|
Post by icefisher on Sept 17, 2010 4:30:16 GMT
Someone has inadvertently put my argument in graphical form: 90% of TSI is absorbed by the ocean and the ocean was not cooling through 75% of that graph. Though it does look like the last 7 years of the graph is what is pulling the slope negative. Looks pretty flat 1985 to 2003 but that might be relative as it might take another decade or so to counterbalance the warm phase. And of course if you go 1976 to 1998 on the PDO it is a positive slope. Since there was warming until 1998 what do you need CO2 for?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 17, 2010 13:46:19 GMT
Convection, among other things, moves parcels of air up to where they can lose energy more easily. So you agree with glc. But what does Magellan think?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 17, 2010 20:38:43 GMT
Convection, among other things, moves parcels of air up to where they can lose energy more easily. So you agree with glc. But what does Magellan think? I was pointing out to GLC he was arguing that convection does not cool the surface while he does argue CO2 warms the surface. His argument is based solely on whether convection removes energy from the system. But CO2 doesn't add energy to the system either yet he claims it warms the system. CO2 also is claimed to but it is not proven to redistribute heat in the system, though I think most of us accept it does at least to some degree. Greenhouse experiments though would suggest it isn't much. There is no question though that convection redistributes heat in the system. The problem with overall budgets is they give you figures in total for the entire atmosphere. A simple greenhouse experiment shows that IR plays a minor role in surface cooling. It plays a major role TOA. The problem is the good science stops dead with some TOA estimates. Trying to make the case that TOA translate to surface warming (it doesn't have to all that needs to happen would be near TOA warming where IR does play a bigger role)
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 18, 2010 0:26:29 GMT
I understand exactly what glc is saying. x amount of co2 ("forcing") equates y amount of warming. Radiative forcing is King in his view, except of course when it comes to the sun He and steve are so stuck on radiative forcing they can't see the forest for the trees. There are so many processes taking place, many of which are not well understood, but CO2 is a bit player in the game. Clouds can explain 100% of all warming and cooling (not that they do), so why not concentrate efforts on understanding them? And guess what process clouds work on and guess which metric is least understood? That is what very few researchers are dedicated to understand, but not AGW scientists.....they've already got it all figured out. Remember the consensus and all. What is funny about this conversation is glc, while quoting Spencer, doesn't realize he buried his own argument. I purposely asked him what "radiative-convective equilibrium" means, and he stepped in the big pile of poo. That the surface cools by convection means the heat goes somewhere. Where does it go? It's supposed to be hanging around ("trapped") in the LT thereby back radiating and warming the surface more. Oh, but there's that pesky convection and negative feedback issue again. Spencer is pointing out right off the start that GHG warming is competing with convective cooling. Read it again glc. Spencer is saying 2xCO2 does not equate to ~1.2 degC surface warming. The earth is not a stationary enclosed box. Unless we hear CO2 will also cause the the earth to stop spinning, the Coriolis Effect will still be operating for quite some time. The evidence from satellites indicate negative feedback. That none of you warmologists have yet to address Spencer's findings speaks volumes. Ever hear of deep convective clouds? Clouds are formed above the surface aren't they? Of course heat is radiated into space (duh), but again, if convective cooling were not important, the surface could never cool, just as if there was no atmosphere it could never cool. While socold thinks a 400% error in climate model simulations is but a "suggestion", glc thinks "agreement" amongst 4 temperature products means _______________ (he doesn't say). That the surface shouldn't be warming faster than the LT seems to escape Warmologist's reasoning. socold says the LT can warm from any source. No kidding, but the models are wrong, plain and simple; the LT isn't warming as AGW (caused by rising CO2 levels) demands. So tell me glc and steve, if convective cooling cools the surface, and LW radiation is carried upward into the LT, yet the LT isn't warming as advertised, what does that tell you about your precious IPCC climate model driven "GHE"? As the equator receives the majority of solar radiation entering the atmosphere, and convection is strongest at the equator, and yet the tropics are not warming as AGW dictates, that should raise a red flag. Ever wonder what those huge columns of clouds are doing way up over the tropics? I had already taken the time to email RPS on the subject of convective cooling of the system. As glc never did define what the system is, apparently RPS understands what I meant by the system. Hi ****
You are absolutely correct. Convective clouds matter. If they extend deeper into the atmosphere, for example, a greater fraction of the long wave fluxes can escape from the top out into space. Danny Rosenfeld and colleagues have published on this subject; e.g. see
pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2006/01/31/more-evidence-for-the-diversity-of-climate-forcings-by-aerosols/
Ben may have other comments on this.
Best Regards
Roger
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, DG wrote:
> > > Dr. Pielke > I read your and Ben Herman's article on the greenhouse effect with much interest. One question I have that still has not been fully answered is what effect convection has on overall cooling of the climate system. It seems to be an important part of weather processes and often mentioned, but not fully explained, or I simply don't understand it well enough. In your article it states: > > This is important to note, because encouraging a popular picture in which the presence of the atmosphere/ only/ warms the surface takes all the convection and fluid dynamics out of the discussion, and that's where all the important complexities are. > > Isn't it more the case that the atmosphere both warms and cools the surface, depending on circumstances? The IR absorption of H2O and other GHG's warms the surface relative to what it would otherwise be, but as the lunar case shows, convection and turbulent mixing cools the surface relative to what would happen without an atmosphere. Take away the atmosphere and you take away both warming and cooling mechanisms. > > > > This statement by Dr. Spencer leads me to believe convection is an integral part of cooling of the climate system. > > www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/why-33-deg-c-for-the-earths-greenhouse-effect-is-misleading/ > But what many people don't realize is that the 33 deg. C of surface warming is not actually a measure of the greenhouse warming -- it represents the balance between TWO competing effects: a greenhouse /warming/ effect of about 60 deg. C (the so-called "pure radiative equilibrium" case), and a convective /cooling/ effect of about 30 deg. C. When these two are combined, we get the real-world observed "radiative-convective equilibrium" case. > > Would this indicate convective cooling of the entire climate system, or only the surface? If only the surface that would appear to be a bit counter intuitive. What about convective clouds, thermals and precipitation? Aren't thunderstorms a cooling effect and formed by convection? > > > Thanks, > **********
Speaking of thunderstorms, do hurricanes warm or cool the "system"? glc? steve? While steve says he is having a 'senior moment' (nice ad hom argument there stevie), Pielke has co-authored two more papers blowing yet another gaping hole in the side of the IPCC Consensus aka the Titanic. Conclusions From Allen and Sherwood (2008) and Thorne (2008) Are RefutedRemember this subject socold? You should, you used it as evidence against satellite data. I said it was crap, remember? I wonder if John Cook will do a feature story on his "SkepticalScience" (it is neither) blog where you got it from. I'm sure he will since he's so objective and only cares about discussing the science, especially peer reviewed science. Strange though, I've yet to see him even mention Spencer or MM. And What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends Since 1979Couple those with Spencer and McIntyre/McKitrick's latest. What do Warmologists have left? Hope.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 18, 2010 1:51:44 GMT
Actually I think the calculation of "400% error" is wrong (the description is also wrong, it's a discrepancy between model and observations - calling it an error in models assumes the cause of the discrepancy rather than just describing it - of course all irrelevant given I think the 400% figure is wrong anyway). Comparing models with observations is an exercise in comparing model uncertainty against observation uncertainty. If they don't overlap you have a discrepancy. If they do overlap then there is not necessarily a difference between the two. The model uncertainty in this case is based off the ensemble mean rather than any particular model, or the range of model uncertainties. julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-not-to-compare-models-to-data-part.htmlNone of us understand Spencer's findings to analyze it. We have to wait until someone that does understand it takes it all in and voices their view of it. Perhaps that's already happened, I haven't been checking the usual places lately. wrt Sherwood and Thorne, I haven't read Pielkes paper but the extracts on the blog are rather odd in that they are just asserting that the UAH record is better because it's directly measuring temperature and that the indirect measurements S&T use are "not consistent with the countervailing, directly-measured evidence". But is that really something that's not already known. S&T must believe both those things, afterall that was precisely why they published. And of course Pielke says the paper is correct. It's his paper.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 18, 2010 3:29:03 GMT
Actually I think the calculation of "400% error" is wrong (the description is also wrong, it's a discrepancy between model and observations - calling it an error in models assumes the cause of the discrepancy rather than just describing it - of course all irrelevant given I think the 400% figure is wrong anyway). Comparing models with observations is an exercise in comparing model uncertainty against observation uncertainty. If they don't overlap you have a discrepancy. If they do overlap then there is not necessarily a difference between the two. The model uncertainty in this case is based off the ensemble mean rather than any particular model, or the range of model uncertainties. julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-not-to-compare-models-to-data-part.htmlNone of us understand Spencer's findings to analyze it. We have to wait until someone that does understand it takes it all in and voices their view of it. Perhaps that's already happened, I haven't been checking the usual places lately. wrt Sherwood and Thorne, I haven't read Pielkes paper but the extracts on the blog are rather odd in that they are just asserting that the UAH record is better because it's directly measuring temperature and that the indirect measurements S&T use are "not consistent with the countervailing, directly-measured evidence". But is that really something that's not already known. S&T must believe both those things, afterall that was precisely why they published. And of course Pielke says the paper is correct. It's his paper. You haven't read much of anything I suspect. If you had, you'd already know what Spencer is saying. It might behoove you to start thinking for yourself and take Spencer's advice rather than wait for the BS from the usual sources. I understand that most people interested in the climate debate will simply believe what their favorite science pundits at RealClimate tell them to believe, which is fine, and I can’t do anything about that.
But for those who want to investigate for themselves, I recommend reading only our latest and most comprehensive paper in Journal of Geophysical Research. It takes you from the very basics of feedback estimation — which I found I had to include because even the experts in the field apparently did not understand them — and for the first time explains why satellite observations of the climate system behave the way they do.
No one has ever done this before to anywhere near the level of detail we do. Actually I think the calculation of "400% error" is wrong (the description is also wrong, it's a discrepancy between model and observations - calling it an error in models assumes the cause of the discrepancy rather than just describing it - of course all irrelevant given I think the 400% figure is wrong anyway). LOL! They don't need to show the cause, only that the statistical analysis was flawed. By leaving out 9 years of data, Santer "hid the decline". It's same story over and over. Oh I'm sure you do think MM is wrong, but most likely thought Santer 08 was right when those who have followed these issues closely for years knew it was crap from the get go. Get over it socold, the climate models are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 18, 2010 8:28:53 GMT
Icefisher says
I was pointing out to GLC he was arguing that convection does not cool the surface while he does argue CO2 warms the surface.
What?!! I clearly said all along that convection does not cool the SYSTEM. Find one quote from me where I said it did not cool the surface. If you go back you'll find I said convection transports heat from the surface upwards and polewards.
How come you and Magellan are the only ones who have 'misinterpreted' what I was saying?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 18, 2010 9:02:06 GMT
What is funny about this conversation is glc, while quoting Spencer, doesn't realize he buried his own argument. I purposely asked him what "radiative-convective equilibrium" means, and he stepped in the big pile of poo. That the surface cools by convection means the heat goes somewhere.What's funny about "this conversation" is that you misunderstood what Spencer was saying and you don't understand that it's the radiation energy balance at the TOA which determines how much 'heat' is in the system. You continually quoted a statement I made, i.e. Convection doesn't cool the system and insisted it was wrong. Several posters have now pointed out (some indirectly) that it was you who was wrong. Your email to Roger Pielke shows this. He hasn't cottoned on because he's not been party to "this conversation". Pielke's reply is totally consistent with my comments, i.e. "....Convective clouds matter. If they extend deeper into the atmosphere, for example, a greater fraction of the long wave fluxes can escape from the top out into space." Translation: Convection moves energy around - but energy only escapes to space via LW radiation. Finally As glc never did define what the system is, apparently RPS understands what I meant by the system. I did define what I meant by the system. What do you mean by the system. There are several posters on this blog who are not sure.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 18, 2010 10:07:28 GMT
You haven't read much of anything I suspect. If you had, you'd already know what Spencer is saying. I know what he's saying, that's not the issue. I am not an expert able to spot what he might have missed. That's why I await someone else's analysis. This "thinking for yourself" lead skeptics to promote Lindzen and Choi, which was subsequently criticized by Spencer (and silence ensued)? That's a classic case of what I am talking about. It took an expert - Spencer - to point out the problems. The blogosphere of "thinking for yourselfers" didn't spot it. That's because while people can follow what Lindzen and Choi did, not many can understand it in context of other stuff. I wasn't in a position to understand Lindzen and Choi in context either. You were the one who claimed to know the cause. I was criticizing your assumption there, not them. The Santer paper was a critique of a paper by Douglass et al which compared observations with models and found no overlap. Santer 08 claimed that Douglass et al had underestimated model uncertainty and that was the reason there was no overlap. I believe that result stands. The Santer 08 comparison method may be incorrect in itself in another way. Regarding the data cutoff. Gavin has written: julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-not-to-compare-models-to-data-part.htmlIf you read that thread you will see people suggesting that the Santer 08 paper contained errors as well, but not as clear as the Douglass one. Santer 08 was at least right in the core part which was that Douglass et al used the wrong methodology for comparison and so their result that observations and models didn't match was wrong. It sounds like MM 2010 have made errors here too. I can understand certain things like comparing two types of data. If you want to compare models and observations you have to compare the uncertainty range of both and see whether it overlaps. You have to be careful to understand the nature of uncertainty of what you are comparing. For example the deviation of the ensemble mean does not represent uncertainty of the models, even though that is what MM10 use to compare to observations. There you go with those assumptions again. The models may be wrong, the observations may be wrong too. Now that I've read the Pielke paper I consider it more likely the observations are correct. That would suggest the lapse rate in the tropics has diverged from the moist adiabat. Nauntonnier went ape when that possibility was suggested last time. On the other-hand their model "best estimate" range in their final image looks too tight (some of the individual models seem to appear outside the "uncertainty box"?), so it will be interesting to hear other people's takes on this as well.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 18, 2010 12:09:58 GMT
Magellan,
You are wasting our time with made up controversies, attempted misdirections and misleading quote-mining, and a long boring essay is not going to distract from this. You said:
Clever you. But glc's "system" is very clear from the context of his original post. You are just fabricating controversy where no controversy exists. glc and I know about convection. I just don't have your faith that it is the rabbit out of the hat that will stop warming, and I have given multiple lines of reasoning why.
Now as you have just had a go at someone for going off-topic on another thread, please take this elsewhere or give us *your* global temperature prediction.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 18, 2010 12:19:16 GMT
Magellan, You are wasting our time with made up controversies, attempted misdirections and misleading quote-mining, and a long boring essay is not going to distract from this. You said: Clever you. But glc's "system" is very clear from the context of his original post. You are just fabricating controversy where no controversy exists. glc and I know about convection. I just don't have your faith that it is the rabbit out of the hat that will stop warming, and I have given multiple lines of reasoning why. Now as you have just had a go at someone for going off-topic on another thread, please take this elsewhere or give us *your* global temperature prediction. " I just don't have your faith that it is the rabbit out of the hat that will stop warming, and I have given multiple lines of reasoning why."Interesting that you discard Spencer's paper in favor of your ' multiple lines of reasoning'. Just think how much money could have been saved on ERBE satellites by just asking for your reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 18, 2010 12:45:08 GMT
Spencer's paper is not a line of reasoning in conflict with long term positive feedbacks, and I have neither discarded nor accepted it. If you read it, and read what I said about it, you will realise that is the case.
TEMPERATURE PREDICTIONS PLEASE. This is MY Thread !!!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 20, 2010 5:20:52 GMT
Spencer's paper is not a line of reasoning in conflict with long term positive feedbacks, and I have neither discarded nor accepted it. If you read it, and read what I said about it, you will realise that is the case. TEMPERATURE PREDICTIONS PLEASE. This is MY Thread !!! Line of reasoning? Spencer's work is a short term set of observations, not reasoning Steve. And short term observations are not long term observations. . . .by definition. Where are your predictions?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 20, 2010 9:21:28 GMT
Spencer's paper is not a line of reasoning in conflict with long term positive feedbacks, and I have neither discarded nor accepted it. If you read it, and read what I said about it, you will realise that is the case. TEMPERATURE PREDICTIONS PLEASE. This is MY Thread !!! Line of reasoning? Spencer's work is a short term set of observations, not reasoning Steve. And short term observations are not long term observations. . . .by definition. Where are your predictions? Spencer's paper does not provide any evidence to support a line of reasoning in conflict with long-term positive feedbacks, so is irrelevant to my point. Argue with nautonnier, not me. As for my temperature predictions (guesses), they are in post two. A couple of pages back I said I would watch the La Niña a bit before guessing again.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 20, 2010 10:28:59 GMT
Spencer's paper does not provide any evidence to support a line of reasoning in conflict with long-term positive feedbacks, so is irrelevant to my point. Argue with nautonnier, not me. As for my temperature predictions (guesses), they are in post two. A couple of pages back I said I would watch the La Niña a bit before guessing again. LOL! I realize Steve that you are into the typical AGW phrenology-based thought experiment here, but more correctly, Spencer's observations provided no trace of any support for long-term positive feedbacks. If they exist they are not to be found in the actual observation record.
|
|