|
Post by Andrew on Oct 18, 2012 7:13:48 GMT
Radiant First there is a difference of opinion as to the depth of the LIA. Looking at the central england temperature, for example, the difference is maybe half a degree cooler than the 1940-1970 period. www.changecollege.org.uk/img/HadCET_1772_to_2009.gifHaving looked in detail once, it's clear to me that the 1962-1963 UK winter would have been cold enough to freeze the Thames had old London Bridge still been present. Second, while we don't really know for sure, it seems that the sun was part of the cause and that higher rates of volcanoes was another part. These two influences do not seem to be involved in the current rate of warming. Third, basic physics tells us that CO2 will have a warming effect which can be estimated quite well. Those who think CO2 is of most importance in recent time believe that the science tells us that the effect from variations in volcanic pollution and/or solar over the last 60 years are small compared with CO2. Fourth, records prior to the LIA period are sketchy and Northern Hemisphere focussed. As I said to Magellan above, there are good reasons as to why NH summers might have been warmer, and this also might have impacted climate in other ways. But if you look at detailed records of local areas you don't see quite so much of a global and continuous warming. For example, in the period 1000-1100, Iceland suffered three periods of severe cold (as established from proxy data from clam shells which align with famines). These cold periods are not aligned with volcanoes. This period was the period when Vikings were going to Greenland. Perhaps wind patterns were sending the warmth to Greenland and leaving Iceland in the cold??? Steve If difference of opinion is allowed it becomes even more peculiar to focus so much certainty on alarming AGW 1. There appears to be no solid evidence that the suns energy can vary to cause climate change, even if sunspots vary. If you think the suns energy can vary then we just had a high sunspot activity period and it is now almost certain we are entering a period of almost no sunspots. 2. Yes everything is very complex and chaotic and we know very little about the past but we do have many opinions. We do know however that British boats were trapped all year in Hudson bay around 1800 and the Bosphorous was frozen solid with ships locked in the ice around 1860 and grapes had not been grown in the UK for hundreds of years *and* there were not the advances in plant techniques and genetics we have today. 3. Alarming AGW amounts to an opinion that requires faith. And clearly those who do not agree are labeled what amounts to heretics. As far as I can see alarming AGW appears to be curve fitting of an existing unrelated warming period where there is a vast sea of conflicting opinions and yet we are told there is consensus. But consensus on what exactly? We do not know. You for example just accused me of heretical beliefs when i am actually a believer that C02 can cause warming. 4. You talk about basic physics and C02. What you mean is that complex models have given answers to people who believe C02 has the ability to create alarming AGW. What the actual impact of C02 amounts to, is actually unknown to humans.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 18, 2012 22:15:19 GMT
I showed the beginnings of an experimental proof for the theory by showing a hot brick cools slower when near a cold brick and the surface of a hot brick becomes warmer when near a cold brick Thats incorrect you failed to capture any warming of the bricks in your experiment. Further heating a brick then cooling it for a while (creating a gradient of temperature in the brick), you can influence the skin temperature but perhaps only because the core of the brick is hotter than its skin temperature. This not the case with the vast majority of the surface of the earth, which is ocean. It gets colder as you move down from the surface, not warmer like the brick. So some stupid experiment in a sauna with heated bricks or talks of covering dead bodies with blankets really is a completely different animal than what is being discussed regarding the greenhouse effect where the greenhouse effect is allegedly warming the oceans. Some people have difficulty seeing the problems with the analogies they construct. For example, if you pop a -30C block of ice out of a freezer, wait a few minutes for a warming gradient (as opposed to a cooling gradient) to form in the ice, throw a towel over it, the ice surface will cool. And if the surface had started melting it will probably refreeze and bond itself to the towel. This analogy at least matches the conditions at the ocean surface. Its abundantly clear that downwelling keeps the bottom of the ocean cold or conduction would have warmed it up over thousands of years. You must be a bit too young and/or too stupid to see whats wrong with your analogies and it seems no amount of explanation is ever sufficient. Some older people learn to eat humble pie others never grow up. Are you also saying, like Icefisher, that even H20 cannot enable the Earth to be warmer because even H20 cannot act like an insulator?
Surely you cannot be saying this?I never said H2O has zero insulation value. Its not a good insulator. It has conduction coefficient about half of glass. Convection is very strong in water so water in a liquid state is much worse of an insulator than glass in at least one direction of heat flow. It is decent insulator as a liquid in one direction namely it is resistant to taking surface heat down into the ocean. OTOH its very poor as an insulator as water vapor retaining heat at the surface. Hmmm, rocking your world here. I have said repeatedly here that H2O is an insulator in a frozen state in both directions, witness igloos and my theory of cooling in the arctic. Do you read anything on this blog before mouthing off? If you have to look to insulation value to argue that the greenhouse effect does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics you don't have a very good argument to support the notion. Somebody recently posted a link to a blog site alleging to refute the idea that the 2nd law was violated. I saw only one reference on the page to a published peer reviewed study by Halpern. The abstract said that the 2nd law was not broken because G&T failed to consider the heat convecting away from the surface. My GAWD! Is that heating or cooling? What kind of refutation is that? Fact is it falls short as every argument does. In my view the GHE has not been proven or disproven. It does violate the 2nd law in any common interpretation of it, except that laws are made to be broken, rewritten, revised, embellished you name it. There are only sanctimonious uses for laws. Some physicists question whether any material effect arises from the alleged greenhouse effect. What we see with regards to the alleged greenhouse effect is a lot of fancy footwork and not much substance. Now if you want some grist to chew on I will happily supply you. I have said I favor an alternative view of atmospheres built on the notion of a passive solar heating system design. I think its good food for thought though I agree you can only take it a limited ways towards an answer for climate. But where it takes you I think is pretty significant.
I have come to a few conclusions:
1) I think an atmosphere with no radiative properties on a planet would get a lot hotter than the BB temperature of the surface.
2) I also think that we do not measure the temperature of the surface on our planet but instead measure the temperature of our atmosphere.
For example, thermal mappers of the martian surface shows temperatures up to 27C. But the Viking I lander that landed at about 22 degrees latitude on a planet with a 25 degree axial tilt never recorded any atmosphere temperatures greater than -17C.
We know if you put a thermometer out in full exposure to the sky it will record colder temperatures at night and warmer during the day than a thermometer in a vented box.
Our surface measurements are those of a thermometer in a vented box not the surface.
3) That an atmosphere of pure CO2 (a gas with radiative properties) would be cooler than an atmosphere of gases with no radiative properties. (I am not sure but this atmosphere might also manifest a warm atmosphere effect in relationship to surface BB temperature because its emissivity is a lower value than the real surface.).
4) That if you add a little greenhouse gas to a non-radiative atmosphere it will cool.
So this theory as near as I can tell is consistent with all known physics.
So if you want to attribute something to me, don't do so by shoving words into my mouth to create strawmen you feel capable of taking on.
With regards to the "I am not sure" statement in number 3.
SB formulas suggest albedo does not affect equilibrium temperatures. If you apply that assumption to Mars and the Earth you end up with Earth's average climate temperature being about 9.5 degrees warmer than its bb temperature and Mars comes out about -16 degrees below its BB temperature. Thats consistent with the 4 principles above.
Its also consistent with Mark Serreze's world view of the ozone hole causing antarctic cooling if you discount the fate of the missing radiation in Mark's theory.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Oct 19, 2012 4:31:36 GMT
I don't think so. Have you read her blog? Every day. I think you are mistaken. I think you should also read her blog: ———. “‘Pause’ Discussion Thread: Part II.†Scientific. Climate Etc., October 16, 2012. judithcurry.com/2012/10/16/pause-discussion-thread-part-ii/Curry, Judith A. “‘Pause’ Discussion Thread.†Scientific. Climate Etc., October 14, 2012. judithcurry.com/2012/10/14/pause-discussion-thread/And the sources of the issue: Lemonick, Michael D. “Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues: Scientific American.†Scientific. Scientific American, October 25, 2010. www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-hereticRose, David. “Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago, Reveals Met Office Report Quietly Released... and Here Is the Chart to Prove It.†Mail Online, October 13, 2012. www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 19, 2012 5:53:24 GMT
Pooh. Mistaken about what? Your links would seem to support my thinking.
Radiant
"Faith" is the wrong word. We know the earth's climate is usually sensitive to forcings. We know that CO2 is a significant forcing. We know temperatures are changing quickly now, and we cannot find an analogue from the past for such rapid change that is not also accompanied by damaging impacts (though obviously it is not easy to find evidence for rapid change in past climate if there were no damaging impacts). We know without action, CO2 will probably double. We know that Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheet have melted in past climate that were similar (within a degree or so).
"Know" in the above means we have good evidence for.
"Consensus on what exactly"? Exactly! There is a consensus view among climate scientists that CO2 will cause warming and the warming is likely to cause changes in the climate that may be damaging. Beyond that there is a heck of a lot of argument about the details, the timescales, the impacts and the costs. At the moment Isaac Held is putting forward an argument that essentially kicks global warming well into the next century. Nobody has got excited about him turning to the dark side etc. etc. Its all part of the debate which *can* be conducted rationally.
"Heretic" is a word that some sceptics try to adopt for themselves in an attempt to use the Galileo defence. But I've never heard a scientist associated with the "consensus" call a sceptic a "heretic". I hear such scientists argue with the self-proclaimed heretic's point of view, maybe insult their ability to conduct a rational argument, maybe suggest they have an agenda and maybe use words or phrases that say they think the "heretic" does not really believe what they are saying (eg. "denier", "fake sceptic"). But such tactics are used in both directions so are somewhat par for the course.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 19, 2012 7:17:55 GMT
Steve: There have been step changes in the past, which I am sure you are aware off. Most of these step changes have no rational reason. Seems they just happen. I have no concrete evidence, but I think the sun has a lot to do with these step changes because I can't find any other reason for them.
As far as forcings. The ones derived from the current climate models really do seem to be lacking credence. I have the feeling you are involved in research?
I would hope that there is a very concerted effort to re-write the models with the current information available. 2 sigma out of whack is not acceptable.
I also think that there are only a few climate scientists with an agenda. As such, I have basically removed their writings/papers from my reading schedule. I have found the loudmouths to produce extremely shoddy work, and not worth wasteing time on junk when there is so much good science being done.
Just my humble opinion.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 19, 2012 12:42:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 19, 2012 16:31:12 GMT
Steve: There have been step changes in the past, which I am sure you are aware off. Most of these step changes have no rational reason. Seems they just happen. I have no concrete evidence, but I think the sun has a lot to do with these step changes because I can't find any other reason for them. As far as forcings. The ones derived from the current climate models really do seem to be lacking credence. I have the feeling you are involved in research? I would hope that there is a very concerted effort to re-write the models with the current information available. 2 sigma out of whack is not acceptable. I also think that there are only a few climate scientists with an agenda. As such, I have basically removed their writings/papers from my reading schedule. I have found the loudmouths to produce extremely shoddy work, and not worth wasteing time on junk when there is so much good science being done. Just my humble opinion. A few as in numbers or percentage? The list is long if by numbers.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 19, 2012 23:46:24 GMT
"Consensus on what exactly"? Exactly! There is a consensus view among climate scientists that CO2 will cause warming and the warming is likely to cause changes in the climate that may be damaging. Beyond that there is a heck of a lot of argument about the details, the timescales, the impacts and the costs.
That no doubt is the CAGW "Clique" point of view.
In reality the the range concensus runs from .5 to 3.0 of warming from a doubling of CO2. A remarkably large range. Nobody seriously thinks .5 is going to be damaging and the government has established 2.0 degrees as the benchmark.
My experience of working at a level of responsibility is to assume that the potential error is 1.5 times the range of estimates or about 3.75 degrees giving a range of effects from CO2 from -2degC to +5.5degC.
There are quite a few scientists suggesting the .5 degree number today. As we learn more its quite difficult to say which direction that group will move.
So as usual you are overhyping the consensus position to lend more credibility to your positions.
Auditors is circumstances where the range of values are so huge are put in a very difficult position regarding being able to issue a clean opinion. Auditors don't have the luxury of ignoring the skeptics so easily as you and many CAGW advocates do. So a clean opinion could only be issued if there were a great deal more convergence among the experts.
The multiplication of the divergence is kind of a rough quick and dirty "safe" estimate of 2nd std deviation giving equal weight to all expert opinions. Since auditors are in effect professional skeptics.
Actually somebody like Lindzen isn't a skeptic. He holds a different position and has his own idea of how much warming might result. True skeptics have no determined position on the matter in question but instead works to cut through the BS to find the right answer. This would be true for those called skeptics that claim cooling is imminent. They are instead advocates for a different outcome.
"Heretic" is a word that some sceptics try to adopt for themselves in an attempt to use the Galileo defence. But I've never heard a scientist associated with the "consensus" call a sceptic a "heretic". I hear such scientists argue with the self-proclaimed heretic's point of view, maybe insult their ability to conduct a rational argument, maybe suggest they have an agenda and maybe use words or phrases that say they think the "heretic" does not really believe what they are saying (eg. "denier", "fake sceptic"). But such tactics are used in both directions so are somewhat par for the course.
Hmmmm, what does the Thesaurus say?
Main Entry: heretic [n. her-i-tik; adj. her-i-tik, huh-ret-ik] Show IPA Part of Speech: noun Definition: schismatic Synonyms: apostate, cynic, pagan, sectarian, skeptic
Even skeptics are considered heretics. But as you can see its a broader category and includes anybody who either disagrees with or fails to accept a specific belief.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 20, 2012 3:08:39 GMT
If you have to look to insulation value to argue that the greenhouse effect does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics you don't have a very good argument to support the notion. The effect is like that of an insulator. You already agreed a cold woman is warmer when surrounded by cold men who radiatively protect her from a very cold environment in a similar way to her being under a blanket. The atmosphere acts like a blanket. For the same conditions, a heated object is always warmer if the cold environment is partly blocked by an otherwise unheated object that is only heated by the heated object. The surface of a cooling object is heated internally - there is absolutely no difference of substance. If the sun instantly died the Earth would remain warmer for longer because of the atmosphere. All my ideas and experiments just demonstrated exactly the same thing. No goal posts were changed and no lies were told.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 20, 2012 3:49:51 GMT
"Consensus on what exactly"? Exactly! There is a consensus view among climate scientists that CO2 will cause warming and the warming is likely to cause changes in the climate that may be damaging. Beyond that there is a heck of a lot of argument about the details Steve, I think i can say I am part of that consensus. However firstly I would need to know there has been an unusual warming of the Earth other than what would be expected after a period of glaciation ended. Instead what appears to be the case is that scare techniques are being used where temperature trends are massaged/conjured to exagerate the reality so that C02 doom can be fitted to a known but 'digitally' enhanced warming, where it is impossible to quantify what impact C02 will have without models using almost endless numbers of assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 20, 2012 5:20:16 GMT
Pooh. Mistaken about what? Your links would seem to support my thinking. Are you sure you read this?? judithcurry.com/2012/10/16/pause-discussion-thread-part-ii/Curry suggests that since you are a supporter of warming in the last 16 years - you offered that the warming trend was stronger in the last 16 years than previously - that you need to raise the level of your game. "JC note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years:
Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s statement or in Nuticelli’s argument effectively refutes Rose’s argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.
Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from these other scientists that acknowledge the ‘pause’"Curry says: Nuccitelli argues that the models are right, and therefore greenhouse warming dominates over natural warming. I argue that climate models are imperfect and incomplete, a statement that no climate modeler on the planet would argue with.You appear to be between Nuccitelli and Curry. Curry did not like 'seriously flawed' for some reason. But it seems you would not argue with Curry on imperfect and incomplete. Curry suggests to you that you need to raise the level of your game and take this opportunity to communicate honestly with us. That sounds pretty diplomatic to me. Curry is in fact saying that the IPCC and Met Office principles are lying and bullying by attempting to force the idea that there is a consensus upon everybody else that the basic science is settled.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 20, 2012 8:45:28 GMT
If you have to look to insulation value to argue that the greenhouse effect does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics you don't have a very good argument to support the notion. The effect is like that of an insulator. You already agreed a cold woman is warmer when surrounded by cold men who radiatively protect her from a very cold environment in a similar way to her being under a blanket. The atmosphere acts like a blanket. For the same conditions, a heated object is always warmer if the cold environment is partly blocked by an otherwise unheated object that is only heated by the heated object. The surface of a cooling object is heated internally - there is absolutely no difference of substance. If the sun instantly died the Earth would remain warmer for longer because of the atmosphere. All my ideas and experiments just demonstrated exactly the same thing. No goal posts were changed and no lies were told. I think the blankets are indeed insulating but no insulating value has been established for gases. Lets look at an old post diagram. Above is your calculations of the heating between hollow spheres inside of each other. As you might recall the shells of these spheres are effective blackbodies and only one molecule thick. I think the warming is unreasonably high and I will give you a few rationales why. 1. the Woods experiments showed greenhouses with IR blocking glass were virtually the same temperature as greenhouses with IR transparent glass. Your diagram attributes a great deal of warming to that one transaction. 2. Some scientists believer there may be some unification theory between the various forms of electromagnetic radiation (conduction, light, and magnetism). Imagine for a moment that the diagram was modified to have 125,000 hollow spheres embedded in the manner in the diagram. Assume the innermost sphere is 2 millionths of an inch in diameter and the space between each shell is 1 millionth of an inch. With 125,000 spheres the diameter of the outermost sphere is 1/4 inch or about the size of a pea. Now you apply some heat to the inner most shell sufficient to make the outer shell radiate say 300 watts/m2 so in space it would be about the temperature of the ice free arctic ocean. The watts/m2 that the innermost shell would need to emit if your diagram were correct would be 300*2^62500 some unimaginably large number. (excel will not even close to being able to calculate it) Interestingly the outermost sphere would be 15,625,000,000 times the surface area of the outer most sphere. So if we assume that then the innermost sphere would be radiating 4.6875E+12watts/m2 roughly about 95,000K. This was approximately 300watts times 15,625,000,000 (or 300*2^33). Hmmm, thats a lot! But it doesn't hold a candle to 300*2^62500 (sorry for the Excel notation but my math notation is really rusty) a figure with about 19,000 significant numbers left of the decimal point. Personally I think both numbers are way too high. This is electromagnetic radiation and such resistance numbers seem implausible. It seems what you have here is for all intends and purposes a solid pea but it does seem to be the case that electromagnetic radiation is a bit difficult to get ones arms around. (most likely the problem is in the one molecule layer of the shell and only a fraction of electromagnetic radiation is captured, but I think that might explain the smaller number more easily than the large one. 3. I don't recall for sure but you might have been the person we had the reflective foil discussion. As I recall we determined that reflective foil on a ceiling (otherwise known as trailer trash insulation) does very little keeping heat in a closed space. Instead according to calculations provided by one manufacturer the insulation value of 2 sheets of double layered bubble foil, with 3 dead air spaces inside a boxed ceiling had about the insulation value of the 3 dead air spaces plus a small bit more for the conductive resistance of the bubble foil. But has insulation for downwelling heat it was quite high. So convection does matter. 4. Transpiration and evaporation are problem the primary means of surface cooling. It goes up in the form of latent heat this heat travels well up into the atmosphere before actually releasing it heat when it condenses. Also O2 and N2 absorb heat at the surface and convect high into the sky without losing heat. So when you add CO2 to the atmosphere it will cool the upper atmosphere and according to Dr. Mark Serreze last month, when you cool the upper atmosphere it cools the surface and accounts for why Antarctica is cooler than else where. Now I recognize none of those arguments amount to a complete refutation of all insulating value of a gas and don't give any guidance to what the correct answer is. But I think those examples help demonstrate that its not nearly as straight forward as suggested.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 20, 2012 11:28:42 GMT
I think there was a bit of confusion about what Pooh was referring to in his post. My understanding of Judith:
Is Judith diplomatic? No. Does Judith trust model projections? No. Does Judith say models are "deeply flawed"? No. Does Judith think model results don't reflect uncertainty anywhere near enough? Yes. If Judith though models were "deeply flawed" would she say so? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 20, 2012 13:04:34 GMT
There are consequences to programmatic guesses. What amazes me is how so many buy into programs that have been crafted by "experts" not in programming but in other fields. "No ‘global warming’ for 16 years" "Yet California’s global-warming law, AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, remains as the “solution” to a “global warming” crisis that doesn’t exist. It cuts greenhouse gas emissions in the state by 25 percent by 2020. It’s also supposed to inspire other states and countries to adopt similar measures, and to create jobs. Gov. Jerry Brown brands as “deniers” anyone who questions whether or not “global warming” — since rebranded in Orwellian Memory Hole fashion as “climate change” — even exists. Yet no other state or country has adopted anything like AB 32. And it’s a jobs-killer, not a jobs-creator. In January, as part of AB 32, the state imposes a new Cap and Trade program to auction evil carbon credits — a socialist scheme ripe for fraud and abuse. A sensible state would repeal AB 32." www.calwatchdog.com/2012/10/15/no-global-warming-for-16-years/
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 20, 2012 13:23:11 GMT
In case some of you missed this post here is a link. A little programming and some charts presto hockey. He who controls the past controls the future. "Gergis et al hockey stick paper withdrawn – finally" "Readers may recall Steve McIntyre’s evisceration of Gergis et al. Steve’s question has now been answered. In retrospect, it looks like David Karoly’s puffed up legal whining was just that, puffed up." wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/gergis-et-al-hockey-stick-paper-withdrawn-finally/
|
|