|
Post by socold on Nov 1, 2009 13:51:59 GMT
Because the overall ENSO and PDO trend indicates a cooling influence since 1980. Whereas the temperature record shows a warming trend since 1980.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 1, 2009 13:56:20 GMT
Steve, you obviously do not have a grasp on what a stable equilibrium is: The only constant (more or less) is the inward TSI. This must be balanced by outward radiation. The T^4 means that a small change in Earth's surface temp leads to a huge change (in either direction) of outward radiation. This the greenhouse effect is a STABLE equilibrium, in that any tendency to move away from the equilibrium position is an uphill battle. Thus the greenhouse effect (controlled by the Sun's constant TSI- or nearly constant) is the only driving factor. OTHER effects (Albedo changes from the Earth's surface, Ice, clouds etc) are going to have a HUGE effect, as these operate at much higher energy wavelengths. So you have picked the stable equilibrium in which somehow earth's temperature has a fixed level that cannot be changed by the greenhouse effect. You've ignored my questions as to why the greenhoues effect must be 30 or so degrees and cannot be 4-5C higher or lower. To fit the facts of past variations in temperature to your theory you've decided the higher *wavelengths* of the other effects must be important. This is like arguing that being paid in hundred dollar bills must always be better than being paid in one dollar bills. That said, of course all these things are important. But your argument appears to be because they are more important, the greenhouse effect must be *un*important. It isn't an argument that has any logically sound basis. This argument is kind of related to Miskolczi because Miskolczi's whole premise follows an argument that claims that the earth's atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium. The equations he use to show this are right at the beginning of his paper. The fault in these equations is that the experiment he uses to prove equilibrium is not senstive enough. The fact that the suggestion is *obviously* wrong doesn't seem to bother him. If the atmosphere *were* in thermal equilibrium, then there would be no greenhouse effect at all.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 1, 2009 16:02:49 GMT
Steve, you obviously do not have a grasp on what a stable equilibrium is: The only constant (more or less) is the inward TSI. This must be balanced by outward radiation. The T^4 means that a small change in Earth's surface temp leads to a huge change (in either direction) of outward radiation. This the greenhouse effect is a STABLE equilibrium, in that any tendency to move away from the equilibrium position is an uphill battle. Thus the greenhouse effect (controlled by the Sun's constant TSI- or nearly constant) is the only driving factor. OTHER effects (Albedo changes from the Earth's surface, Ice, clouds etc) are going to have a HUGE effect, as these operate at much higher energy wavelengths. So you have picked the stable equilibrium in which somehow earth's temperature has a fixed level that cannot be changed by the greenhouse effect. You've ignored my questions as to why the greenhoues effect must be 30 or so degrees and cannot be 4-5C higher or lower. To fit the facts of past variations in temperature to your theory you've decided the higher *wavelengths* of the other effects must be important. This is like arguing that being paid in hundred dollar bills must always be better than being paid in one dollar bills. That said, of course all these things are important. But your argument appears to be because they are more important, the greenhouse effect must be *un*important. It isn't an argument that has any logically sound basis. This argument is kind of related to Miskolczi because Miskolczi's whole premise follows an argument that claims that the earth's atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium. The equations he use to show this are right at the beginning of his paper. The fault in these equations is that the experiment he uses to prove equilibrium is not senstive enough. The fact that the suggestion is *obviously* wrong doesn't seem to bother him. If the atmosphere *were* in thermal equilibrium, then there would be no greenhouse effect at all. Steve, I will not try to support a paper that I haven't read - but your last statement: "If the atmosphere *were* in thermal equilibrium, then there would be no greenhouse effect at all"Is illogical The atmosphere can retain equilibrium by feedbacks that balance whatever effect there may be from 'green house gases', Equilibrium does not mean that there are no forces in each direction - nor with a big system does it mean that particular variables like temperature cannot deviate then recover after a delay as the feedbacks of differing speed and strength react to a perturbation.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 1, 2009 17:44:52 GMT
If the atmosphere *were* in thermal equilibrium, then there would be no greenhouse effect at all. Seems to me that if the atmosphere was not in thermal equilibrium you would have substantial emissions from CO2 bands coming from the upper troposphere above where water vapor typically remains in the atmosphere. But with the fourth power combined with the depth of the bite in the CO2 spectrum what ability does CO2 have to raise temperature would seem to be related to its heat content. In the lower atmosphere where it is warm the CO2 is bleeding it off to other frequencies via conduction, in the upper atmosphere it isn't emitting anything substantial in its favored band. The only place you get emissions are in the band regions where you have water emitting also. Its not a matter of more CO2 its a matter of deepening its bite and that would be important if the bite wasn't already so deep its well beyond the expected BB curve already.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 2, 2009 2:26:19 GMT
I forget that some folks haven't had a solid physics/chemistry education. Thus words like "stable equilibrium" are misunderstood. This should help steve & others. I was referring to these basic concepts.: Any system which has to be pushed uphill in either direction is said to be a system at a stable equilibrium. The long wave radiation balance (ignoring clouds, Albedo etc) is a stable equilibrium with respect to temperature. Since the input energy from the sun is close to a constant(all else being a constant for arguments sake) then you can readily see from the outward Energy proportional to T^4 that it is going to be very hard to move the temperature very far in either direction. A very small change in T will reestablish equilibrium, and there is no "tipping point" associated with a stable equilibrium formula. The term "Stable equilibrium" is a concept for describing a set factor in the overall climate system. I did not suggest that the atmosphere is in a stable state. It is clear that major climate drivers are not going to be the tiny energies associated with low energy long wave radiation (CO2 or no CO2) I hope I have explained this enough for the unscientifically trained. And lets support this with Roy Spencer: "For instance, for the global average climate system, a decrease in outgoing radiation causes an increase in global average temperature, whereas an increase in temperature must always do the opposite: cause an increase in outgoing radiation." (Roy is using "Cause" rather loosely - of course. A lower temperature will radiate less energy - thus opposing a temperature fall, and a higher temperature will result in increased radiation, thus opposing a temperature rise.) wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/01/spencer-on-ipcc-admission-on-climate-feedbacks/#more-12365
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 2, 2009 9:22:48 GMT
So you have picked the stable equilibrium in which somehow earth's temperature has a fixed level that cannot be changed by the greenhouse effect. You've ignored my questions as to why the greenhoues effect must be 30 or so degrees and cannot be 4-5C higher or lower. To fit the facts of past variations in temperature to your theory you've decided the higher *wavelengths* of the other effects must be important. This is like arguing that being paid in hundred dollar bills must always be better than being paid in one dollar bills. That said, of course all these things are important. But your argument appears to be because they are more important, the greenhouse effect must be *un*important. It isn't an argument that has any logically sound basis. This argument is kind of related to Miskolczi because Miskolczi's whole premise follows an argument that claims that the earth's atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium. The equations he use to show this are right at the beginning of his paper. The fault in these equations is that the experiment he uses to prove equilibrium is not senstive enough. The fact that the suggestion is *obviously* wrong doesn't seem to bother him. If the atmosphere *were* in thermal equilibrium, then there would be no greenhouse effect at all. Steve, I will not try to support a paper that I haven't read - but your last statement: "If the atmosphere *were* in thermal equilibrium, then there would be no greenhouse effect at all"Is illogical The atmosphere can retain equilibrium by feedbacks that balance whatever effect there may be from 'green house gases', Equilibrium does not mean that there are no forces in each direction - nor with a big system does it mean that particular variables like temperature cannot deviate then recover after a delay as the feedbacks of differing speed and strength react to a perturbation. "Thermal equilibrium" has a specific meaning, and Miskolczi uses the meaning. It is different from local thermodynamic equilibrium (thermal equilibrium with nearby surroundings), and it is different from a generic equilibrium (no net change). He uses obs data to show (he thinks) that this thermal equilibrium exists. If you follow through the first 6 equations of his more commonly cited paper, he applies this to create equations 5 and 6. These two equations state that if more energy is absorbed by the atmosphere at the earth's surface it is *immediately* balanced by increased emissions into space - the atmosphere is in this way a perfect conductor. But the "greenhouse effect" is an effect whereby the increased opacity of the atmosphere that results from increased greenhouse gas levels raises the level from which radiation goes into space to a higher, and therefore cooler, level. So it depends on the lack of thermal equilibrium that Miskolczi is trying to prove exists. I recommend you carefully read the paper up to equations 5 & 6. Then hopefully you will understand why he is not taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 2, 2009 9:38:38 GMT
I forget that some folks haven't had a solid physics/chemistry education. Thus words like "stable equilibrium" are misunderstood. This should help steve & others. I was referring to these basic concepts.: Any system which has to be pushed uphill in either direction is said to be a system at a stable equilibrium. The long wave radiation balance (ignoring clouds, Albedo etc) is a stable equilibrium with respect to temperature. Since the input energy from the sun is close to a constant(all else being a constant for arguments sake) then you can readily see from the outward Energy proportional to T^4 that it is going to be very hard to move the temperature very far in either direction. A very small change in T will reestablish equilibrium, and there is no "tipping point" associated with a stable equilibrium formula. The term "Stable equilibrium" is a concept for describing a set factor in the overall climate system. I did not suggest that the atmosphere is in a stable state. It is clear that major climate drivers are not going to be the tiny energies associated with low energy long wave radiation (CO2 or no CO2) I hope I have explained this enough for the unscientifically trained. And lets support this with Roy Spencer: "For instance, for the global average climate system, a decrease in outgoing radiation causes an increase in global average temperature, whereas an increase in temperature must always do the opposite: cause an increase in outgoing radiation." (Roy is using "Cause" rather loosely - of course. A lower temperature will radiate less energy - thus opposing a temperature fall, and a higher temperature will result in increased radiation, thus opposing a temperature rise.) wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/01/spencer-on-ipcc-admission-on-climate-feedbacks/#more-12365Don't patronise me Kiwistonewall. Look to your own communication skills. I've made it quite clear that I thought your description had two interpretations and asked you questions (that you have ignored) to clarify your position. Anyway, this picture illustrates exactly what I need to identify your confusion. You have pictured a stable equilibrium and are imagining the weedy little CO2 molecules trying to push the red ball up the blue hill. Whereas great big UV photons and fluffy white clouds have no problem I suppose. Well you have it exactly wrong. Changing the amount of CO2 does not move the ball. It moves the blue curve! You then need to imagine some influence that *prevents* the ball travelling to the bottom of the new curve. Ever. There is nothing wrong with the Spencer sentence. If you reduce outgoing LW by increasing levels of CO2, then temperature will rise. If temperature rises it increases outgoing LW. But the higher temperature has to be maintained to retain the balance.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 2, 2009 16:13:43 GMT
It would appear there will be no agreement as the arguments are based on different premises.
Steve considers that the only way energy can get to the tropopause is by radiation. (A common misconception in AGW theory). Therefore, all arguments are based on radiation and radiation effects alone.
However, most of the energy is carried to the tropopause by the hydrologic cycle. Indeed as it gets warmer the hydrologic cycle gets stronger to the _tropopause_ and the tropopause level is more than 20,000 ft higher at the equator because of this. Now once the heat is at the tropopause it can only get further mainly by radiation - but the density of any green house gases is significantly lower and the likelihood of IR being scattered by CO2 is a lot less. This is what the _observed_ ERBE results show - when the surface is hotter - there is more OLW.
So you are talking about a thermodynamic stability in a slab atmosphere. I am talking about a real world atmosphere where getting warmer means convection leading to a 'system stability' where convection plays its part in increasing cooling and albedo to balance any perturbation by GHG effects.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 2, 2009 16:33:06 GMT
Changing the amount of CO2 does not move the ball. It moves the blue curve! Kiwi made it abundantly clear in the quote from him you copied into your own post. The blue curve is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant. CO2 does not change that constant and Kiwi's point was the relative forcing on the ball exerted by various forces like CO2, clouds and ice. CO2 is a weak force and ice and clouds are a strong force. You simply just want to discount the stronger variables and try to focus on the weak force. This fundamentally is what is wrong about attributing recent climate change to CO2 without modeling clouds and the various water cycle processes and understanding what drives them. Warmistas, like yourself, just choose to ignore these facts and provide parameterizations to models to produce outputs attributable to CO2 while assuming these stronger forcings are not variable . . . .except as feedback in the desired direction to CO2. The slimy underbelly of this beast is shown in the manufactured science, bristlecone pines, a single tree on the Yamal Peninsula, upside down proxies. . . .in a disingenuine attempt to prove there are no natural variations in climate being driven by these much stronger forcings (or feedbacks if you will from unknown forcings). . . .a patent absurdity! Fact is our world does have natural variations and the recent 10 years is yet another example of those natural variations. The models used by the IPCC have almost entirely been falsified. The political machine rolls along though and the same scientists that provide us data on climate continue to ignore the fact that the real world has derailed off the track predicted by the CO2 models. Yet they refuse to acknowledge that and continue to build ever more and more absurd reconstructions to defraud the public. . . .the latest being: "Tingley and Huybers 1200-year reconstruction at their website (that it uses Mann's PC1, a second strip bark foxtail series, Yamal plus a van Engelen series that even the IPCC acknowledged could not be used as a "proxy")"----Climate Audit
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 2, 2009 16:44:38 GMT
No, nautonnier, you won't find a quotation by me that states that "the only way energy can get to the tropopause is by radiation". It's a misconception by you, not by AGW folk.
But if you could tell me how much energy is transported by convection and latent heat, say between the surface and 1km up, 1km-5km and 5km to the tropopause, then that would be interesting. Rough numbers would be acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 2, 2009 17:01:05 GMT
Changing the amount of CO2 does not move the ball. It moves the blue curve! Kiwi made it abundantly clear in the quote from him you copied into your own post. The blue curve is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant. How can a constant be a curve? You are doing the same as Kiwistonewall and discounting CO2 because it is "weak". It doesn't matter whether it is weak or strong. The relevant amount by which it *changes* is what is important. Why should I assume that the "stronger forces" vary to balance out the CO2 effects. That would be unscientific. The scientific thing to do is to maybe model the earth, and compare the models with observations. Maybe look at prehistory to see if the earth has a tendency to stay at the same temperature, or whether it tends to vary a lot for a small change. In your world, we'd have never had the ice age cycles. Never had the dinosaurs. Probably wouldn't have escaped from snowball earth yet because all the "strong forces" would stop the earth warming.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 2, 2009 17:09:18 GMT
You are doing the same as Kiwistonewall and discounting CO2 because it is "weak". It doesn't matter whether it is weak or strong. The relevant amount by which it *changes* is what is important. Don't even give them that. They are using circular reasoning. They are starting off assuming that the effect of co2 is weak to conclude that the effect of co2 is weak.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 2, 2009 18:13:40 GMT
You are doing the same as Kiwistonewall and discounting CO2 because it is "weak". It doesn't matter whether it is weak or strong. The relevant amount by which it *changes* is what is important. Don't even give them that. They are using circular reasoning. They are starting off assuming that the effect of co2 is weak to conclude that the effect of co2 is weak. Socold, I haven't given them anything - I put "weak" in quotes. But I await the proof that we're all about to float off into space because gravity is weaker than the other fundamental forces, and therefore couldn't possibly be important.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 2, 2009 19:08:05 GMT
Kiwi made it abundantly clear in the quote from him you copied into your own post. The blue curve is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant. How can a constant be a curve? The Stefan–Boltzmann constant (also Stefan's constant), a physical constant denoted by the Greek letter ó, is the constant of proportionality in the Stefan–Boltzmann law: the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body in unit time is proportional to the fourth power of the thermodynamic temperature. - Wikipedia CO2 does not change that constant and Kiwi's point was the relative forcing on the ball exerted by various forces like CO2, clouds and ice. CO2 is a weak force and ice and clouds are a strong force. You simply just want to discount the stronger variables and try to focus on the weak force. This fundamentally is what is wrong about attributing recent climate change to CO2 without modeling clouds and the various water cycle processes and understanding what drives them. Warmistas, like yourself, just choose to ignore these facts and provide parameterizations to models to produce outputs attributable to CO2 while assuming these stronger forcings are not variable . . . .except as feedback in the desired direction to CO2. You are doing the same as Kiwistonewall and discounting CO2 because it is "weak". It doesn't matter whether it is weak or strong. The relevant amount by which it *changes* is what is important. It doesn't matter if its weak or strong? Thats complete bullcrap! Thats the entire issue! The warmistas have found it necessary to minimize the stronger forcings by building false hockey sticks that claims historical temperature variations were insignificant in relationship to recent variations. They need to do that because without doing this they have to admit that it is in fact unlikely that a significant portion of recent warming was caused by CO2 rather than from a stronger natural forcing. (unless you want to claim that a tenth of a degree/century is significant) Bottom line is the risk of CO2 being a major contributor to recent warming is inversely proportional to the risk of natural temperature variations from other causes. We are constrained in this because we have a history of CO2 emissions and an observed amount of warming. To make their case they found it necessary to smooth out the historical temperature variations to well less than 1 degree in order to make the case that recent warming of 1 degree was likely due to CO2 and not natural variation. Its the fraudulent temperature reconstructions that entirely underpins the argument whether such forcings are significant or insignificant. The models parameterize the forcings from clouds and ice to levels that limits their roles to their view of historical variation and thus negates their potential roles in recent warming. They support those parameterizations of natural variation with fraudulent temperature reconstructions. If you were to parameterize the models according to the body of science that existed before the fraudulent reconstructions suggested different parameterizations. . . . then your conclusions will look like Akasofu's graph right down to the most likely cause. There is no alternative to that if you pick the most likely explanation. Akasofu points out his conclusion could be wrong but to understand that we need to better understand natural variation. Attempting to sweep it under the carpet via fraudulent temperature reconstructions is what is not scientific. You want to talk about risk Steve. I have experience in modeling risk. . . .what you refuse to do is actually quantify it. . . .you want no risk and thus buy into the propaganda that there is a significant quantifiable risk when in fact quantifiable risk is very very small. I also want to minimize risk and thus I am amenable, as is the majority of the population, of taking some steps to minimize it further. However, ultimately I know there is a cost to minimizing risk and that cost is reflected in a reduction of our overall wealth and I know that our overall wealth is how we have been able to deal with real problems. Why should I assume that the "stronger forces" vary to balance out the CO2 effects. You got it completely backwards. You are assuming that CO2 effects are as strong as they are by negating the effects of the stonger forces by using fraudulent temperature reconstructions to make the case that those things have not happened before in history. That would be unscientific. The scientific thing to do is to maybe model the earth, and compare the models with observations. Maybe look at prehistory to see if the earth has a tendency to stay at the same temperature, or whether it tends to vary a lot for a small change. And of course discount the stronger forcing in these models by using a hockey stick to constrain the natural variability of the stronger forcings and then utilize those stronger forces as feedback? That is what is going on. Unfortunate, to that approach though is if the MWP was warmer than the present, one has to free those stronger variables to randomly create stuff like modern warming periods and the likelihood of the CO2 models being correct starts dropping like a rock. [ In your world, we'd have never had the ice age cycles. Never had the dinosaurs. Probably wouldn't have escaped from snowball earth yet because all the "strong forces" would stop the earth warming. You are hopeless. In the end your argument ends up being some kind of religious ad hominem based upon the dogma of the Church of the Hockey Stick that natural variability from forcings several orders of magnitude stronger than CO2 doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 2, 2009 20:44:06 GMT
How can a constant be a curve? The Stefan–Boltzmann constant (also Stefan's constant), a physical constant denoted by the Greek letter ó, is the constant of proportionality in the Stefan–Boltzmann law: the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body in unit time is proportional to the fourth power of the thermodynamic temperature. - Wikipedia Ah of course. Or in other words "The Stefan–Boltzmann constant is a curve". How do you answer that Steve? Even wikipedia states it's a curve. Somewhere.
|
|