ll try this.
*If the surface HAS warmed by 0.7DegC as Jones and Hansen tell us, then the troposphere at 10km should have warmed by 1.4-1.75DegC. High enough to detect by satellites or radiosonde.
*If the troposphere has warmed by a small amount, say 0.5 DegC so that it can’t yet be detected accurately, then it follows that the surface temperature should have warmed by 2-2.5 times less than the 0.5, that is 0.35-0.28DegC hardly worth getting ones knickers in a knot is it?
Therefore, having read all of your posts, one must conclude the following…
* George believes there has been no statistically significant warming since 1890
* George concludes from the above that such a small warming is negligeble considering the natural noise in the system
* George further concludes that all the noise and alarmism about AGW must be about agendas other than science as Georges interpretation of the science says there has been no warming.
* George declares that he is a new born sceptic in light of the “clearing of the mind” provided by Jo Nova and her bloggers and George gratefully thanks them for elevating him from the status of a cut n paste lemming
* George further declares that he will never take the word of scientists blindly as he has done in the past especially when large amounts of money and politics are involved
* George humbly thanks all here at Novas
10
Olaf @ 198
Remember the idiotic prediction from Mr. Serreze of the NSIDC that all the arctic ice would be gone by now? I read that he has, of late, sheepishly admitted that he may have mis-spoke. “Hey, but trust me, it will all melt real soon”
Gaaaagh!
10
@ Ambassador Baa Humbug #199
Way to go! 😉
10
Georges Report card
Finger painting – Fail
Logic – Fail
Basic Science – Fail
Ability to communicate – Fail
Maths – Fail
Circular arguments that go nowhere – pass
10
George: #189
June 27th, 2010 at 10:58 am
You see this is why I tell you not to accept what scientists say without question.
As we go back in time, the solar constant maybe lower, but the solar day is also shorter, that is, the sun rotated faster. A faster rotating sun means more solar wind. Many scientists (like Shaviv) have published papers that show the relationship between solar wind, cosmic rays and cloud formation.
Royer DID NOT take into account a faster spinning sun, so his paper MAYBE incomplete, i.e. be sceptical about it.
You’ll get used to being a sceptic George, it takes time to recover from brainwashing
—
Thanks Baa. Helpful response. JN
10
I have often wondered at what the hiphop-heads do when they get bored of demonstrating their “artistic ability & superior intellect” with a spray can on public property. I am beginning to get an idea!
It is getting tiresome George.
10
“William – I know you are being tongue in cheek – but you do realize SkepticalScience is an ambush site don’t you? — JN ]”
Of course. Apparently my comment was grossly misunderstood or you have at least 15 voters from the alarmist crowd who voted it down. I was making fun of the fact that the so-called skeptic who isn’t really a skeptic would attack climate skeptics. If he was really a skeptic, then climate skeptics would not rub him the wrong way. And, how novel and original it is that he would slam others being what he claims to be: a skeptic. Is that clear? Now go back and vote “like.”
——
10
Too many Georges!
Having read the last couple of hundred posts, gone through the Cook article three times and perused the first two paras of same repeatedly I am still no wiser as to what his overall contention was, let alone what the first two paragraphs are actually trying to say. S`pose I`ll have to write that one off due to my lack of analytical comprehension skills…
Now, a rhetorical poser from a non-scientist who only took an interest in this fairly recently because of nasty black balloons popping out of TV sets and washing machines, and cries of imminent doom (oh, if only they had applied the gradualism approach!);
On the one hand, given that over the last couple of millenia there seems to have been an observed multi-centennial warming/cooling cooling cycle I feel reasonably confident (with, say, 90%??? probability of being correct based on historical evidence) that the 21st and 22nd centuries will experience another LIA. Same goes for a none too far off Big ice age looking at order-of-magnitude greater time scales?
On the other hand I am told that there is (90%???) certainty that based on MODELLING which makes POSITIVE feedback ASSUMPTIONS to forcings which are MOSTLY attributed to ANTHROPOGENIC causes there WILL be warming over the next century of 3/4/6/11/”pick a scenario-based number” of degrees C.
Eenie-meenie-minie-mo…even without considering the blatant “confluence of interests” (I refuse to stoop to conspiracy theories) which have evolved over the last couple of decades, I am inclined to think that strident cries in relation to applying the Precautionary Principle are perhaps a little premature?
Mr. Cook does nothing to clarify the situation – aha, was it deliberate obfuscatory semantics containing an inferred underlying theme but without actually saying anything to support a standpoint or hypothesis, except other than by inference? Now I get it. I think…
“lowercase” george
10
OK Since George is throwing ad homs from the cloak of anonymity, he can either apologize for wasting our time with stoneage reasoning and lift his standards dramatically (anyone who throws a repeated ad hom doesn’t qualify as a rational commentator) or he can reveal himself (and he still needs to lift his standards). No more posts from coward irrational George until he does one or the other.
The tone of the discussion has degenerated (though I’d ask skeptics not to bite back with vitriol too). George, it’s a shame you can’t hold a real discussion.
I’ve obviously answered all your criticisms, which were pretty irrelevant in the big scheme of things in any case. The fact that there in no sign of water vapor amplification in the long run not only makes John Cooks post wrong but it pretty much sucks any point out of his whole site.
The fact that you believe weather balloons and satellites could be wildly inaccurate, but complex unverified “climate models” are right, betrays your religious conviction in the theory of CAGW.
10
I previously tried to respond to George’s mischief at 142 and embellished at 197 but my post had too many links and obviously overloaded Jo’s gatekeeper; so I’ll try again with the post split in 2:
“George at 142 links to a couple of Cook’s threads which are near and dear to AGW; one is the Snowball earth, that is to say whether there is any other method of pulling Earth out of past cold periods without increases in CO2, and secondly, the general relationship between temperature and CO2. The Cook Snowball thread is here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-past-climate-change.html
Cook argues that despite there being little apparent correlation between paleo temps and CO2 levels, given the reduced solar activity and consequent solar forcing there is in fact a good correlation between prior high CO2 and reduced temps. This argument has been refutted in the peer reviewed literature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/full/nature08955.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012050.shtml
For an excellent overview of the paleo relationship between levels of CO2 and temps Bill Illis’s post is very good:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/searching-the-paleoclimate-record-for-estimated-correlations-temperature-co2-and-sea-level/#more-11753
10
The 2nd part of my response to George’s linkage’s to Cook’s site is here:
“The general fallback position for AGW is that, indisputably, CO2 levels follow temp increases with feedback from the CO2 accelerating the temp increase; however it appears that the sensitivity of the CO2 response to temps is very slight:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/abs/nature08769.html
This mitigates the feedback position of AGW. More pertinent is the lack of correlation of this CO2 effect of following temps:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
This Lansner article really shreds the AGW position of CO2 following, in a feedback response, temperature increase; it has been verified by post 1998 temp decline with increased CO2 and the temp decline between 1940-1976, also with CO2 increase. There are a number of other contradictions to the CO2/temp correlation advocated by Cook such as the PETM but suffice to say his posts linked to by our George are highly problematic.”
George is really not the issue; Cook is because he gives a veneer of scientific imprimatur to the philosophical position of the Georges’ of the world.
10
Cohenite put in a comment at #190 which was accidentally picked up by the spam filter. I’ve freed it, so it has appeared, but that of course mucks up the comment numbers after 190, and also means his thoughts might be missed. Which would be a shame. Thanks Cohenite… JN
—————-
PS: OK. I can see that Cohenite has himself overcome the spam filter. I’ll delete 190. 🙂
10
Take two:
What will the alarmist crowd think of next? Using a so-called skeptic to slam climate skeptics–now that’s original! He is like a double agent, perhaps a double skeptic, a sleeper skeptic…LOL!
10
William Pinn, you know what they say the difference is that makes great humor?
Timing
🙂
10
“William Pinn, you know what they say the difference is that makes great humor?
Timing”
That works with verbal humor, but written humor is hard, since my words don’t reveal my whacky voice or fake nose and glasses. Anyway, it is time to get serious and read some links I saw above. 🙂
10
William Pinn, lol
the universal timing delay (for data modems) is the comma symbol. Each comma being 1/2 to 1 second delay. You might,,,,,,,try that?
Don’t forget the rubber chicken either!
🙂
10
cohenite @ various,
Thank you for your great posts. I don’t recall you posting here much before this week. Your timing is good too. I hope you stay around.
10
What the George dude said:
<<>>
George, let me see if I can break it down for you. Assuming what you say is actually true, then there is no global warming crisis, since no hot spot is found by the usual means: thermometers. If, as you say, the hot spot is not unique to AGW, then it is not proof of AGW even if a hot spot is found. So, in any case, we can conclude that there is no sufficient evidence of AGW even if we do find a hot spot. At least JN was willing to concede that if a hot spot is found, AGW would be confirmed. But you seem to be saying uh uh. OK, I’ll buy that.
10
Thanks Mark, it’s a great site.
10
Richard S Courtney @various
“As a Member of the Editorial Board of E&E”
Richard
If you are a member of the editorial board of E&E, what are you doing at this site, arguing a partisan case? You should no more be arguing one side here or another side at realclimate. Your responsibility is to be publishing all the science put before your journal, without fear or favour, and without any position. Like a judge, your responsibility is to be completely detached from a position on the science.
Let me put it to you that you active participation in any debate here is utterly at odds with your obligation to detached dispassion on the subject of the science being reported by your journal. Let me suggest to you that your posts here are a dereliction of your duty as an editor at E&E. Defend your journal or your personal reputation by all means, but stay out of the debate.
And as for comments such as “I recognise from your writings here that you have a severe lack of mental ability, so – to avoid straining your clearly few operating brain cells by trying to find it “. I would expect language like that in the gutter.
Let me suggest to you that your language and partisan comment here conveys the impression that the suggestion of bias in the editorial stance of E&E is totally justified. Only your future actions and language will dispel such a perception.
You can’t be one of the umpires at the tennis match if you want to pick up a tennis racket.
10
Roy Hogue @192
As to your suggestion the George @ I are ‘cohorts’ or ‘aquaintances’. No. I am sitting at my computer at home having just finished a long day at my business. I post here from time to time, when I can raise the energy to wade through some of the absurd things said here because the question of AGW is important to my grandchildren’s future.
Going back to some earlier conversations with you and Mark D for example, where I discussed the difference between Scepticism and Denialism and the integrity of a true sceptic. We discussed the origin of the 5.35 constant used in calculating the forcing due to CO2 doubling. You claimed to not know where that came from and expressed the sentiment that it was in some way plucked from thin air. You pointed me to a site, Nov55, that said similar things, and Baa Humbaug chimed in with references to Monckton of all things!!
I found you the source for that number – Myhre et al 1998, not plucked from thin air at all. You seemed to accept that that was the source and ‘retired from the conversation’.
So, In the spirit of honest scpeticism, and the honest desire to disseminate the facts, what actions have you taken since then to inform others who may also have thought that the 5.35 was ‘plucked from thin air’ that that is not the case. Have you for example posted anything at Nov55 to let them know they are wrong?
10
cohenite,
Thanks for your comments.
I’d just like to comment on the issue of the paleo relationship between levels of CO2 and temperature.
The two studies you posted:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/full/nature08955.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012050.shtml
refer to the Archean Eon – approx 2,500 million years ago.
You describe the post at skepticalscience as being concerned with the ‘Snowball Earth’.
It isn’t. The Snowball Earth refers to the hypothesis that the Earth’s surface became nearly or entirely frozen at least once, before 650 million years ago. The post at skepticalscience deals with paleoclimate going back as far as 600 million years.
The post at skepticalscience is only concerned with tackling Jo’s graph which purports to demonstrate the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature through the Phanerozoic – that’s not the Eon after the Archean, but the one after that.
Therefore the two studies you have posted have precisely nothing to do with the argument skepticalscience is making.
I have my own concerns about the accuracy of the Geocarb model, as there are many uncertainties about the modelling of past CO2, but as it is Jo who uses the graph, it seems only fair to criticise its shortcomings.
Yours,
George
10
Baa Humbug
“As we go back in time, the solar constant maybe lower, but the solar day is also shorter(BY HOW MUCH?), that is, the sun rotated faster. A faster rotating sun means more solar wind (JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS CLAIM SINCE SOLAR WIND IS FAR MORE ABOUT LIGHT PRESSURE THAN SOLAR ROTATION. SOME SORT OF EVIDENCE OF RELATIVE MAGNITUDE). Many scientists (like Shaviv) have published papers that show (SHOW? OR CLAIM?) the relationship (VAGUE LANGUAGE HERE. CAUSATION?, OR MERELY CORRELATION) between solar wind, cosmic rays and cloud formation(WHERE IS THE ‘SHOWN’ WITH CLOUD FORMATION?? HYPOTHESISED YES, SHOWN?? WELL LETS WAIT & SEE. SHAVIV, SVENSMARK, VEISER. WHO ELSE? HOW BIG IS ‘MANY’?) (AND WHAT IS THE MAGNITUDE OF ANY COSMIC RAY EFFECT? MAXIMUM & MINIMUM CR VALUES HERE AT THE EARTH ARE LIMITED BY GALACTIC CR LEVELS, NOT SOLAR CHANGES. SOLAR CHANGES CAN ONLY VARY THEM BETWEEN 0% PENETRATION TO 100% PENETRATION. SOLAR CHANGES MAY MODULATE % PENETRATION, NOT THE ABSOLUTE MAGNITUDE. SO WHAT IS THE BASIS OF LONG TERM TRENDS OVER DEP GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALES?) Royer DID NOT take into account a faster spinning sun, so his paper MAYBE incomplete, i.e. be sceptical about it.(AND SHAVIV, SVENSMARK, VEISER MAY BE WRONG. I.E. BE SCEPTICAL ABOUT IT)”
Unless this is more of that very selective scepticism again…
10
Tell you what Glenn, you worry about your grandchildren and I’ll worry about mine. The right thing for you to do is lead by example, but of course, you insist that everybody go with you to economic ruin.
Just because you’re too stupid to see that certain business interests are making a fortune out of this rort to everybody elses expense doesn’t mean that everyone has the same scales on their eyes. The head of the IPCC himself is just the head of a very rotten fish. How you can ignore the scandals and conflicts of interest is beyond me.
Whether you like it or not, Spain has slashed the subsidies to its alternative energy sector for the simple reason that they were destroying investment and real jobs. They were among the first things to go under the imposed austerity program. I suspect that there would be some in the socialist government who heaved a sigh of relief that this millstone was removed from their economic neck.
Re Christopher Monckton:
I’ve seen a short video of him talking to a very naive protester at Copenhagen. He concluded by telling her not to believe anybody, including him; rather do her own research. That’s a far cry from the patronising, condescending guff people get from AGW types.
10
George writes at post # 182,
ROFLMAO!
1890 was also the FIRST year of the modeling run.Not only that GHG’s were the only one capable of making the hotspot according to the model.
This means that the IPCC believe as usual that GHG’s and especially CO2 cause a strong positive feedback that creates that very hotspot you now admit the model claims should be there.It is NOT there with real data and even the IPCC admits it in the report.
Have you forgotten that there is that hypothesis called Anthropogenic Global Warming,in existence and that people like Al Gore,James Hansen,Ben Santer,Michael Mann and many more have made it clear they believe that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will cause large warming trend in the near future?
It is plain that you are a dishonest person who will always move the goalpost around like a slippery eel.
Sad really.
10
Glenn, you refer to the forcing figure of 5.35 as if it means something or has been validated outside of computer modeling; for a start read chp 3 of AR4 where, in a brief period of transparency, the authors discuss levels of confidence about their forcings and feedbacks.
10
Eddy @ 150
You say:
The biggest problem with this argument is that I can’t give it two (or several more) thumbs up! This describes the weakness of the AGW case in a nutshell: if CO2 COULD have destroyed the earth’s climate, it WOULD have done so millions if not billions of years ago.
On a less savoury topic, our recent troll has chosen to ignore your very logical argument and to focus instead on the hurt you have done to his feelings. He’s very delicate. In the spirit of good manners and good science, perhaps you could be nice to him and then ask George to explain why CO2 hasn’t caused a runaway greenhouse climate in the 4.5 billion years of the earth’s history? Given there are 50 tonnes of CO2 in the oceans for each tonne in the atmosphere – all waiting to be released as soon as the oceans warm. I’ll bet you a beer – Coopers Sparkling Ale -(if you were foolish enough to accept this wager) that he’s not going to have a logical or satisfactory answer.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Glenn @ 218
Please! The irony is exquisite! First, you ask why Richard doesn’t post at RealClimate (the public relations alarmist funded website). Simple reason – he’s censored out because he fails to comply with editorial policy there! Challenge for you. See if Richard can post (with twin postings) on both Jo Nova and Real Climate, with 100% transparency. Would you be OK with that? “Real”Climate only post half the story – theirs. And they don’t tolerate questioning of their opinions very well either.
Secondly, you accuse Richard of bad manners and language. I think you’ll find much worse on your beloved “Real” Climate. At least Richard hasn’t promised to “beat the crap” out of people, as was threatened to skeptic Pat Michaels. Neither has Richard suggested jailing or executing those who disagreed with him, as has James Hansen. Niether has Richard written a “Black List” of people who disagree with him, and published it in the (formerly) scientific literature.
And the third point. Really a question. If the earth’s atmosphere was trapping heat and warming the globe, wouldn’t one expect to see the first signs of it in the equatorial troposphere, as described by the IPCC? Or is this a sort of heat that doesn’t interact with thermometers?
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
JoNova @141
“The modelers were so sure this is what the atmosphere would look like THEY WEIGHTED THINGS so that the hot spot was definitively visible and only visible with greenhouse gases” (my emphasis)
Jo, a common thread that is very noticeable in the style of your blog is a ‘blurring’ of the distinction between commentary on the science, and commentary on the motivations behind the science. This is a good example. Not only do you claim that the evidence doesn’t support the existance of the hot spot, a claim disputed strongly by others, but you, just casually, insert an allegation of fraud, or at least deliberate bias against the authors of those graphs. I am sure that in your early years in journalism, any such allegation would have had to go past the legal department before it could be printed or reported. Or your editor would have hauled you over the coals.
So, could you please supply the sources you have to justify your assertion that these results were ‘weighted’. Or is this just a bit of casual slander?
10
Glenn @ 226
Sorry, but after Climategate, it’s hard to fit the words “Climate Scientist” and “integrity” into the same sentence.
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Glenn Tamblyn:
June 27th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
How nice of one of the stalwart lemmings to pay us another visit.
First they claimed, then they showed with their SKY experiment at the Danish National Space Centre, the results of which was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. So SHOWN after CLAIMED.
Vague language? VAGUE LANGUAGE?? You’re side should talk. The alarmist scientists of the IPCC, masters of vague language, riddled throughout the “gold standard” report you so rely on, yet here is Glen Tamblyn tangling with a blogger about vague language, LMFAO. I’m sure that any time now you will produce all the correspondence you’ve had with the IPCC, Realclimate and Scumbagscience complaining about their “vague language”. You’re too funny Tamblyn.
My language in this instance is targeted because correlation and causation has been shown in the SKY experiment. However, exact magnitudes are not known. Big surprise!!! Kinda like the EXACT MAGNITUDE OF CO2 FORCING ha Tamblyn? Told you you were too funny.
How big is many? Trust an alarmist reliant on the infamous CONSENSUS ha Tamblyn? Hahaha you kill me you do, such dark humour.
As far as I’m concerned, one more than one is many because ONE IS ENOUGH. You’re not satisfied with the terms I use? Tough titties pal, I’m not interested in satisfying you.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hypotheses Tamblyn, but do I hear you say lets wait and see? Noooo, I hear you cry “but what about my grand children”. You can please yourself about your grandkids Tamblyn, but keep your dirty politicised comercialised global warming mits of mine. Deal?
p.s. you say…
mmmmm I’m getting old, don’t recall that. I do recall referring someone to the ready reckoner Monckton often includes in his CO2 report. But like I said, I’m getting old, would you care to share my “chime” by reminding me of the said post please. I’d like to read the context.
10
Speedy
You miss my point (unintentionally I am sure).
Richard shouldn’t post at any of these sites. If he is an editor at a major journal on a contentious issue such as Climate Change it is his duty as an editor to maintain a dispassionate distance from the debate. A Judge in a trial doesn’t go to the bar at the end of the day to have a beer with the barristers for the prosecution, or the defence.
Richard needs to decide. Does he want to pick up a tennis racket?. If so resign his empires job. If he wants to be play tennis, he can’t be an umpire. Questions of Conflict of Interest are actually quite simple like that.
As for using bad language. Again, fine for John Macenroe, not the umpire.
As to your third comment, There is a lot of other science out there saying the hotspot is there. Particularly that the sceptics favorite satellite data series – the UAH T2LT series – is biased and artificially low. Look at some of the papers by Qiang Fu and others.
As to your comment to Eddy, we have had this conversation before, and you really don’t seem to grasp this. Lower solar output in the past rules out runaway effects in the past, and not all positive feedbacks are ‘runaway’ feedbacks. Only a feedback with a high enough gain will go runaway. If the gain is too lower it is a bounded feedback and no runaway.
10
Speedy and sunset
Sorry to disappoint you but you may not be hearing from George. See #207
10
Glenn Tamblyn,
That you post under your real name is to your credit. That you’re to be found on skepticalscience is not.
I worked out the meaning of 5.35 after a little thinking about it and posted it on JN as well. As for doing anything more about it, no I have not; nor will I do anything more. The number is much too large to fit observed reality. It’s straight out of the IPCC’s playbook and not to be trusted for reasons I surely don’t have to reiterate to a man who presents himself as so thoroughly learned in matters of global warming. Recent history should speak for itself.
Speaking of 5.35 — when you insist on working in terms of the amount of heat here or there instead of temperature I gave up on you. The billions of Hiroshima bombs worth of energy stored up in the oceans is of no interest. The supposed crisis is all about undesirable and uncontrollable temperature increase. And it ain’t happening. Glenn, it just isn’t there!
10
Yet you can chair the CRU hearing with a record of bias favoring AGW.
10
Glenn, I’d like to try some of the accusations that Richard Courtney suffered at the hand of George, on you. Are you game?
First, post your academic and career history (CV) complete with all your personal contact information. It wouldn’t hurt to add a few of your published articles too. As soon as that arrives we can get started.
Thank you for the anticipated cooperation in this experiment.
10
Cohenite
No, I was referring to a previous conversation I had with Roy Hogue and others about the suggestion that in effect ‘no one knows where the 5.35 number comes from’ and the suggestion that it was plucked out of thin air. I showed that it wasn’t plucked from nothing but from published science. You may dispute that science but it isn’t just fabrication. I was raising the point with Roy and others about the ‘inntegrity of scepticism’ or if you like the distinction between scepticism & denialism. An honest sceptic might still question the scientific basis of the figure, but would at least accept that it is not just ‘plucked from thin air’. And an honset sceptic would then SEEK TO DISSEMINATE THAT FACT TO OTHER SCEPTICS, TO REMOVE AN UNFOUNDED PIECE OF SCEPTICISM. That being what an honest sceptic would do.
Because this is the fundamental point. A sceptic is open minded. If the evidence can be presented to show the validity of the AGW hypothesis, a sceptic would change their mind. To quote Michael Shermer, editor of Sceptic Magazine – Sceptics change their minds, Denialists just keep on denying.
10
No Glenn #226, your conspiracy theorist mind is working overtime.
Weighting things is what modelers do.
There is nothing controversial or misunderstood about the model weightings in the AR4 diagram — the images A – E add to make F, and the only way to do this is to weight A – E with weights that reflect how much each cause was contributing in their models.
They have to make dozens of assumptions in order to tune the models to fit the warming of the last century. They assume that all the warming is due to CO2, then see if they can remake the last century based on that, but when things get too warm too fast in 1940, and then annoyingly cool for 25 years, they search for reasons why not. Someone thinks of “aerosols” and a whole bunch of scientists feel relieved. This process is repeated over and over making the models fit the records as best they can. But given that they started with a few assumptions (like positive feedback), all the fiddling they do to make things match is just a continuation of an error cascade.
These are honest scientists starting from a flawed assumption. Since there are no grants or rewards for people to find other causes of warming this one sided system “always turns left”. There is no crime necessary nor implied.
BTW – You seem to think I’m a journalist? I’ve never called myself that. Looks like you are the only one suggesting slanderous things and not doing your research.
10
Glenn Tamblyn:
June 27th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
“[…]
As to your third comment, There is a lot of other science out there saying the hotspot is there. Particularly that the sceptics favorite satellite data series – the UAH T2LT series – is biased and artificially low. Look at some of the papers by Qiang Fu and others.”
Thanks for providing the link, Glenn, so we don’t have to go searching. Oops, you didn’t provide a link. Well, you don’t have to if you don’t want to.
Here’s a Qiang Fu PDF, didn’t read it by now.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf
10
More of the same from a “warmer”. The only valid evidence is what they present.
Glenn, did you bother to read any CRU emails; or did you just shut your eyes and pretend none of it happened.
Yep, thought so. You also seem to forget, like all your colleagues, that the burden of proof is on you, not us.
In closing, would you care to inform us of what evidence would falsify AGW in your opinion. Or do you believe that you can just go on moving the goalposts when confronted with uncomfortable evidence?
10
Baa Humbug
This from http://www.sciencebits.com/SkyResults
“The SKY experiment unequivocally demonstrates that more cosmic rays would imply more condensation nuclei in the atmosphere. In many circumstances, it is reasonable to expect that more of the SMALL condensation nuclei would also imply more of the LARGER cloud condensation nuclei which form the seeds of clouds” (my emphasis)
Again as I have said before, Sevnsmarks theories have several hurdles. One is the transition from very small nuclei possibly affected by GCRs to the size needed to act as CCN’s. Next is competition between any GCR generated CCN’s with other sources of CCN’s for GCR sourced ones to be a dominant part of the CCN mix.
Finally, which you didn’t address from my post, how does this provide a long term trend over the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth when the maximum level of GCRs is determined by the background level in the galaxy, not solar activity. And the minimum level is zero.
And apart from your reference to the SKY tests, you didn’t back up anything else you said. Just a segue into avoidance amd attack. la la la…
10
235Joanne Nova:
June 28th, 2010 at 12:29 am
“[…]
This process is repeated over and over making the models fit the records as best they can. But given that they started with a few assumptions (like positive feedback), all the fiddling they do to make things match is just a continuation of an error cascade.”
That’s what’s making it so amusing to watch. The poor chaps.
10
JoNova
“Weighting things is what modelers do.” Yes. Weighting inputs, parameters etc. However suggesting or implying that something that something has been weighted to PRODUCE an outcome is a whole different kettle of fish.
It appears you are a psychic Jo. You know what people did even though you weren’t there.
So. “They assume that all the warming is due to CO2”. What is your justification for that statement, other than a crystal ball. Or is that just the common sceptic tactic of putting words in other peoples mouths.
“But given that they started with a few assumptions (like positive feedback)” Who says? You Jo? Have you ever considered that positive feedback is a consequence of the models, not an assumption. How many climate models have you actually looked at?
“They have to make dozens of assumptions in order to tune the models to fit the warming of the last century” They did, did they? And how do you know that? Were you there? How many conferences have you attended where how the models works was described and debated. How do you back up those statements? Otherwise you are just throwing mud indescriminantly.
Don’t just claim things like this Jo. Back it up. Otherwise what you are saying is propaganda, not debate.
10
Mark
“In closing, would you care to inform us of what evidence would falsify AGW in your opinion. Or do you believe that you can just go on moving the goalposts when confronted with uncomfortable evidence?”
OK
All of the following…
Falsify the radiative physics of the GH gases. Disprove the Standard Solar Model & the Faint Young Sun problem. Disprove the deep paleoclimate history of CO2 levels. Falsify the Law of Conservation of Energy. An alternate explanation for Stratospheric cooling, Greater warming at night and in winter. Disprove the satellite data on OLR spectrum changes. Disprove the changes in Downwelling Longwave Radiation.
After that we are down to the magnitude of feedbacks and climate sensitivity where there is debate. But the balance of evidence, although not certainty, is on 3 DegC per CO2 doubling.
And now unfortunately, I have to work tomorrow – earning a crust & all that.
10
@ Rablin’ Tamblyn
Peer reviewed literature is refereed, not “judged.” A scientists first and foremost responsibility is to the truth. A real scientists not only promulgates the truth but calls to account those who do not.
Better, you can’t be a legitimate scientist unless you promote the truth and challenge those who do not.
Or even better, “It is best to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool then to open it and remove all doubt.” Do your homework next time!
10
Glenn:
We’ve seen trolls like you come and go.
You have rather a lot to say on models and the underpinning “theory”. I thought you said you were just a business man with a motorbike. So what’s the business, renewable energy related maybe?
It has obviously escaped your attention that the time here is 1 am. You might be waiting a bit for a response so in the meantime I suggest you read up on the climate history on this planet of ours. Quite amazing how it has warmed up and cooled down all by itself in the past.
That’s why I am much more inclined to believe geologists like Bob Carter and Ian Plimer than a pack of duplicitous “scientists” like Michael Mann and Phil Jones. Not to mention… you.
10
‘earning a crust & all that.’
One wonders if his work is So poor that he can’t earn the entire Loaf….
00
Glenn Tamblyn: #238
June 28th, 2010 at 12:33 am
What? That’s it? That’s all you got? I joined this discussion to get..
00
Ramblin’ Tamblyn:
June 28th, 2010 at 12:53 am
Actually, it is worse than that. The IPCC reasons since they can’t find anything else that could possibly explain it, it must be CO2. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. The IPCC also assumes a rate which is double the current rate of increased CO2 content in the atmosphere.
Wow, based by the tone of your entire post I am reminded of the death scream of a troll! I guess if I were a troll I would wax apoplectic if I couldn’t make an intelligent argument. Positive feedbacks are rare in nature and most are negative. The IPCC wants us to believe that a small increase in a trace gas is going to cause a positive feedback with water vapor and this feedback loop will lead to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. There is no empirical evidence to support this claim. The ice core records prove otherwise (See my previous posts on ice core data.) Moreover, the temp/CO2 records for this interglacial demonstrate that temps have been higher while CO2 levels were lower. Absent other factors, as the CO2 levels rose the positive feedback loop would have occurred and the world would have experienced CAGW. In fact, there is no evidence to support a positive water vapor feedback in the geological record; zip, zilch, nada! It has never happened before and yet the conditions necessary, according to the IPCC estimates, have occurred time and time again.
I have a lot of respect for Jo and so do a lot of other posters that frequent this site. Unless you are a glutton for punishment I hope you will be man enough to apologize to Jo for your personal attacks and the rude tenor of your recent posts. Then, you can continue on the path to enlightenment. Otherwise, you will get your intellectual ass handed to you time and time again.
00
Ad nauseam!
Glenn @240,
How quickly and easily you attack…I’m amazed!
A couple of questions for you:
1. Have you ever seen smoke rising from the middle of a lake? No? I thought so. Smoke comes from something burning. Do you get the analogy?
2. A model by its very nature — indeed as a matter of its definition — must start with assumptions about how things work. If the IPCC models had shown any real ability to predict anything there would be no complaint. But they are AWOL in that regard. The dire predictions have been changed how many times? Surely you know the answer to this.
Joanne’s assumptions are much better justified by reasonable analysis than the ridiculous assertion by George that the earth is warming right now as we carry on this debate.
You may fool a lot of people with computer models but remember I’m a computer scientist by training and long experience, having both BS and MS degrees in the subject. You cannot fool me about what’s inside a computer model. When all the mystique and nonsense is ripped away all that’s left is a program that feeds back to its master exactly what its master programmed it to say.
If you want a computer model that will tell you what the temperature at noon will be in downtown (you name the city) on September 29, 2075, I’ll write it for you. It won’t be worth the power it took to run the computer to code it up and run it. But I can do it for you.
If the model accurately models the present and the future it’s useful. If it doesn’t it’s just a lot of random numbers.
I think by now you realize that I’ve had it with defense of the failed computer models. It’s no surprise that they refuse to release the code. If I had done any of those models I wouldn’t release the code either. I’d delete it and hope no one would ever connect my name with it. It’s shameful!
00
I was reading some links George left. One thing he mentioned at his site did intrigue me: the claim was that the sun was less intense 600 million years ago than today, hence the reason 7000 ppm CO2 was not able to cause extreme warming.
Somehow that does not add up. If the sun has grown more intense over time, would not CO2 levels be higher than 7000 ppm due to the fact that warming releases more CO2 from the oceans? Over time the levels have dropped to around 300 ppm.
That makes perfect sense if one assumes the sun grew less intense rather than more intense. If there has been long-term cooling, then CO2 levels should drop over time and they have.
Therefore, if we increase the CO2 to 7000 ppm it should have even less of an impact on the climate than it did 600 million years ago.
00
@ Baa Humbug #245
You queried:
FOTMFF LMFAO! Did you really expect this poser of a poster to reply in a cogent, prescient, intelligent and THOUGHTFUL manner? Not a snoball’s chance in hell. That dolyt was a troll on a fallacy fueled drive by. He wanted to get to sleep before anyone could respond and shatter his fragile ego. As Prof. Vinckman once said, “Yes, this man has no….”
Check back with y’all later
00
Hi Jo,
Whatever your take on John Cook’s arguments, or his website, you’ve got to be impressed with his restraint on name calling, and his dedication to keeping the posted comments free of “ad hom” attacks.
You’d do well to apply similar restraint and dedication on your website too.
I imagine that most people new to here take one look at the provocative language and conclude that any discussion of meritable science here is hopelessly buried under a mountain of heated opinion.
Any chance you could post comments on his website too? I’m sure he would keep the discussion respectful, and it would save me having to wade through the vitriol here.
Cheers, Mark
00
Glenn Tamblyn:
It’s the same wherever you troll. Waste people’s time in answering the same inane, boring questions, fallacies and insults.
Tag-team time-wasting.
It’s quite clear from the questions that you ask that you don’t understand, refuse to understand or afraid to think for yourself about the underlying basic physical principles of climate systems. It’s that absence of comprehension that prevents you from recognizing that all the different answers to those questions are better answers than the dogma being preached by RealClimate, etc.
00
I need to add this to my post at 247:
There is a very real and high probability that quality control over those computer models is absent in any useful form. It is therefore possible that outright errors may be influencing what the models predict.
00
“Falsify the radiative physics of the GH gases. Disprove the Standard Solar Model & the Faint Young Sun problem. Disprove the deep paleoclimate history of CO2 levels. Falsify the Law of Conservation of Energy. An alternate explanation for Stratospheric cooling, Greater warming at night and in winter. Disprove the satellite data on OLR spectrum changes. Disprove the changes in Downwelling Longwave Radiation.”
Glenn, I don’t think AGW is falsifiable–that is precisely why it is a relious cult rather than genuine science. The fact that climate models are consistently wrong should falsify AGW. The fact that Phil Jones admits publicly that there has been no significant warming in the past 15 years should falsify AGW. The fact that Michael Mann is a complete fraud should falsify his work. The fact that no Earth Day prediction has ever come true should falsify those predictions.
Now, what you want us to falsify is probably not in dispute. What is in dispute are the assumptions that warming is mostly bad and humans mostly cause it. Even if all your science is correct, it does not establish that warming is mostly bad and that humans mostly cause it. If the models are wrong time and time again, it does not matter if your science is right because your assumptions are simply wrong–and that is what is falsified time and time again.
00
Glenn Tamblyn:
At #218 you assert of me as a Member of the Editorial Board of E&E:
And you summarise your case by saying:
The error in your assertion is demonstrated by your summarising analogy.
There is no rule that an umpire is forbidden from playing tennis: the only rule is that one of the players in a game should not be allowed to umpire the same game.
So, I can judge if papers submitted fulfil the requirements for acceptance and I can arrange for their peer review. Indeed, I can do that on specialist scientific subjects of which I have little specialistknowledge provided I can obtain reviewers with adequate and appropriate expertise.
Let me pose you a question that – if you consider it – may help you to understand the error of your assertions.
Should Michael Mann be sacked as a peer reviewer for Nature magazine because he is a founder and leading operator of the pro-AGW propogandist web site ‘Realclimate.org’?
Richard
00
Glenn, a point of clarification on comment 253: When I say AGW is unfalsifiable, I mean that no matter what the evidence shows or fails to show, AGW alarmists keep the faith.
00
Mark @250,
I’ll second your comment.
Confronting someone with a direct statement of disagreement and the reason for the disagreement is OK (at least with me). But the attack approach doesn’t do us any credit. It simply hurts our reputation and Joanne’s.
I will renew my appeal from the previous thread. Let’s act like the professionals that we all are. If you disagreed with a colleague over something how would you handle it? You don’t necessarily have to walk on egg shells. But consider the other readers of what you say here.
00
Mark:
June 28th, 2010 at 2:24 am
Gentle poster,
I am going to go out on a limb here and I hope that I am not overstepping my bounds by stating that I am sure your unsolicited advice will be warmly received and given all the attention that it could possibly deserve.
It would appear that, please excuse me if I am mistaken, that you are on a “fishing” expedition. I have no wish to visit Mr. Cook’s website but I wish nothing but the best to those who elect to do so. The discussion on this website normally consists of polite discourse, some witty repartee and a little back and forth banter. Unfortunately, we have been visited by teams of trolls who are not here for a respectful debate. No, my friend, they are here to sow discord and wreak havoc. The problem with these trolls is that there arguments are so feeble that it is analogous to bringing a knife to a gunfight. In all candor, sir I must tell you that they are merely getting what they deserve. As they say in Texas, if you mess with the bull you get the horn.
Have a nice day! 😉
00
Eddy Aruda,
I cringe when I read some of your postings.You can get personal with George using a lot of nasty name calling.
Post # 150,152,194,195 are notable examples.
Please stop it.
I see that George got slapped down as he deserved,but others are not getting anything for similar name calling and such.
I hope this is not a growing evidence of bias in favor of skeptics.If it is I may grow tired of it and leave since I do not want to get infected from such juvenile actions of others.
00
Wow. I’m out for a few days only to see 100’s of messages in my inbox from this list. It’s certainly a spirited debate, but really needs to focus more on the actual science, after all, this should be a scientific issue. Peer reviewed climate science papers mean nothing as Climategate confirmed what we already knew about how corrupted the peer review process had become. We must focus on what the data is telling us and whether or not this is consistent with the claims of these papers. My advice to the warmists out there, use your brains to think this through, rather than relying on what your precious peer reviewed papers say. Remember, it’s these speculative papers which CAGW skeptics are skeptical of.
Glenn (and others warmists who wandered in to this site):
I don’t know whether or not you know my standard question. I’m not allowed to post at RC at all, specifically, because I raised this question, so maybe you can ask, as I see you post there a lot and are probably even allowed to post uncensored. Apparently, Gavin is smarter than he appears as he seems to realize that the answer to my question invalidates his favorite hypothesis and he doesn’t want his followers to think about this question.
The question is why is each watt of incremental energy absorbed by incremental CO2 more than 5 times as powerful as a watt of energy arriving from the Sun? It seems like the warmists have already decided to overturn Conservation of Energy. Isn’t the overturing of COE what you needed to convince you that CAGW is a flawed theory?
Consider the surface temp of 287K corresponds to 385 W/m^2, while the incident energy is 342 W/m^2, which means each watt of power from the Sun is amplified by 385/342 = 1.12. Even if we count the post albedo incident energy of 239 W/m^2, the amplification factor (i.e. gain) is only 1.6.
You might contend that the climate responds too slowly, or that the climate responds differently to incremental power than it does to total power. To counter that, consider that the average difference in power arriving from the Sun between perihelion and aphelion is 20 W/m^2 (i.e. the solar constant varies between 1326 W/m^2 and 1406 W/m^2 between early Jun and early January). This should result in the average temperature in January being about 5C warmer than in June (considering a gain of 1.6), yet the global average temp is 4C colder instead. Clearly something is offsetting this additional solar energy, which is that perihelion happens to coincide with the Earth’s maximum reflectivity from newly fallen N hemisphere snow and the winter refreezing of the Arctic ocean. You might also consider that that if the snow pack were permanent (i.e. we were in a glacial phase), this difference in reflectivity becomes permanent and the 8-9 C of cooling from N hemisphere reflectivity becomes permanent, rather than seasonal. Why even consider CO2 forcing, when reflectivity forcing has all the answers?
You should also notice that if the Earth’s global average temperature changes by 4C, the Earth as a whole must be gaining and loosing energy at a substantial rate, which invalidates the hypothesis that the Earth responds slowly to changing forcing. Note that if the same sensitivity applied to CO2 forcing power is applied to solar forcing power, the 20 W/m^2 should result in a temperature swing of about 16C.
It takes about 16 W/m^2 of surface power to cause a 3C rise in surface temperature. The IPCC claims that 3.7 W/m^2 of ‘forcing’ causes this, for a gain of 16/3.7 = 4.32. The truth is that the 3.7 W/m^2 is the amount of incremental absorption caused by doubling CO2. The IPCC claims this is the reduction in energy at the top of the atmosphere, which is incorrect, as this fails to account for increases in the transparent region of the spectrum where half of the retained power eventually finds it’s way out of the atmosphere. HITRAN 2008 based 3-d atmospheric simulations confirm that the 3.7 W/m^2 number is reasonable (I get 3.6 W/m^2 with my simulations). The 3.7 W/m^2 is really 1.9 W/m^2 which is supposed to cause 16 W/m^2 of incremental surface warming, for a gain of 8.2, which is 5 times larger than the power gain measured for the system (1.6). If you compare this to the pre albedo gain, the disparity is even larger. Even comparing to the full 3.6, a gain 2.5 times larger than the data indicates is still far too big. This is the difference between considering that something may need to be done about man’s CO2 emissions and understanding that the effect is too small to warrant the obsessive guilt complex it seems to have developed.
George (the one who actually understands climate science)
00
@ sunsettommy #258
I am normally congenial and polite. When we are assaulted by trolls drastic action is required. I think of it as self defense. If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything. I know that the end does not justify the means and that two wrongs do not equal a right. When these trolls come lumbering onto this site and start taking cheap shots at Jo and some of the posters I have no compunction about taking off the gloves. I have seen you post here before and I do respect you and I meant no offense. Remember, the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. I remember when the marines were sent in to Lebanon and someone came up with the idea of having them walk around with their weapons unloaded. The result was a few hundred dead marines. A troll is as undeserving of civil treatment as a terrorist combatant or spy captured on the battlefield out of uniform.
00
Hey Jo. Another brilliant demolition. I am afraid that much of the subsequent scientific argument in the comments is beyond my modest knowledge but the fact that such argument occurs here is a testament to the standing of your site and the caliber of reader it attracts. You are a star. Keep up the great work.
00
Eddy,
I agree with you at 261. You are normally congenial and polite. And I remember that you stood up for me in the past when I was criticized for what I said. So I don’t relish saying this one little tiny bit. But some of the comments used against undesirable visitors on this very thread have been outright embarrassing. It does nothing but discredit all of us, joannenova.com.au and Joanne herself when this happens.
Remember, we don’t own this blog, Jo does. And we are in effect, guests in her house. I don’t think we can afford to take things for granted. Joanne has some rules she wants followed and has published them. They boil down to keeping a civil demeanor. I know the temptation to go into attack mode quite well because I’ve done it myself several times. And every time I’ve regretted it.
You’re right — when someone like George comes along he needs to be confronted with the fact that we don’t find his posting acceptable and the reason spelled out. But I think that can be accomplished without name calling and obscenity. A strongly worded statement is certainly OK when necessary (at least with me). I finally read George a list of objections to his position and when he replied I rejected his complaint out of hand. He hadn’t a leg to stand on! I also gave him fair warning that he was risking being banned. But he was having none of it.
I don’t care how you want to handle things. But please, I renew my plea to stop the name calling and obscenity.
From Jo’s rules:
The emphasis is mine.
When several different people call attention to this problem it’s time to pay attention to it.
00
Glenn Tam @ 229, Richard
Glenn – please refer to the points above oomparing the advocacy of (say) Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann – you don’t call them for conflict of interest do you? Perhaps you’d just rather Richard wasn’t on the other side from you…
As to solar dimming. We did the maths, didn’t we? We showed that a 5% reduction in solar output in the period you refer to results in a 4 degree (celsius) drop in temperature. At the same time, CO2 levels were around 7000 ppm – just over 4 doublings of CO2 level. If we said 3 Celsius per doubling, the temperature should be (12 – 4) = 8 degrees HOTTER than today (all things being equal.) Instead, there appears to have been an ice age! Conclusion: CO2 is not a relevant player in the atmosphere once it exceeds a threshold to absorb practically all of the 15 micron wavelength.
To use your analogy: Game, set and match to the sceptices!
Cheers,
Speedy
00
William Pinn @ 253
Thank you William, you saved me some effort there.
Glenn uses a bunch of other theories and hypotheses to back up his pet theory. I was hoping for him to make some predictions that he and the other warmista would stand, but more likely, fall by.
You know, things like some global temperatures over time, ice extent, and the “hot…”. Ooops, almost mentioned the “hot spot”. Aghh, damn, damn, damn!
00
@ Roy Hogue
I yield to the logic of your argument. I will attempt in the future to refrain from ad hominems. That being said, I will attempt to be restrained but if “it” hits the fan the gloves will come off again.
Thanks for being there for me int he past. I never forget a friend.
00
Just noticed that another plain vanilla “Mark” has appeared.
If you continue posting, please differentiate yourself in some way to avoid confusion. I was here first!
00
Eddy,
Thank you!
00
William Pinn @ 248.
The sun indeed is hotter today than 600ma ago. Reason for this is what’s known as hydrostatic equilibrium. As more hydrogen is fused into helium ash, gravity steps into the breech and compresses the core making it hotter. This increased core heat then causes the outer layers to expand.
This is why billions of years from now the sun will turn into a “red giant” swallowing Mercury, Venus and possibly us as well.
Nobody will be alive here of course, but it would be an incredible sight to see the sun almost fill the sky huh! Glenn et al will probably blame it all on AGW.
Just how AGW can use this to back up their “case”. Damned if I know.
Mark I.
00
Eddie @ 268.
Indeed, what we face are the deaths of millions, in particular small children and the frail aged should these charlatans get their way.
Imagine the real good these zillions of dollars, euros, yen, whatever, could do if diverted into something as simple as providing clean water and efficient heating systems.
Looking at one set of ice core samples convinces me that it’s not warming we have to worry about. There looks to be a steady downward gradient of warm periods from the Holocene to the present.
Just how do these crazies explain temperature fluctuations of 10 deg. C in less than a 100 years when there wasn’t an SUV in sight let alone a coal fired power station.
Oh, silly me. They know everything there is to know about climate, don’t they. That’s how I know that they know damn-all.
Mark I
00
Sorry, should be Eddy @ 260.
00
Your point Mark, about the divergence of funds away from beneficial projects into the black pit of AGW, is a crucial one; as is your reference to previous intense fluctuations of temperature without a variation of CO2 in sight; 2 references for this are here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25353
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/c26eac043404365b046ade72e8bc9424.html
The claims about unprecedented increases in temperature by AGW proponents are patently wrong.
00
On another issue which has been referred to be by some of the pro-AGW comments, that is models of the greenhouse effect; a good basic overview of the modeling process is by Mike Hammer;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/pondering-problems-with-computer-climate-models/?cp=1
A slightly more complex critique of IPCC modeling is by Dr Glassman:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html
And an analysis of the failure of IPCC modeling is by Professor Koutsoyiannis; click on the condensed version of the presntation:
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850/
00
Mark (I) at various; Damn imposters….
What about those 4 Apostles you know!
There was a period in time where I wanted to have a “Mark” party where all invitees were Marks. I had a list of 21 people at one time (it is a small town).
Mark D 🙂
00
Eddy, considering Roy @262…
You are the pugilist friend. The guy I want to have at my back with extra ammo when it is needed.
Roy is right though: This isn’t our home.
Thanks Eddy, Thanks Roy
00
Thanks Jo too!
00
Eddy and Roy – you really have to be kidding – anyone with a view other than the echo chamber’s will be abused and howled down.
[snip]
00
@ Luke Walker
If you have something meaningful or intelligent to post then, by all means, please do. Otherwise please quit wasting our valuable time. BTW, your time is valuable, also. And, if I may ask, is that a “glam” photo of you?
I apologize if I have been rude. I went to the CRU/IPCC school of etiquette. I am sure you are familiar with the etiquette and manners of climate scientists as revealed by the climategate emails?
00
Luke Walker: #276
June 28th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Hey Luke, good to see you’ve been reading the East Anglia emails.
Wasn’t it so disappointing to read those esteemed fellows at EAU and CRU had to resort to that which is beneath them?
But they are good fellows, serving humanity, the future of my grandchildren no less, bless their cotton sox. I’m sure they’ll pick themselves up and dust themselves down and continue with honest forthright research which this world needs.
By the way, that’s a great pic of you. Obviously reflects your inner child. Nurture your inner child Luke, and you’ll be one with gaia.
00
Mark D @ 273
Gettin’ confusin’ ain’t it!
Mark I.
00
ED,
Is that your real picture? I ask because you look a lot like our Foreign minister Steven Smith, maybe he is your dopple ganger. I know you and he are not the same because when he talks all he does (like most labor pollies ) is sing “I’m so dizzy my head is spinning” he does not make perfect sense like your good self.
Anyway i went looking through the IPCC paraphernalia trying to find the actual refernce to the graphs in JO’s preamble (i have seen these graphs before) in response to various retorts by the trolls claiming such things like “oh the hotspot could be caused by anything” and “aw gee shucks the missing hot spot proves nothing”.
Unfortunately like all other forays into the rabbit warren of deceit i came up almost empty handed, luckily my cave diving experience gave me a competitve edge and i was able to find my way out, i often wonder how many poor souls wander too close to the edge of the IPCC reality and are now lost between the realms. Think of it like getting to close to the event horizon which is fitting as this is also a yet unseen theoretical construct.
I must say my search was not entirely fruitless as i did find this:
http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/454.htm
A couple of excerpts
“Stratospheric trends
A recent assessment of temperature trends in the stratosphere (Chanin and Ramaswamy, 1999) discussed the cooling trends in the lower stratosphere described in Chapter 2. It also identified large cooling trends in the middle and upper stratosphere, which are consistent with anthropogenic forcing due to stratospheric ozone depletion and increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. An increase in water vapour, possibly due to increasing methane oxidation, is another plausible explanation for the lower strato-spheric cooling (Forster and Shine, 1999) but global stratospheric water vapour trends are poorly understood.”
Question for the trolls, does this statement suggest to you that the IPCC has no idea what they are talking about or is it just me?
and
Stuff it just read the whole damn thing and point out the bits that you consider to be “evidence” that show the models have got it right.
00
crakar24: #281
June 28th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Hi crackar
The hotspot figures are from WG1 chp 9 fig 9.1
It’s also in the SPM and the WG1 FAQ’s
00
Well I got curious about that one and found, “Ten-year global distribution of
downwelling longwave radiation” by K. G. Pavlakis , D. Hatzidimitriou , C. Matsoukas , E. Drakakis , N. Hatzianastassiou , and I. Vardavas which seems as good a place to start as any. I mean, a ten year global distribution sounds kind of impressive.
However, when actually reading the article, I note the following:
The rest of the article describes how the “global dataset” has been synthesized from a model which in turn gets input data from a number of databases. Which input data is most important for modelling DLF ? I’m glad you asked:
… and later in the conclusion …
Let’s just recap on those all important factors: water vapour, temperature and cloud cover.
Scan ahead to Fig 9 and you can see their validation scatter graph comparing their model with 8 stations taking direct measurements. They haven’t done too bad, I guess their correlation at a factor of a bit less than 0.9 but in absolute terms the width of the scatter is something on the order of 50 Wm-2 which we could call an error of plus/minus 25 Wm-2.
Now I’d just like you to remind us all how big is the “human contribution” to climate change again. Can’t remember? Just ask the IPCC:
So let’s just get this straight:
* the actual measurements of DLF are sparse and cover around 15 years of data (many individual stations cover less than that).
* the uncertainty in the model’s ability to match measured data is a whole order of magnitude larger that the IPCC estimate of total effect of human activity over the best part of three centuries.
* the biggest contributor to DLF is water anyhow and not CO2.
What exactly am I supposed to be disproving here?
Just in case this was a unique case of an article on DLF fully supporting the skeptic’s case, I checked another: RETRIEVING SURFACE DOWNWELLING LONGWAVE RADIATION FROM SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS: IMPROVEMENT OF THE ZHOU-CESS ALGORITHM Yaping Zhou, David P. Kratz, Anne C. Wilber, Shashi K.Gupta and Robert D. Cess. Sure enough, we have consensus:
Skip ahead to Fig 6 where they have scatter graphs comparing the model with measured data and the general spread of the scatter is a bit over 50 Wm-2 not much different to the last model.
What exactly am I supposed to be disproving here?
I don’t get what your point is Glenn, this stuff already shows that the contribution of CO2 is negligible and lost deeply in the noise. You seriously see this as one of the fundamental planks of your belief in AGW?
00
Cohenite @ 272
Your first link (by Hammer April 2009) has this paragraph which so nicely states what should cause warmists to pause:
Perhaps it is time to insist that our governments fund, at an equal amount, the “other side” of AGW research.
00
Tel, backradiation is the main active factor in support of the greenhouse effect; the K&T cartoon is the backbone of the greenhouse:
http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/colloquia/080430.htm
Now 323W/m2 of backradiation or DLW sounds impressive but when you reduce it to a net surface flux the figures become interesting; the 2008 K&T cartoon differs slightly from their 1997 one; a comparison of the net fluxes between the 2 versions is instructive; in the 1997 version the NET fluxes from the Surface are:
a. Direct Radiation “through the window” to Space is 40W/m^2.
b. Fluxes into the Atmosphere:
(1) Evaporated Water Vapour, 78W/m^2
(2) NET Radiation, 26W/m^2
(3) Conduction, 24W/m^2
[Numbers are from Kiehl &Trenberth, 1997. See IPCC, AR4, WG1, Chapter 1.]”
The 2008 K&T cartoon gives a NET upward radiation flux from the surface of 33w/m2 with a downward adjustment to water vapour to 76w/m2 and conduction to 16w/m2 but the point holds; that point is more net heat is leaving the surface through methods other than radiation, particularly water; that to me means 2 things; water is a dominant mover of heat compared to CO2 and the sun’s 168/166 w/m2 is a far more dominant heater than CO2 backradiation.
As for measurement of back radiation, Philipona has been doing this for years and all his regional studies feature enormous variation.
00
Actually, I believe the “hot spot” is an artifact of the models’ assumption of constant relative humidity from the lower to upper troposphere. But if you reduce the UT humidity to agree with measurements — which show a gradual UT drying over the last 30 years, a negative feedback which may mean the CO2 contribution to warming is unmeasurable — you don’t get enough warming out of the models to frighten the livestock.
AGW “science” is so pitifully feeble.
00
When water vapor condenses at altitude it radiates heat energy but that heat CANNOT heat the surrounding air because such would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
The converse is water evaporating on the ground. It absorbs heat but does not change temperature as it changes state just like a boiling pot of water stays at 100 degrees no matter how quickly you boil it.
To believe that condensing water at altitude heats the surrounding air up there, the CAGW crowd would have to also convince you that 100 degree air surrounding a pot of 100 degree water will somehow be cooled when the water is boiled.
00
MikeM:
At #286 you correctly say:
However, that additional heat can result in a change to temperature at altitude (and, hence, the lapse rate).
The temperature of a ‘parcel’ of air is affected by an imbalance between the amount of heat the parcel receives and the amount of heat it loses.
So, increase the input of heat and the parcel’s temperature would increase unless the parcel adjusted its heat loss to match the altered heat input.
(a)
If all the ‘additional’ heat removal were by convection then there would be no temperature change but there would be enhanced convective mixing (with resulting change to the lapse rate).
OR
(b)
If all the ‘additional’ heat removal were by radiation then there would be no enhanced convective mixing but there would be a temperature change (at some other altitude of the atmosphere where the radiation is net absorbed with a resulting change to the lapse rate).
In reality there will be some combination of (a) and (b), but any “estimates” of the proportions of these two effects as a global average are pure guesswork.
Richard
00
Richard – Yes, it will affect the temperature of the air above the point of condensation which is generally has to be cooler than the temperature of the air where the water vapor condensed. Such cannot affect the temperature of warmer air below that point because thermal radiation cannot go backwards. Therefore IMO it cannot affect the lapse rate below that point either.
What actually does affect the air below the point of condensation is the rainfall itself. The higher up it condenses – the COLDER it is and the more cooling it will do as it falls back to earth. If you
Multiply the total mass of annual global precipitation times the joules of latent heat of water per mass then, divided by seconds/year, then divide that by the surface area of the earth we should arrive at the watts/meter^2 of energy that ‘snuck past’ a lot of CO2 and other GHG’s nearer the surface as it convected up to cloud altitude before releasing its heat energy.
That ain’t in no IPCC model as far as I know?
00
Here’s an article calculating the amount of latent heat flux to be about 78 watts/m^2, (page 205).
00
MikeM
Thanks for the link to the paper on the KT radiation budget. I already had a copy of it, but it pleases me when people assume I do not have something because their assumption reduces the possibility that I have missed something.
I have real problems with the KT radiation budget. I think they grossly underestimate the thermal loss from surface to altitude by evapoconvection. So, according to my simple calculations (that are similar to the calculations of KT) the back radiation is grossly overestimated by KT. I think KT severely underestimate the energy that is transported to altitude by evapoconvection then radiated mostly to space by GHGs (so by-passes the possibility of being back radiated).
Of course, I cannot prove the assumptions of my calculations are correct any more than KT can prove the assumptions of their calculations are correct.
IR is radiated in proportion to the fourth power of the temperature of the radiating surface (i.e. T^4). However, temperatures across the Earth vary both spatially and temporarily, so assumptions are required to determine effective emission temperature at altitude for the entire globe. These assumptions are problematic because a small error in T gives large error in T^4. But there is only so much radiation to emit to space, so – depending on the assumptions – there is a large range of possible values for the transportation of energy by evapoconvection to the effective emission height. Hence there is a large range of possible values for the back radiation.
Question.
Is the KT radiation budget correct budget or is my radiation budget correct?
Answer.
They are probably both wrong because they are each functions of unproveable assumptions.
Simply, as I said at #287:
Richard
00
After reading the posts of warmers Glen and George I feel the need to address some of Glen’s taunts. Cohenite(June 28,10:57pm) is quite right. The main pillar of AGW physics is radiative so lets have a go at it.
Current climate science(and I use the term science verry loosely) uses two planar surfaces radiating towards one another and the stephan boltzmann equation. There is a serious and fatal flaw in doing this since gases have no SURFACE! Gases are not solids! So how can anyone begin to come up with a diagram like the K&T one when the SBE is meant to be used on solids. Solids do not behave like gases. Already there is a bad smell in the room.
On the so called “radiating layer”. Gases have a VERY LOW radiating power. Only a solid body has the ability to radiate with any kind of power. This would require a density increase at 5km at the very least approaching very close to a solid. No such thing has ever been observed! Of course density decreases with height making it even more impossible. Physically it doesn’t exist. The only thing that does exist is the warmers insistence that this layer is there. Oh, I can hear it now, the rallying cry, but Brian we measure it “every day” all around the world and then I’m pointed to a page showing scores of places doing this measurement. So now I say well they are definitely measuring something. If its not backradiation then just what the heck are they measuring? A blogger on another site inadvertently gave me the answer. The answer is HORIZON DIP which simply refers to the fact that light does not travel in a straight line once it enters the atmosphere. Mirages anyone. Due to a change in medium the suns energy refracts down and around into the atmosphere. This along with scattering is what they are measuring! Backradiation, phooey I say. Now the warmer will say “I sure its included in the line-by-line RTEs”. If anyone believes that I have a good tract of swampland in the Gobi desert for sale. The amount of refraction is dependent on both temperature and pressure.
Destroying the K&T diagram is brutally easy. If one or two figures can be invalidated then the whole thing is a bunch of concocted baloney. First of all the numbers presented to the viewer are static figures, meaning day and night all values remain the same(yeah, right). Take 390w/m2 this is supposed to the amount radiating from the planet apparently everywhere, land and ocean alike yet they have different absorption and remission values. The one thing that kills this value dead is the fact that due to insolation no part of the surface of the earth receives the same amount of energy at any one time. The value of 390w/m2 is a physically impossible thing! One down only one to go. The value for clouds(my fav) which is given as 79w/m2 reflected by clouds and the atmosphere. Unfortuneately for the warmer clouds are continually moving, dispersing and forming. Nature is not static. That number would be subject to huge variations.
Now if these two figures are wrong then the whole thing is a bunch of unphysical nonsense. I don’t buy it!
Now for the simplest and the worst part. The backradiation number of 323w/m2 I’m going to assume refers to infrared heating. Ok, so that means I can take a 400w radiant heater set it on my roof, aim it at my buddy who lives 5km away and he will feel some sensible effect and be warmed? Pleeeeease, don’t even go there! And I haven’t even started on that TRACE gas comprising .0389% of the atmosphere.
In consideration of the above points, AGW physics is a cleverly concocted scientific FRAUD. It is a sham based on scientific “authority” wrapped in plausibilty. Those who promulgate these pseudoscientific ideas are fakes, charlatans and snake oil salesmen(women as well). I almost forgot about the hotspot. They will have to invent one because it doesn’t exist and NEVER WILL. Joanne Keep up the good work!
00
One last thing for readers. On the fradulent aspect of AGW. If one googles horizon dip one is astounded to find NO entry for it in wikipedia. Now out of 750 thousand entries in wiki why is there no entry for a basic atmospheric science that “any old sailor” is quite aware of. The first dip table was produced in 1599 long before Fourier, Arrhenius and Tyndall. Ancient sailors would also have become aware of it. It’s obvious that there WAS an entry for it but it was REMOVED. Take it from there.
00
For a very entertaining, albeit technical discussion of the deficiencies of backradiation see here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/03/lunar-madness-and-physics-basics/#comment-3409
The discussion really gets interesting from Nasif Nahle’s comment on June 15, 2.49pm.
00
Brian W:
You state in #291 that only solids radiate significant power.
Perhaps you’ve overlooked liquid water in the oceans, etc. Its emissivity is is very good; even compared to most solid surfaces.
It would be more accurate to say that gases don’t radiate significant power (in comparison with matter in other phases).
00
Brian W: #291. You inadvertently make a very interesting point
Try doing anything even remotely complicated yourself. Now try and explain it to people. They will have to take your word for some stuff, because they don’t have the expertise that you have. You can explain it to people who do have the expertise, and you should, and they should point out any failings in your methods and assumptions. Science has had big battles over things which are now accepted. For example, the idea that electric charge came in units of 1.6×10^-19C was hotly debated. It was thrashed out, and now there is agreement. But what laymen of the time thought was totally irrelevant.
So it is with climate science. It is too complicated for most people to understand. We have to leave it to experts to decide how things should be measured, what physical principles are important, etc etc. You can decide if you trust the work of these people or not. I tend to trust them, you tend not to. But neither you nor I really understand any of it to the level needed to debate it sensibly.
So yes, you skeptics are right, it is a faith based thing. I have faith that those who are expert are working in good faith. You don’t. I won’t sway you, and you won’t sway me – especially not when you criticise people who actually know what they are doing.
00
“people who actually know what they are doing”
What people would that be, John Brookes?
00
Argument from invisible authority?
00
cohenite #296 “people who actually know what they are doing”.
You know. They did a 4 year degree at uni, then they spent a few more years doing a PhD, then they got a job where they have to put up their ideas for others to criticise. People who have taken the trouble to gather the expertise which is actually necessary to do what they do. They may even be good at what they do.
I have opinions on the footy, and I don’t like to admit it, but compared to the AFL coaches, and their assistants, I know nothing at all. I have opinions for the fun of it. Just like you guys (and me) are doing here.
00
John Brookes: #295
June 29th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
John your post is one of the most disappointing ones I’ve read on this or any other site.
I ask you to expand your thoughts a little to other aspects of life in society. (nothing much matters if you live like a hermit).
Take international politics for example. Most of us are in no way experts in geopolitics. Now talk to some people from….say…Zimbabwe for instance. How did they go trusting authority or experts.
What about the people living in the 30’s Germany and Italy and Japan?
Your post demonstrates that you have a reasonable understanding of whats going on, but then you effectively throw your hands in the air and say “oh well I don’t know enough, so I’ll leave my fate, and that of my children in your hands dear experts”.
Instead, I would encourage you to DEMAND that these experts explain themselves in a way that layman like you and me WILL understand. If they CAN’T (and they haven’t) then they are no experts. If they WONT, then they are crooks, period.
I hope you would agree that your post, combined with my response, demonstrates why the only correct position to take on AGW (at this time) is to be sceptical about it
00
John, I find your justification incredible. AGW is being used to justify massive changes to social, economic and political structures. It is promoting a view of mankind’s relation with nature that is biblical in that nature was perfect and a paradise until despoiled by the [Western] capitalist lifestyle. It is being used by nefarious financial, criminal and governmental groups for all sorts of self-serving and pernicious purposes. But all that aside your notion of expertise is demeaning and infantile. No expert in any area has a right to be unchallenged. In law for example expert testimony is subject to vigorous cross-examination; judicial verdicts are subject to appeal and review; in medicine everyone is entitled to a second opinion; yet when it comes to the weather you are quite happy to do what some, in most cases, self-appointed experts, working for the most inept and corrupt bureaucracy in the world, the UN, tell you what to do.
Why?
00
cohenite #300. I don’t believe
at all. Western capitalist lifestyle is just fine. I just love the variety of interesting products and services available. Especially coffee shops and pubs! Bicycle technology is another thing I delight in. It is fantastic that creative people design absolutely fabulous things like iPads. Its just that when there is evidence that the way we get these things might not be that good for us, we should take notice. No doubt there were plenty of people in London in the 50’s who hated the fact that they couldn’t burn coal any more. But they couldn’t, because of the occasional killer pea-soup fog. Problem fixed. Its easy.
Same deal with this problem – the fix will not be as hard as you think.
As for experts going unchallenged – no way! But they should only be challenged by people suitably qualified to do so. It makes no sense for you to challenge an expert, just as it makes no sense for the Wanneroo thirds to hope to play in the next world cup. If you have experts on your side, they need to convince the experts on the other side that they are right. Eventually one side will “win”.
Its a bit like AFL. We are fans arguing about the merits of our teams, but its only what happens out on the ground that matters.
If you have an area of expertise which is relevant to climate science, go for it!
As for Baa Humbug #299, its obvious there is corruption and worse in Zimbabwe. It was, interestingly enough, far from obvious to many that Hitler was a problem. Indeed, Churchill stood out as someone who could see Hitler was up to no good. I had a great aunt who lived near the Eagles Nest, who maintained long after the ware that Hitler was good. Anyway, experts or not, and with a bit of luck, I’ll be around in 30 years and we’ll see who was right.
00
Bugger. Stuffed up block-quotes. New I shouldn’t have tried it.
[fixed] ED.
00
You forgot to answer the question posed at #296 which is how to identify these so called “experts” and how to evaluate their “qualifications”. There’s people on the Internet who will ordain you as a Pope, along with all a card and certificate to prove it… so what?
What have team CRU ever done “on the ground”? Show me a prediction they got right. Yes, I know that Hansen did predict that dust from a volcano would cause a few years of temporary cooling… big deal… unrelated to CO2. Show me an IPCC prediction directly related to CO2-induced warming that has come true.
See I don’t have to be able to build a jumbo jet from scratch to be able to figure out whether it flies or not.
00
John Brookes @ various
Academic elitism is what you are supporting. There are a wealth of “experts” and a degree is no guarantee that you have an expert. Some of the most unintelligent (world smart) people I have met were hyper-educated and specialized.
The most sensible arguments against AGW come from people experienced in engineering. (as opposed to “Climate Science”).
So as others have asked; how do you determine who your experts are?
00
Mark D #304. Yeah. Good point. How do you decide who is an expert?
The first thing which strikes me about climate modelling is that it is complex. The basic idea isn’t – CO2 causes warming and water acts as a feedback, and you get a warmer planet. However, as you all know, I’ve told you nothing about how much warming, how fast it will happen, what the local variations will be – all of this is not easy. So if I’m looking for an expert, I’m looking for someone who deals with the complexity. Also, I’m not looking for one person. The person who is expert on ocean chemistry, may not be great on atmospheric heat transfer – that’s fine – each contributes their expertise in their area. And, you will hate me for this, I’ll choose the expert based on their reputation among their peers. Then you need overall experts, people like Hansen who can pull all the threads together and make sense of them.
I’d also be looking for someone who will honestly admit that they don’t understand everything, and that they haven’t yet incorporated all relevant features into their models.
There are certain things which will convince me that someone is not an expert. The main one is if they put forward an argument, and find it knocked down, but keep pushing it anyway. Or if they just replace one dodgy argument with another. That is, they show themselves committed to getting a particular result, rather than exploring and reporting what they find.
I look after some students, and I had an idea about what was motivating them. Initial exploration of their marks made it look like I was onto something. However, it wasn’t that convincing to me, so I tried doing a random simulation and found, loh and behold, that the random data produced exactly the same pattern which I thought meant something. It meant nothing. My idea was wrong. So be it – that is what exploring is like, lots of rock, very little gold. That is what I want from an expert – someone who will throw away a hypothesis, even if they were once in love with it.
You will no doubt recall the discovery that a bacteria caused stomach ulcers, and that killing that bacteria cured stomach ulcers. In that case, the “experts” strongly resisted this new information. This is the problem with experts. Having worked long and hard at understanding something well, it is personally difficult for them to change their views, even in the face of compelling evidence. It is perhaps worth noting that these particular “experts” made a much better living from their expertise than the average scientist ever will. But it just shows that picking “experts” is very difficult.
00
John, I’m a lawyer; I challenge experts every day of the week; that’s what I do; review material for its strengths and weaknesses; I can’t find any strengths in AGW theory which simply says that increases in ACO2 will have an unnatural and destructive effect on climate; the theory is bereft of evidence to support it. I wouldn’t mind if it was just your money and life; but its mine and my children. What I find most annoying is that real pollution issues are either being ignored or drafted to prop up AGW. How humans interect with the environment is a legitimate debate but it has been subverted by this idea that nature should be inviolate and left pristine and humans are a blight on nature; I can’t put this any better than this:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/defining-the-greens-part-9/
00
John @ 305
There may be hope for you (as a Skeptic). 🙂
Is climate a complex mix of many global systems? You bet! Does that mean that only a climate scientist can claim meaningful understanding? I don’t think so!
When selecting experts, I suggest you stay away from the ones that are social/political activists for start. (or at least weigh the potential for bias in their work.)
As far as Experts you can trust try; John Christy, quote” at our present level of ignorance …..” (reference climate) Of course there are many more but he fits your mentioned criteria.
00
John Brookes: #305
June 29th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
My bolding. I ask you to comment on the following please in light of the bolded part of your comment.
This is a quote from a Bob Reiss, author of The Coming Storm. (he is a pro AGW man)
I’m also reminded of Steven Schneider, the other world renowned expert in climate, who in the 70’s was in the thick of it pushing the Coming Ice Age Scare. To this day he regrets those days. In fact in one of the FOI’d emails from NASA GISS, he says he hopes this warming happens because he can’t bear to be wrong again.
Would it be OK for us to strike those two from the experts list?
00
John Brookes:
At #305 you write:
Say what!
I will constrain myself from dealing with the very many reasons why Hansen’s word cannot be trusted on any matter relating to AGW. (His “reputation” for impartial and honest analyses and comment on this subject has been completely destroyed by his own words and deeds.) Instead, I make a complaint at your behaviour.
On another thread of this blog, at
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/learn-how-not-to-reason-at-the-university-of-western-australia/
in post #73 I gave an answer to a question from you. The start of that post from me began as follows:
You have made no response to that of any kind but here – on a different thread – you now assert
It does not need an “expert” to “pull all the thrads together” when there is much, much evidence that refutes a hypothesis and no evidence of any kind that supports it.
Please explain what “threads” you mean, or are you merely trying to mislead onlookers?
Richard
00
Just as an Off Topic addendum to my post at #308. Notice Hansens comment ragarding the hydrological cycle…
Now, in view of the above, lets think about the Amazongate argument happening right now between Monbiot and North.
The Amazon receives between 1.6 and 3.9 metres of rainfall annually. If Hansen is to be believed, under AGW conditions, the Amazon should be “prone to get more rain”.
However the WWF propaganda which the IPCC relied upon so much, claimed the Amazon was very fragile to rainfall and up to 40% of it may turn into savannah.
They both can’t be right. But both can be wrong. I suspect it’s the latter.
00
John Brookes:
Richard has gone to great lengths to explain things to you yet there is no indication that you read them. Rather, you just revert to the “trust-the-experts” line.
At the very least, you should ask the time honoured Roman question: Cui bono? – and I’m sure you know what that means.
If you don’t want to even do that, then why are you here?
00
John Brookes @295 and elsewhere,
I work every day with the complicated software that runs the equipment my employer sells. But I can explain it in simple enough terms that our office manager can understand it. I have to be able to explain it to the technician who sets up each box before it goes out the door. Neither one has the slightest software background.
Needless to say, I don’t buy this Al Gore cop-out that it’s complicated and I wonder why you do. I’m being asked — and if they can get away with it, will be forced — to reduce my lifestyle to what will surely be a pre industrial revolution level if not worse. So I have every right to demand that they not only explain their case so I can understand it but that they back it up with actual empirical evidence that can withstand scrutiny by skeptics like those found on this site. Instead we get name calling and character assassination. We now get classified as some sort of mental disorder (check out the implications of the theme in the thread following this one if you need evidence for this). I guess you just don’t realize what fools you appear to be to anyone with an ounce of critical thinking ability.
I would not trust James Hansen to baby sit my cats while I’m on vacation. He is not trustworthy. If you want to buy a used car from him go ahead. But count me out.
00
Mark: “The sun indeed is hotter today than 600ma ago. Reason for this is what’s known as hydrostatic equilibrium. As more hydrogen is fused into helium ash, gravity steps into the breech and compresses the core making it hotter. This increased core heat then causes the outer layers to expand.”
If this is true, why is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 much lower today than 600 million years ago? Rising temps should cause more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere from the oceans. There should be more than 7000 ppm of CO2 today–not a paltry 380 ppm.
00
As for experts going unchallenged – no way! But they should only be challenged by people suitably qualified to do so. It makes no sense for you to challenge an expert,
So astrologers are the only ones who can challenge astrologers? LOL! If the experts’ climate models are consistently wrong (see IPCC models), if no Earth Day prediction has ever come true, then any idiot can be right more often than the experts. All he has to do is bet against them.
Further, the chairman of the IPCC was a railroad engineer. He is not expert in climate science, so I can challenge his nutty ideas. Al Gore is no expert either, so he is fair game as well. The media are not experts, so they can be challenged.
00
“There are certain things which will convince me that someone is not an expert. The main one is if they put forward an argument, and find it knocked down, but keep pushing it anyway. Or if they just replace one dodgy argument with another. That is, they show themselves committed to getting a particular result, rather than exploring and reporting what they find.”
What you are describing here are AGW experts. See the climate-gate emails.
00
I’ve been following that argument and I actually read the WWF propaganda. It never did claim that 40% of the Amazon may turn into savannah. The actual 40% figure comes from:
Note well: no mention of savanna here. Also, 40% refers to Brazilian forest which is not the same as the whole Amazon. There is mention of savanna later in the piece, under a completely different context:
Nepstad is talking about deliberately lit fires used for the purpose of deforestation and opening access to new agricultural land. This is the process he would like to prevent. Nothing to do with AGW.
The IPCC has conflated the two ideas and merged them together, then applied the 40% figure to the wrong patch of land and then hidden the fact that this WWF report is primarily about fire. Monbiot has wasted copious keystrokes on the big deal that the WWF report and the IPCC both use a number “40%” without even glancing at the words in either report. Then he has a go at other people for sloppy journalism.
00
And Dr Phil Jones (the guy from the emails) is a Civil Engineer with a doctoral thesis about drainage around London or some such thing.
However both Patchuri and Jones primarily work as administrators and spruikers, rather than coal-face researchers, so their main job skill is the ability to attend endless meetings. The guy at the coal-face put his sad thesis into the HARRY-README file.
I agree with all the fundamentals of John Brookes #305 except I believe all his points can be shown to work against the AGW alarmists, but each point would take a bit of explanation time, I’ll try to catch up later. One little bit has a major problem:
There’s nothing to hate here, it merely defers the selection of “expert” over to a selection of “peers”. If you define “peers” broadly it turns into democratic populism (and AGW is rapidly losing on the populist front) but if you define only “experts” as “peers” then it turns recursive.
You can trust me, it really is recursion, because I am a man of my word.
00
William Pinn @ 313:
I can’t give you an answer on that other than to say that that explanation has been around much longer than the current AGW theory. It does make sense when you think of it. That said, we only have a very small part of the whole picture concerning conditions that long ago.
There’s such a lot that we have no means to fully understand which is why I am a sceptic. My BS detector goes into overdrive when they say “don’t question us, just send money”.
00
David Evans put the hot spot issue to rest (or killed it off) three or four years ago, completely, and there is no possibility of a zombie walking dead existence of it remaining within the realm of rational thought.
John Cook isn’t going to make a lasting mark with this issue – he might as well push off onto something else, if he wants to do something meaningful
00
Richard S Courtney #309.
I think we differ. You may be correct, or I may be, or some other view might end up being better than either of ours.
Anyway, I am not an expert, and can only knock down particularly weak arguments. So I’ll leave you guys who know what is going on to sort it out on this blog.
Cheers!
00
John Brookes:
The world is a wondeful place and contains lovely people. But enjoyment of it is spoiled by the childish scare-mongering of the Greens.
At #320 you say:
Why would you want to knock down any arguments instead of seeking what is true?
From what we have seen here, you seem to have been duped by propoganda from extreme environmentalists. But you can escape from that by ignoring appeals to authority and, instead, thinking for yourself.
So, enjoy the interglacial while it lasts.
Richard
00
Tel: #316
June 30th, 2010 at 8:26 am
Thanks for the correction Tel. I shouldn’t rush so much when posting.
Instead of saying the WWF propaganda which the IPCC relied on, I should have just said the IPCC propaganda.
My apologies to the good folk at WWF
00
I’ll just knock off one of these for the moment…
There exists a deceptively deep river behind such a simple statement, but never the less it is a fair request. The oldest and most direct method to deal with complexity is to cut pieces away until the complexity is gone. This methodology goes under the name of “reductionism” and has served tirelessly since ancient Greece and probably before. The Greeks invented geometry as an abstraction from their building and design efforts in the physical world. You cannot make a wooden spear shaft perfectly straight, but with geometry you can have a perfectly straight line… and so it went.
Alchemists attempted to reduce the world to its most basic components (i.e. the elements) and to seek the ability to purify those to perfection. This work eventually led to the periodic table of elements which is the basis of all known Chemistry. Scientists went beyond this and reduced the elements themselves to sub-atomic particles which led us to atom bombs and other such things.
Reductionism is powerful. It has the runs on the board, as sporting folks would say.
The reductionist approach to Climate Science is the energy balance equation. Seen from very far away, the earth is a geometric point, so you add up all the energy going into the point and subtract out all the energy leaving the point and what’s left must change the temperature. Just find all the energy flows and the jobs done.
Even better reductionism: just find the big energy flows, throw away the small flows.
Sadly, when it comes to measuring real Earth energy flows they are actually close to balanced, and the Earth is not a geometric point, and energy has a habit of changing from one form to another, sloshing around, etc.
If you did decide to throw away the small flows, then CO2 would be on the list of things to throw away, because compared to water its effect is small. However, since the whole system is somewhat of a balance of large forces pushing both ways, throwing away the small stuff can have a big effect on the answer. Besides, even when you just keep water, the system is still complex, because water is the most complex molecule of them all.
Reductionism has already encountered difficulties with this type of situation. Any time you take two large measurements and then subtract them to find a small residual, the known pitfall is a dramatic error in the small residual. Reductionism says you must sit and think harder to find a way to measure the small item directly, rather than subtracting two big items. There’s no methodical way to crank the handle and beat this — you just need a spark of inspiration to take a different approach.
Thus we get to classes of problems that have been resilient to the reductionist approach. Problems such as why economies consistently show boom and bust cycles (not just human economies either, but biological economies such as rodent populations). The counter-intuitive discovery that large teams of programmers invariably deliver worse software, and slower than small teams. Optimizing fluid flow over mechanical components, and of course trying to predict the weather next week.
So I’m going to jump to the decade from 1980 to 1990 when the whole “chaos theory” buzz swept around and reductionism got unpopular and the new idea was to embrace complexity and really understand it.
It would be a crime not to mention Edward Lorenz right about now, especially since we are talking about predicting the weather. Of course Lorenz came up with a mathematical description of why it is so difficult to predict the weather, or even to make long term predictions about some very simple and abstract three-variable differential equations. It turns out that in some systems your error grows at a faster rate than your actual answer does… so the error ALWAYS wins in the end. If you make a big effort with this sort of system you can stave off defeat for a short while, but then the error comes back.
What can you do with a system such as this? Well, basically over the long term all you can achieve is to extract features from the system (e.g. statistical properties) and study the features. This allows you to make broad statements and to classify systems by their behaviour. The real question is which features should one extract, and how?
Like all good fads, the whole “chaos theory” bandwagon farted to a halt and most people jumped off. Lorenz plugged away with a few different variations of simple toy equations that were approximately similar to atmosphere and weather calculations and he tinkered with the idea of what you can learn by observing a chaotic system. One of the lesser known results is the annoying problem that even bog simple chaotic systems can output spectral energy over an insanely broad range of frequencies.
The tempting reaction to what I have just said is, “yeah, so what?” but think about what it really means… the most common statistical feature extraction technique is to take averages (i.e. the “mean” of many measurements). Let us consider that you have a system such as the orbit of the Earth which has a clear and obvious cyclic nature. The Earth spins once a day and that’s the high-frequency component of the spectral energy so you take averages over a few days. Well the Earth also orbits the Sun once every few hundred days so you also have spectral energy coming in a few hundred cycles removed so you take averages over a few years which is maybe a thousand days. Jobs done right?
Not so fast; the precession in the Earth’s orbit has a periodic cycle of approximately 26k years, and the full eccentricity cycle is 100k years…
in the order of magnitude of 30 million days. Now you have bands of spectral energy separated by a factor of 30 million. If you want to average over a full cycle you now need at the very least 30 million measurements, but probably you would need several times more to get something that could be considered statistically significant. Well, come to think of it, one measurement per day is not enough, because when exactly you take that measurement will influence your answer so multiply the number of measurements by maybe 10 more just to be safe.
We are now reaching something like a billion measurement points required to calculate a significant statistical mean, of one variable. Ouch.
Just to put this in perspective. If the spectral energy was spread across a piano keyboard, then one “day” would be on the high-note key sounding a bell clear tone way up at the limit of what a bat can hear. The orbit eccentricity is 25 octaves down toward the low notes, that’s a piano keyboard with 325 keys (counting white and black keys), nearly four grand pianos side by side. You can imagine the deep-earth rumble of that low note!
So in summary, the very concept of a clean separation between weather (short term), and climate (long term) does not exist. We do not currently even have the mathematical tools to reliably perform feature extracting measurements from chaotic systems. This is a work in progress, a work that the majority of people calling themselves “Climate Scientists” have ignored.
I’ve described problems in temporal averaging, there are different but still significant conceptual problems in spacial averaging, particularly given that our coverage of measurement sites is quite sparse. All the measurements you see reported are a small pinhole of a window onto what actually happens out there.
00
It was all sequestered by plants and they need us to put it back where it belongs. We need them but as it turns out … they need us too. If it wasn’t for animals putting CO2 back into the air I suspect that CO2 would be severely lower and plants would barely be hanging on. Human animals are just really really good at it to the delight of plants everywhere.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
00
Heard or read somewhere that the Eyaf-whatever volcano has churfed enought CO2 into the air to neutralise all the efforts to reduce it.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so stupid.
00
I’m not certain exactly what it is that you find ‘stupid’? I think you should elborate and please pay careful attention to the ‘efforts to reduce it’ side of the equation in terms of the amounts of reduction that are targeted, for example, by pending legisalation in the USA.
It sounds to me that the CO2 Ejaf volcano does indeed rival the amount of reduction specified in the pending US legislation. But maybe I’m reading something wrong and you can correct me?
00
[…] trapping” gases or “radiative confinement” [unphysical IPCC-speak]. Despite an army of researchers looking for said “hot spot”, it is another “travesty” that it only exists […]
00
I am confused by this “hot spot” thing !
I am also confused by “adiabatic lapse rate” ! What is it ?
I’ll try and break it down into simple steps ! I’ll try and keep the jargon and technical stuff to a minimum and see if that helps me get a handle on this.
Let’s for the moment forget manmade global warming (if there is such a thing), backup and check a couple of things –
The greenhouse effect – Just a natural and essential part of earths climate (i.e what keeps the earth at a reasonably warm temperature).
OK but what is the greenhouse effect ?
Well the earth is warmed by solar radiation from the sun. As the earth warms it emits infrared (heat) radiation back into space. In the atmosphere there are so called naturally occuring “greenhouse gases” – mostly water vapour and a sprinkling of carbon dioxide, methane and a few others. These gases “trap” some of the infrared radiation keeping the lower atmosphere warmer than it would otherwise be.
Good job ! It makes the earth a nice place to live.
Sorry I am not trying to patronise anyone here – just trying to get the basics straight in my mind. Sometimes I can lose sight of the actual meaning in all the jargon, technical points and graphs.
Adiabatic lapse rate – Just means the change in temperature of air as it moves upwards in the atmosphere.
So what ? Well you can use maths to combine information about temperature, air pressure, moist air rising upwards, dew points, condensation, clouds etc. etc. to work stuff out about the weather.
So it’s to do with the sun heating the earth and causing warm air to rise up ? Yeah pretty much. Either dry or moist air. Just a normal everyday occurance.
Basically as the surface of the earth warms up, water evaporates and there is more moisture in the air. This warm moist air rises up in the atmosphere. As it gets higher it cools down. Eventually getting cold enough for water vapour to condense. When water condenses the heat absorbed during evaporation at the earths surface is released into the atmosphere.
So what’s all this got to do with the “hot spot” ? What is the “hot spot” ?
Well it’s not really a “spot”. It’s only a “spot” on a graph. In reality it is the area high up in the atmosphere below the stratosphere (i.e. the troposhere) that stretches around the tropics – almost like a thick, wide ring around the equater of the earth.
It’s called the “hot” spot because at the tropics it’s more moist. So the warm moist air that rises up into the troposphere and condenses releases more heat than the dryer air further north and south in the sub tropics.
So the “hot spot” is just a naturally occurring phenonemon ? Yes it’s just a warmer area caused by a fairly basic normal physical process.
It’s not made up or caused by man? No it just happens anyway. It’s always there to a varying degree depending on how warm the earth gets.
So it doesn’t cause the greenhouse effect ? No.
So it’s caused by the greenhouse effect ? Well not really, it’s a part of the earths climate, it’s just caused by moister warm air rising in the tropics. If it happens to get warmer on earth around the tropics, for whatever reason, it will cause this ring of air above the tropics to get warmer.
OK so what’s all the fuss about ?
Well using satellites and weather balloons we can measure this “hot spot”. The temperature readings from the satellites are adjusted to compensate for movement in their orbits. The readings from weather balloons are adjusted to compensate for heating from the sun during the daytime. Wind strength is also measured as this will obviously have an effect on temperature readings.
As we observe over time we can see the temperature change in relation to temperature change on the ground.
These measured changes agree very well with what we would expect to see over monthly time periods.
Until recently there was a desrepency between what we would expect to see and what decadle results were showing. This disrepancy has now been resolved – Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere – Santer et al 2008 (see below).
What ? So there isn’t a problem ?
Well not really – not on this topic.
In the above article Jo Nova just makes a series of irellevant semantic points. Displays a couple of graphs out of context. Refuses to acknowledge that data needs to be adjusted for discrepences caused by various sattelite biases. Makes the ridiculous inference that wind guages aren’t needed to adjust for the wind shear effect on thermometers. Then starts ranting about “Researchers are so used to spouting self-satirical bluster”, “he needs to assume…that wind-gauges are a good way to measure degrees C even though they were never designed to do that”, “fake-ola” skeptics and “freeloading parasites”
It’s just a simple atmospheric effect that we have had trouble measuring properly over the long term. It is irrelevent to whether man made global warming exists or not. It’s just part of the earths climate.
I am not saying I am not a skeptic of AGW. Just saying on this point I think I now understand.
This problem of long term measurement is discussed in the following paper (also cited by Jo Nova) –
Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere – Santer et al 2005
The following is a more recent paper –
Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere – Santer et al 2008
an extract from which states –
“there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates. This emerging reconciliation of models and observations has two primary explanations. First, because of changes in the treatment of buoy and satellite information, new surface temperature datasets yield slightly reduced tropical warming relative to earlier versions. Second, recently developed satellite and radiosonde datasets show larger warming of the tropical lower troposphere. In the case of a new satellite dataset from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), enhanced warming is due to an improved procedure of adjusting for inter-satellite biases.”
There is also a supplementary fact sheet –
00
Sorry the linking went wrong on my above comment.
This is the fact sheet link –
https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-10-05-factsheet.pdf
00
Oh and please don’t respond with conspiracy bullshit about how all the scientists are manipulating the figures to back up their global warming scam.
If you have a reason why they should not adjust data to account for discrepancies than I am willing to change my mind on this particular issue.
00
Quentin Wallace:
At #329 you say:
Well, clearly you cannot “patronise” anybody when you demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about so you get “the basics” wrong. Indeed, it would take several posts to correct all your errors. As an example, I address one of your misunderstandings here.
You assert:
No! The ‘hot spot’ is not that!
The General Circulation Models (GCMs) each estimates the anticipated warming from increases to radiative forcings from different sources. They provide plots of the spatial patterns of warming magnitudes throughout the atmosphere. They each (yes, every one of them) show a unique pattern of warming from increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. That unique pattern has a warming at ~10km altitude in the tropics that is 2 to 3 times greater than the warming at the surface in the tropics.
That enhanced warming rate at ~10km altitude in the tropics is the ‘hot spot’. It is unique to radiative forcing from increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. Hence, it is a fingerprint for ‘AGW’. This I reported by both the IPCC and the CCSP.
But that elevated rate of warming at altitude in the tropics has not happened. This is indicated for the last 50 years by radiosondes mounted on weather balloons and for since 1979 (when the first pertinent satellites were launched) by MSU mounted on satellites. The balloon and satellite data show good agreement.
But some people want to claim the climate models are wrong and the ‘hot spot’ would be induced by any increase to radiative forcing from any cause. If so, then there is no reason to fear any globalwarming.
Consider, which is it that people want to assert:
(a) as the IPCC says, the ‘hot spot is a signature of warming from enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations (i.e. AGW) so its absence indicates there has been no global warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations for the last 50 years?
or
(b) as some others say, the ‘hot spot is a signature of warming from any cause so its absence indicates there has been no global warming from any cause for the last 50 years?
But (a) is included in (b), so in either case the indication is that there has been NO warming caused by AGW for the last 50 years.
And that is the importance of the ‘hot spot’.
Not content with failing to understand basic information like the above, at #331 you assert:
But you are denying the IPCC and CCSP explanations of the ‘hot spot’. Are you suggesting that “scientists” have “conspired” to present falsehoods about the ‘hot spot’ in both the IPCC AR4 and the CCSP reports?
Anyway,
(a) there is much evidence of a bandwagon but no suggestion of a conspiracy,
(b) there is much evidence that several “scientists”(e.g. Hansen, Jones, Mann, etc.) “are manipulating the figures to back up their global warming scam”,
(c) but all of that evidence is completely irrelevant to the fact that you fail to understand anything concerning the subjects you pontificate about in your posts here
Richard
00
Good post Richard.
I know I have used the word conspiracy as a common human tendency. I like your use of “bandwagon” but I wish there was a term that fit in between. I understand that “conspiracy” may have a variable connotation.
00
@Richard S Courtney: July 19th, 2010 at 5:01 am
Hi, when I first saw your response to my previous post I thought – oh shit I’ve made some serious errors.
You dismiss my description of the “hotspot” and then go on to describe what it actually is –
“The General Circulation Models (GCMs) each estimates the anticipated warming from increases to radiative forcings from different sources. They provide plots of the spatial patterns of warming magnitudes throughout the atmosphere.”
OK so you are saying the atmosphere is warmed by various things including: the sun, the greenhouse effect, volcanoes, ozone etc.
These can be plotted on a graph or simulated in a model.
“They each (yes, every one of them) show a unique pattern of warming from increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.”
Well kind of – They include the modelling of the “hot spot” effect in the upper troposphere caused by variations in the adiabatic lapse rate, which is caused by warming at the surface that introduces more moisture into the air at the tropics. So greenhouse gases are an indirect cause. This effect has always been there. If extra greenhouse gases are introduced into the atmosphere it will increase this effect.
“That unique pattern has a warming at ~10km altitude in the tropics that is 2 to 3 times greater than the warming at the surface in the tropics.”
OK I don’t know about the figures for the total warming in the upper troposphere in relation to the warming at the surface, but I’ll take your word for that.
But you are saying the troposphere warms in direct relation to surface warming.
“That enhanced warming rate at ~10km altitude in the tropics is the ‘hot spot’. It is unique to radiative forcing from increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. Hence, it is a fingerprint for ‘AGW’. This I reported by both the IPCC and the CCSP.”
OK so we can agree that by far the strongest influence on warming is the greenhouse effect ?
And the fact that the upper troposphere is warmer in general at the tropics than elsewhere is caused by extra moisture in the rising air ?
And if it gets warmer on the surface it will get warmer in the upper troposphere ?
And the majority of any extra warming (over the medium/long term) is caused by extra greenhouse gases ? Maybe this is where we disagree ?
Isn’t that what I said !
Some of my language could probably be improved.
In what way am I “denying the IPCC and CCSP explanations of the ‘hot spot’.” ?
If the surface gets warmer then the troposphere gets warmer at a greater rate at the tropics than elsewhere because of the extra moisture (related to the adiabatic lapse rate).
All you seem to be implying in the rest of your post is: the adiabatic lapse rate does not effect the behaviour of climate at the tropics, the warmer area above the tropics does not exist and never has done, there are no short term measurements confirming this effect, there are no problems with long term measurement of the effect, and there should be no reasonable corrections made to the data to compensate for this.
00
Mark D:
Thankyou for your generous comment at #333.
It adds:
OK. The On-Line Dictionary provides these definitions.
———–
con•spir•a•cy
n. pl. con•spir•a•cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
band•wag•on
n.
1. An elaborately decorated wagon used to transport musicians in a parade.
2. Informal A cause or party that attracts increasing numbers of adherents: young voters climbing aboard the party’s bandwagon.
3. Informal A current trend: “Even brand-name [drug] companies . . . have jumped on the generics bandwagon”.
———–
There is no evidence that, for example, climate researchers at the CRU have made an “agreement” with, for example, the re-insurance company Munich Re.
So, the CAGW scare clearly does not fit the primary definition of a conspiracy; i.e.
“An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.”
However, it could be argued that the CAGW scare is a “joining or acting together, as if by sinister design”. But that argument fails because it requires that those involved in the CAGW scare (e.g. researchers at the CRU and the re-insurance company Munich Re) do not recognise it is in their interests to support the CAGW scare (and they do recognise their own interests).
The CAGW scare clearly does fit the secondary definition of a bandwagon; i.e.
“A cause or party that attracts increasing numbers of adherents”.
The “adherents” recognise that the “cause” (i.e. CAGW) is in their interests and that is why they adhere to it.
Richard
00
Quentin Wallace:
I am replying to your post at #334.
Your assertion saying;
Is a non sequiter. It does not follow in any way from what I wrote at #332.
Indeed, your assertion (that I quote above in this post) could be interpreted as the common trick of ‘moving the goal posts’ which is commonly used by internet trolls.
And you follow that with another erroneous assertion and a resulting question; viz.
No! The the majority of any extra warming (over the medium/long term) is NOT caused by extra greenhouse gases.
Read what I wrote at #332 if you want to discuss it, and do not pretend I wrote other than I did.
Your final paragraph is pure nonsense. It asserts to me:
I did not write and I did not imply any of that. Dispute what I wrote – if you can – but do not misrepresent what I wrote as a method to excuse your (deliberate?) failure to understand the subject.
Richard
00
The first quote of mine you comment on was posed as a question. I wasn’t trying to move the goal posts. It is pertinent to how the climate models are formulated.
The second quote was also posed as a question. Also asking if you disagree. I wasn’t trying to pretend you said anything you didn’t say.
The “hot spot” in the temperature models is indirectly caused (caused in the model) by an increase in greenhouse gases.
Your main point seems to be –
“But that elevated rate of warming at altitude in the tropics has not happened. This is indicated for the last 50 years by radiosondes mounted on weather balloons and for since 1979 (when the first pertinent satellites were launched) by MSU mounted on satellites. The balloon and satellite data show good agreement.”
With short term warming the “hot spot” effect is well observed.
This agrees with theory (adiabatic lapse rate etc.).
Over the last 50 years there has been an upward surface warming trend.
So from theory and short term observational agreement we would reasonably expect to see a long term “hot spot”.
There are measurement problems over the long term.
There is a history of improving data collection and correction for errors in this area.
This is showing warming in the upper troposphere. Not as strong as expected. This issue has yet to be fully resolved.
00
Sorry I forgot to address the above post to Richard S Courtney.
Apologies.
00
Quentin Wallace:
Thankyou for your clarifications at #337. I am grateful for them, but they do not pacify my annoyance at your post at #334.
My post at #332 reported what the IPCC AR4 asserts in its Chapter 9 that you can read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
The Section of that Chapter which you most need to read is
9.2.2 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of the Response to Different Forcings and their Uncertainties
and it begins on page 674.
In particular, you need to see Figure 9.1 on page 675 that is titled “Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model”. It shows the anticipated patterns of warming in the troposphere from different sources of radiative forcing. Fig. 9(c) shows the pattern for “well mixed greenhouse gases” with the obvious ‘hot spot’.
Only Fig 9(f) shows a similar ‘hot spot’ but it is “the sum of all forcings” so it emphasizes that – according to the models – the ‘hot spot’ is purely a result of increase to “well mixed greenhouse gases”.
THAT IS WHAT THE IPCC SAYS.
But you deny that and keep asserting;
As I said in #332;
However, if the models are wrong then there is no reason of any kind to suspect that AGW exists at a discernible degree or that AGW ever will exist at a discernible degree.
So,
1.
If you believe the models then AGW does not exist at a discernible degree.
And,
2.
If you do not believe the models the there is no reason to suspect that AGW does or ever will exist to a discernible degree.
Anything other than that is pure obfuscation. And you try to obfuscate by making irrelevant comments concerning the lapse rate and by asserting:
That is a falsehood!
There is no observation – none, zilch, nada – that shows warming at ~10km altitude is happening in the tropics at between 2 and 3 times the rate of warming at the surface in the tropics.
Richard
00
Richard S Courtney: July 19th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
I am not trying to willfully deny anything or be obfuscative. I am genuinely trying to understand.
You wrote –
“Only Fig 9(f) shows a similar ‘hot spot’ but it is “the sum of all forcings” so it emphasizes that – according to the models – the ‘hot spot’ is purely a result of increase to “well mixed greenhouse gases”.
THAT IS WHAT THE IPCC SAYS.”
I have seen the the Figure you refer to and I agree with your interpretation that –
“it emphasizes that – according to the models – the ‘hot spot’ is purely a result of increase to “well mixed greenhouse gases”.”
But what I have been trying to express is that the “hot spot” in this figure represents a change in temperature of an area above the tropics which already tends to be warmer to a much greater depth than elsewhere. And that the “hot spot” EFFECT (not the “hot spot” in the above figure but the same effect, the same physical mechanisms) has been observed over short time periods that correlate with short term surface warming events such as El Nino oscillations.
“But you deny that and keep asserting; “The “hot spot” in the temperature models is indirectly caused (caused in the model) by an increase in greenhouse gases.””
Strictly speaking maybe my language is incorrect here. I appologise for that.
I am not trying to deny what the IPCC says.
What I mean by the use of the word “indirectly” is, that (in the model) an increase of greenhouse gases will cause warming on the surface, which in turn causes greater uptake of moisture at the tropics into the atmosphere, leading to increased warming at higher altitude.
If for the sake of simplicity you ignore the physical mechanisms involved the word “directly” could be used.
Your statement that –
“But some people want to claim the climate models are wrong and the ‘hot spot’ would be induced by any increase to radiative forcing from any cause.”
-does not make sense to me. I think what some people are actually saying is –
“the climate models are RIGHT” BUT “A SIMILAR ‘hot spot’ could be induced by an increase to radiative forcing from any cause.”
I think we are having a interpretative disagreement on this one.
Theoretically any extra warming on the surface, from whatever cause, would lead to a SIMILAR effect. So the THEORY underlying the climate models can be correct AND a SIMILAR “hot spot” could be caused by other radiative forcings.
The models are just assuming in this case (reasonably or not depending on your point of view) that the “greenhouse effect” is by far the greatest forcing.
Again my comment – “With short term warming the “hot spot” effect is well observed.” does not refer to the “hot spot” in the IPCC figure but to short term warming caused by short term events as mentioned above. But the same physical mechanisms are involved, just the initial impetus is different. So I don’t see how it is irrelevant to a general understanding of the issue.
You finally state that –
“There is no observation – none, zilch, nada – that shows warming at ~10km altitude is happening in the tropics at between 2 and 3 times the rate of warming at the surface in the tropics.”
I am assuming you are refering here to the the long term trend as in the IPCC figure.
Maybe you could expand upon why you think I am incorrect in saying –
“Over the last 50 years there has been an upward surface warming trend.
From theory, and from short term observational agreement of the theory, we would reasonably expect to see a long term “hot spot”.
There are measurement problems over the long term.
There is a history of improving data collection and correction for errors in this area.
This is showing warming in the upper troposphere. Not as strong as expected. This issue has yet to be fully resolved.”
Models are being continually refined. But it would seem reasonable to err on the side of long term observational problems as being the likely cause of current disagreement with the theory/models.
00
Quentin Wallace:
OK, I accept your statement in #340 that says;
But I admit that I have difficulty equating that with your earlier comment saying you did not want to patronise anybody.
And you are plain wrong when you assert:
No! The point is one of MAGNITUDE and not effect.
I have repeatedly explained to you that the ‘hot spot’ is a much higher rate of warming at altitude than at the surface in the tropics. As I said to you at #332:
That increased rate of warming at altitude (n.b. between 2 and 3 times the rate of warming at the surface) is the ‘hot spot’ which is shown in Figure 9.1(c) of IPCC AR4 as being the unique signature of warming from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.
If you do not like that then take it up with the IPCC. Do not take it up with me because all I am doing is reporting, citing, and referencing what the IPCC says.
And, as I explained at #339, the absence of the ‘hot spot’ indicates that:
But you now suggest that similar warming pattern to the ‘hot spot’ is provided by “El Nino oscillations”. Your suggestion is not true, but – purely for the sake of argument – then consider what it would indicate if your suggestion were true. In that case, the large positive feedbacks required to make AGW sufficiently large to be discernible are very transient. So, if you were right, then when and if AGW became discernible then it could be immediately halted merely by holding greenhouse gas emissions at their then current level.
I conclude by pointing out that if you really do want to understand then you need to read the IPCC AR4 Chapter 9 and to think about it. You do not gain understanding by your repetition of your mistaken assertion concerning mechanisms.
Richard
00
Richard S Courtney:
Hello again, I hope you are not getting too exasperated by what you obviously think is my dim witted inability to grasp your explanations.
I’m sorry if you found my first post offensive in any way. Maybe it came across that way. But I was really just trying to have a conversation with myself; in simple terms, in public, to test my ideas and elicit a genuine response from a “hot spot” skeptic.
Thank you for engaging with me.
You say – “No! The point is one of MAGNITUDE and not effect.”
OK fair enough. But you seem to be dismissing as nonsense everything I say about what causes the effect.
Are you saying that there is a “hot spot” effect but that it’s magnitude is not great enough to agree with the models ? Or are you saying that there is no “hot spot” effect at all ?
The theory of surface warming at the tropics causing greater moisture uptake and hence warming at high altitude is WHY the IPCC are saying –
“The General Circulation Models (GCMs) each estimates the anticipated warming from increases to radiative forcings from different sources. They provide plots of the spatial patterns of warming magnitudes throughout the atmosphere. They each (yes, every one of them) show a unique pattern of warming from increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. That unique pattern has a warming at ~10km altitude in the tropics that is 2 to 3 times greater than the warming at the surface in the tropics.
That increased rate of warming at altitude (n.b. between 2 and 3 times the rate of warming at the surface) is the ‘hot spot’ which is shown in Figure 9.1(c) of IPCC AR4 as being the unique signature of warming from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.”
I am not saying I disagree with the IPCC.
I am saying this is WHY they are saying this. WHY increased concentrations of greenhouse gases causes this effect.
And that this is the same theoretical basis for short term warming trends at the tropics.
Also I have just been checking the IPCC AR4 and they assert that global surface temperature increased by 0.74 C over the course of the 20th century. According to Figure 9.1f (if I am seeing the colours correctly) the simulated hot spot shows a temperature change of around 1 C over the course of the 20th century. This is approximately 1.3 times (not 2 to 3 times).
Also at no point does the IPCC say that it is a “distinctive signature” of AGP, just of warming in general from 1890 to 1999. So if you say the “hot spot” doesn’t exist then you are either saying the earth hasn’t warmed at all over the 20th century or the model is incorrect.
You confidently assert the absence of the predicted “hot spot”. Completely ignoring the points I made about measurement problems, and dismiss my discussion of the theoretical reasoning behind the IPCC modeling claims as irrelevant or nonsense (I am not sure which).
Papers discussing short term observations of the “hot spot” –
Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere – Santer et al 2005
(already referred to by Jo Nova)
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Santer_etal.pdf
A more recent paper by Santer et al –
Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere – Santer et al 2008
http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/santer_IJoC_published_2008.pdf
The Vertical Structure of Temperature in the Tropics: Different Flavors of El Niño – Trenberth and Smith 2006
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/JClimTvertStruct.pdf
Would you not agree that Fig 3 on page 5 of this paper shows a “hot spot” similar in location, size and temperature change ?
Papers discussing the measurement problem –
Robust Tropospheric Warming Revealed by Iteratively Homogenized Radiosonde Data – Sherwood et al 2008
http://camels.metoffice.gov.uk/quarc/Sherwood08_JClimate.pdf
Toward Elimination of the Warm Bias in Historic Radiosonde Temperature Records—Some New Results from a Comprehensive Intercomparison of Upper-Air Data – Haimberger et al 2008
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/leopold.haimberger/i1520-0442-21-18-4587.pdf
Critically Reassessing Tropospheric Temperature Trends from Radiosondes Using Realistic Validation Experiments – Titchner et al 2009
http://camels.metoffice.gov.uk/quarc/Titchner09.pdf
Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere – Understanding and Reconciling Differences – John Christy et al
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
00
Quentin Wallace:
I am replying to your post at #342:
Firstly, you ask me:
Your question is semantic.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, the ‘hot spot’ is a warming at ~10km altitude that is 2 to 3 times the warming rate at the surface. But the warming rates at the altitude and at the surface are measured to be the same.
So,
1.
There may be some difference between the rates that is within the inherent errors of measurement and, therefore, there may be some undetected ‘hot spot’,
But, IMPORTANTLY,
2.
There is no difference between the rates that is anywhere near their minimum difference predicted by the models.
Hence, the ‘hot spot’ predicted by the models is absent, but some undetectably small difference between the warming rates may exist.
Then you say:
But that is only half the story. The ‘hot spot’ is a difference in the rates of warming at the SURFACE and at altitude.
There is a maximum sea surface temperature of 305K because any additional heating from any cause increases evapouration that cools the surface. This was first discovered by Ramanathan and Collins (ref. Ramanathan & Collins, Nature, v351, 27-32 (1991) ) and has since been confirmed by several others. Indeed, additional heating causes the surface to cool (yes, add heat and the surface gets colder).
The apparent paradox of more heat cooling the surface is because increased evapouration results in increased cloud cover that reflects sunlight and, thus, reduces solar heating of the surface (i.e. a cooling effect that every sunbather has noticed when a cloud passes in front of the Sun). But clouds move, so the increased cloud cover reduces heating of ocean surface near the region of maximum surface temperature. The net result is that additional heating of the tropical ocean results in cooling of the ocean.
So, there cannot be much warming of the surface in the tropics from AGW (or from anything else).
This is because evapouration gives the sea surface a maximum temperature of 305K, most of the surface in the tropics is oceans, and most tropical land surface has moisture.
But the enhanced hydrological cycle that results from increased heating of the surface increases the flow of moisture to altitude. Some of that moisture will be returned to the surface by forming clouds then precipitating. And some of it will increase the humidity at altitude.
The catastrophic anthropogenic greenhouse effect (CAGW) requires that the humidity increase is very large. Indeed, it needs to be so large that an increase of global temperature of 1 deg.C (e.g. from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration) becomes an increase of 3 to 6.5 degC as an effect of the humidity.
This CAGW effect would be most clear in the tropics because
(a) little surface warming is possible in the tropics
and
(b) any warming would induce greatest increase to atmospheric moisture in the tropics.
Hence, the ‘hot spot’ is a large difference in warming rates between the surface and at altitude in the tropics.
But the ‘hot spot’ is observed to not exist. And the reason for its absence is obvious. As I said above, some of the evapourated water will form clouds and some will increase humidity at altitude. Clouds are very imperfectly modelled in the GCMs. Clearly, the models fail to adequately emulate the return of moisture by precipitation so they indicate much too large an increase to humidity at altitude.
This kills suggestions of CAGW stone dead. Without the enhanced warming from greater humidity (i.e. the water vapour feedback, WVF) AGW can only provide a small and beneficial warming that cannot be CAGW. And the absence of the ‘hot spot’ proves assertions of WVF are wrongly estimated to be much, much too high.
Then you say to me:
Yes! I have repeatedly told you that. For example, at #339 I wrote, and at #341 I quoted my having written,
Then you say:
No. Please check again.
The big red blob in Fig.9.1(c) that is the hot spot is indicated as being an increase of between 0.5 and 0.6 deg.C.
The yellow at the surface is indicated as being an increase of between 0.1 and 0.2 deg.C.
I state that as a difference of between 2 and 3 times.
I can understand how it could be said to be a difference of 2.5 to 6 times (i.e. 0.2×2.5=0.5 and 0.1×6=0.6).
I fail to understand how you can interpret it as being 1.3 times.
Indeed, you get your factor of 1.3 by assessing Fig.9.1(f) that is the sum of all forcings and is NOT the individual effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations that is shown in Fig.9.1(c)).
So, if one were to agree that the models are correct and that your factor of 1.3 is correct then almost all the warming over the last century was NOT induced by AGW. And, therefore, the inability to detect AGW to date is because AGW has been trivial. And that interpretation also kills any suggestion of potential CAGW stone dead.
Richard
00
Richard S Courtney:
Yes, as you state in the second half of your post, I made an interpretative error.
I was comparing average surface temperature with the average temperature CHANGE on the graph. A stupid mistake.
Not sure what I was thinking there. Still relatively new to this kind of discussion on climate. I think I got momentarily overwhelmed by it all and had a brain meltdown.
I was wrong. Sorry about that.
Although saying –
“I can understand how it could be said to be a difference of 2.5 to 6 times (i.e. 0.2×2.5=0.5 and 0.1×6=0.6).” is not an error of incorrect comparison. It is pseudo mathematics.
As for your first point, you say –
“Your question is semantic.”
I agreed with your point about magnitude. I wasn’t very clear in the wording of the following questions. –
“Are you saying that there is a “hot spot” effect but that it’s magnitude is not great enough to agree with the models ? Or are you saying that there is no “hot spot” effect at all ?”
I’ll try and explain what I was getting at – There is already a tendency for a warmer area above the tropics due to the physical processes I have mentioned in my previous posts. The “hot spot” in the IPCC graph is showing a marked increase in this effect over the long term.
You have completely ignored everything I said about observations of this effect in the short term. For which I provided citations.
You also continue to blithely state that no “hot spot” exists, asserting towards the end of your post “But the ‘hot spot’ is observed to not exist. And the reason for its absence is obvious.” completely dismissing the GCM’s and again completely ignoring everything I have said about measurement problems. Again for which I provided citations.
Also “…but some undetectably small difference between the warming rates may exist.”
Well which is it ? magnitude or non existence ? Because a hot spot HAS been detected – In the short term (ie. over monthly time periods), and to some extent in the long term. But there are still problems with magnitude in the long term that may be explained by the measurement problem. Again see my previous citations.
You also state –
“But you now suggest that similar warming pattern to the ‘hot spot’ is provided by “El Nino oscillations”. Your suggestion is not true”
I provide a citation in my previous post that confirms this similar warming pattern but you have ignored it.
Finally you acknowledge my discussion of surface warming and moisture uptake at the tropics –
“But that is only half the story”
And you continue by introducing a new argument into the discussion –
Thermodynamic regulation of ocean warming by cirrus clouds deduced from observations of the 1987 El Nino – V. Ramanathan & W. Collins 1991
http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/geo622/paper_thermostat_Ramanathan1991.pdf
“There is a maximum sea surface temperature of 305K” – Yes this what they say.
In the report they state that during the 1987 El Nino event sea surface temperatures (SST) reached 303 K (just under 30 C). That is a big short term rise in SST even beyond the predicted long term (100 years) rise. So you cannot assert that –
“(a) little surface warming is possible in the tropics”
Annual mean sea surface temperatures at the tropics are around 26/27 C I think. The IPCC predict a global average rise in SST of 1 – 2 C by 2100 (I’m not sure what the predicted average rise in the tropics is). But this increase will still be well under 32 C. Also as you yourself have stated, Figure 9.1f in Chapter 9 of the IPPC report show’s a 0.2 C surface temperature increase at the tropics (This could be described as little surface warming). So there are still another 5 degrees of headroom !
Although this is starting to get a little bit beyond me and my present knowledge/understanding of the subject. So I am not sure if my comments on the Ramathan paper are rubbish or not.
I know this is nothing more than an appeal to authority, but as Ramathan himself states in the following paper –
Global Warming – Veerabhadran Ramanathan 2005
http://www.amacad.org/publications/bulletin/spring2006/12globalwarming.pdf
“The effect of greenhouse gases on global warming is, in my opinion, the most important environmental issue facing the world today”
So I am going to ignore that part of your argument for no other reason than I prefer to believe the guy who wrote the paper rather than some random guy on the internet (no personal offence intended). Only because I do not fully understand the theory or how it fits into the general scheme of things.
Following on from this and from what I have said before about short/long term observations that you continue to reject/ignore I repeat what I said at the end of #340 –
“Models are being continually refined. But it would seem reasonable to err on the side of long term observational problems as being the likely cause of current disagreement with the theory/models.”
This would seem more reasonable than just dismissing the existence of the “hot spot” and rejecting the GCM’s.
00
Quentin Wallace:
I am making my last response because I have set out my explanation. In #344 you have ignored that explanation and say to me:
But that is a falsehood. None of your citations refutes my repeated and accurate statement that the enhanced rate of warming at altitude relative to the surface in the tropics (i.e. the ‘hot spot’) is not observed. My accurate statement is the only needed response to them. And anyone can throw irrelevant citations into the pot, but the only proper response to that is to ignore them.
Then you make a semantic argument attempting to twist my words in my clear statements saying:
As for your assertion to me saying:
That is bollocks! I repeatedly said you were making mistaken assertions about the mechanism. When I explained your error by pointing out that you were only considering one half of the situation that was NOT introducing anything new.
So, when you say:
and follow it with completely stupid nonsense such as:
then I conclude that almost anything is a better use of my time than trying to explain your errors to you.
But you may wish to ponder on this one:
models are statements of opinion about what the world is doing, and observations are what the world is seen to be doing.
And I conclude that there are better uses of my time because there is no point in trying to help somebody to see when that person insists on wearing a blindfold.
Richard
00
Richard S Courtney –
The climate change expert who is right because he says he is.
Rejects perfectly proper citations as “irrelevant”.
Takes offence when I merely point out that he has introduced something new into our discussion – “That is bollocks!”.
Calls the moderate and open to change position that I take, based on my previous statements – “completely stupid nonsense”.
And
Accuses me of making semantic statements, then makes a semantic statement of his own – “models are statements of opinion about what the world is doing, and observations are what the world is seen to be doing.”. Which may be perfectly correct in it’s own right, but fails to take into account the fact that the observations may be deceptive or need reasonable adjustments.
I think I am wasting my time.
00
Quentin Walace:
I make these observations of fact – that anybody can check for themselves – because I would not want others to think I accept your offensive, ungrateful and untrue twaddle in #346. If you make futher posts I shall not respond because this post provides the proof that I do not accept your past falsehoods and distortions so there is no need for me to prove I do not accept any future ones.
Your first two posts (especially #331) indicated you are an internet troll. Despite that,
1.
I took much trouble to try to explain your basic errors to you.
2.
I did not at any time “introduce something new”, but I pointed out that you were neglecting important effects at the surface when comparing trends at altitude and the surface.
3.
I correctly said it was “bollocks” to claim I had “introduced something new” when I had merely pointed out that you were (deliberately?) ignoring the major process responsible for the effect you were claiming to explain.
4.
I answered every point you made but I correctly and sensibly ignored citations that were not pertinent to anything being said so I avoided pointless sidetracks.
5.
I kept to the subject despite your trolling behaviour of trying to ‘move the goal posts’ (which you now call “the moderate and open to change position that I take”),
6.
I politely replied to your posts that repeatedly misrepresented my words, stated false hoods, and posted total irrelevancies.
7.
Then, when you said you would accept the output of not-validated models as being more indicative than empirical data I pointed out that you were being stupid, I explaind why your acceptance is stupid, and said I would waste no more time on you.
Crawl back under your bridge.
Richard
00
Richard S Courtney:
Sorry to keep this going, but I couldn’t help but respond again.
I know we are way off topic, but this is getting quite funny. – I am now the “ungrateful” student who should prostrate myself at the feet of this fountain of facts.
Replies to the 7 points you make above –
1. Yes you did. I am grateful for your time. I am sorry that you were unable to convince me.
2. and 3. What ? Do I have to repeat myself ? All I said was that you had introduced new information into our conversation that we hadn’t talked about before (the Ramanathan paper). I didn’t say you were wrong to do this. Why are you spinning semantic rebuttals to a sentence I merely used to introduce my response to this information ?
4. You say that you “sensibly ignored citations that were not pertinent”. Well the links are all there for people to check. I think you will find that they all relate to measurement problems of the “hot spot” effect and short term observations. Both points that I was trying to make. I linked to these peer reviewed scientific papers because I am unable to compete with your vast and detailed technical knowledge on this subject.
5. So your inability to convince me of the truth – according to Richard S Courtney – is now “trolling behaviour of trying to ‘move the goal posts’”
6. I may, in your opinion, be missing the truth here, but any initial politeness on your part seems to have descended into outright arrogance.
7. Yes. To which I replied that “the observations may be deceptive or need reasonable adjustments”. Again I refer people to the papers I cite above.(please note here that I am not accusing you of being stupid).
8. Thanks for the final insult.
00
Dear Jo,
As you are interested in scientific accuracy, I think it’s important to note that there is a distinction between humidity and WV (water vapour).
Firstly, we do not just measure “humidity”, there are two different quantities: relative humidity, specific humidity. Secondly, we also have other quantities describing the amount of water vapour in a parcel of air: water vapour (partial) pressure; mole fraction; mixing ratio.
These all describe water content in a parcel of air at a given temperature and pressure in different ways, although they are all inter-related.
The humidity that is commonly referred to, such as the percentage value given in weather reports, is relative humidity. Relative humidity is defined as the ratio of the water vapour pressure to the saturation water vapour pressure. The saturation water vapour pressure (call it vpsat) is a function of temperature and is the vapour pressure of water in air at temperature T at equilibrium. In practice, we measure RH using a calibrated formula involving wet and dry bulb temperatures.
The trouble with using relative humidity is that it is relative to a variable scaling factor, vpsat. VPsat varies greatly with temperature. It’s a moving target that changes with temperature.
If I tell you only that the RH is at 83%, it does not tell me how much water is in the air. You might think that 83% implies a lot of water in the air, but not if the temperature is low.
If you do a plot of relative humidity during the day at a location, you will see that it follows a roughly periodic variation over the course of the day. This will happen even if the water content of the air (in grams, or number of molecules) does not change at all! It varies mainly because temperature varies.
An interesting exercise is to work out which parcel of air has the higher water content: a parcel with RH=80% at 14 degrees, versus a parcel with RH=50% at 28 degrees. The first has the higher relative humidity, but the second has nearly 50% more water molecules floating in it. The reason is that the (so-called) saturation vapour pressure at 28 degrees is much higher than at 14 degrees.
Relative humidity is really only useful for gauging how comfortable people are likely to be at warmer temperatures, it is not very useful for understanding how much water is in the air. That’s why we distinguish between water vapour pressure and relative humidity. Personally, I prefer to work with the specific humidity, which is the mass of water vapour relative to the mass of dry air. It’s more like a concentration, and it has only a very weak secondary dependence on pressure.
So I hope you will change your comment about WV and humidity. There is an important distinction between the two.
This is a nice converter between the different measures of atmospheric water content: http://www.cactus2000.de/uk/unit/masshum.shtml
Andrej
00
Late starter here! It’s interesting to note that the original skepticalscience critique has 33 posts and this response has 349.
No surprises of course, we all know what happens when robust debate is attempted at SS.
00
[…] […]
00
[…] Since these models start with the assumption that warming is caused by CO2 they cannot in turn provide evidence for that proposition. That would be a circular argument. The one exception might be if the authors could make a solid case that their models succeed in capturing complex emergent phenomena observed in nature, but this is the opposite of what is actually happening. The models are completely missing on their basic predicted “fingerprints,” like the predicted upper-tropospheric “hotspot” that thermometers can’t find. […]
00