*EL NINO/LA NINA FORECAST 2010-2011*

[jimcripwell]

gl writes "So Lindzen, with more than 30 years experience in climate science, recognises the relevance of the 1 deg no feedback estimate (along with several other leading scientists) but icefisher (and Jim Cripwell), despite having little or no understanding of the physics of the atmosphere and how it relates to the surface argue against him."

My intuition tells me that the 1 C for a doubling of CO2 is nonsense; it is a purely hypothetical number which can never be measured. My physics does not allow me to state why it is nonsense. Tomas Milancovic does seem to provide the answer as to why it is nonsense, and so far, no-one has shown me where Tomas is wrong. I suspect Tomas is correct, and the 1 C is garbage science; that 1 C is not just hypothetical; it is meaningless.

[magellan]

Dec 28, 2010 12:20:35 GMT jimcripwell said:

gl writes "So Lindzen, with more than 30 years experience in climate science, recognises the relevance of the 1 deg no feedback estimate (along with several other leading scientists) but icefisher (and Jim Cripwell), despite having little or no understanding of the physics of the atmosphere and how it relates to the surface argue against him."

My intuition tells me that the 1 C for a doubling of CO2 is nonsense; it is a purely hypothetical number which can never be measured. My physics does not allow me to state why it is nonsense. Tomas Milancovic does seem to provide the answer as to why it is nonsense, and so far, no-one has shown me where Tomas is wrong. I suspect Tomas is correct, and the 1 C is garbage science; that 1 C is not just hypothetical; it is meaningless.

Recall it was glc who defended CET as being representative of global temperature? I wonder if he still thinks that.

[magellan]

Dec 28, 2010 12:20:35 GMT jimcripwell said:

gl writes "So Lindzen, with more than 30 years experience in climate science, recognises the relevance of the 1 deg no feedback estimate (along with several other leading scientists) but icefisher (and Jim Cripwell), despite having little or no understanding of the physics of the atmosphere and how it relates to the surface argue against him."

My intuition tells me that the 1 C for a doubling of CO2 is nonsense; it is a purely hypothetical number which can never be measured. My physics does not allow me to state why it is nonsense. Tomas Milancovic does seem to provide the answer as to why it is nonsense, and so far, no-one has shown me where Tomas is wrong. I suspect Tomas is correct, and the 1 C is garbage science; that 1 C is not just hypothetical; it is meaningless.

Could this be what you mean? This sums what up what I've been saying all along; reality doesn't validate the "simple physics" model glc and others keep harping about.

tinyurl.com/292bw3s

In reality my feather blew up into a tree

“….. which is that since CO2 is a GHG it follows that increasing CO2 must increase the temperature (of something). No matter how many times we say that the climate is a system with complex non-linear feedbacks they still love this simple principle of physics.

This is because physics works by isolating simple situations from reality. That was the great discovery of physics, that if you simplified reality you could find simple laws. So far so good.

But as every engineer knows, these simple laws often do not work when reality gets messy, as it usually is. Simple physics says that if I drop a ball and a feather they will fall at the same rate.

In reality my feather blew up into a tree.

It is not that the simple law is false, just that there are a number of other simple laws opposing it. In the case of climate we don’t even know what some of these other laws are, so we can’t explain what we see. That is where we should be looking.”

[jimcripwell]

magellan writes "Could this be what you mean?"

There are dozens of sound reasons for believing that CAGW is just plain wrong; your reference to WUWT is one of them. I am sure I have discussed many of them. However, the warnaholics always have a rebuttal, and it is impossible to cross examine them. So they wiggle out of the discussion.

Tomas Milancovic provides some mathematics which claims to show that it is impossible to estimate the no-feedback climate sensitivity by the way glc and the other warmaholics (including Richard Lindzen) do the estimate. Thus, for the first time, I have some solid science to back up my intuition.

Until glc, or anyone else, can show that Tomas Milancovic is wrong, then the key link in the warmaholic chain that purports to show that CAGW is real, could be simply missing. Whether this blog is sufficient for glc to address this issue, remains to be seen.

[icefisher]

Dec 28, 2010 11:28:24 GMT glc said:

It seems to be a pattern of yours to skip read and then criticize. It was evident in your discussion of primary responses to TOA summed attenuation of the GHE where you kept disregarding the relocation of heat in the atmosphere system and never identified the source of the outgoing radiation, merely concluding it all originates from the ground

Icefisher

I said it was pointless discussing this with you because you struggle with the concept of IR transmission through the atmosphere. But let me make a few points clear:

I never said or "concluded" that outgoing radiation is emitted DIRECTLY from the ground. It's clearly not. If it were the earth would be considerably colder than it currently is.

Radiation is emitted from the TOA. The TOA is not a precisely defined layer in the troposphere but rather a position where the radiation received by the earth has been emittd to space. Some is emitted from the surface (IR window), some from atmospheric water vapour, and some ultimately from CO2. There are thousands of absorptions and emissions - both UP and DOWN - going on all the time before radiation is finally emitted to space.

Here is an emssion spectrum graph

www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page15.htm

Have a good look at it. Note how emission is from different temperature layers (altitudes) dependant on the concentration og ghgs. Energy from the surface finds it's way up to these layers by radiation and also by evaporation and convection. But energy can only leave the atmosphere BY RADIATION.

The Surface emits ~390 w/m2 of radiant energy. This is driven by the surface temperature. If we increase Ghgs in the atmosphere the surface temperature will increase. That will almost certainly result in a convection/evaporation feedback - but this will act to further increase the ghg effect. Your argument seems to be that the increase in evaporation and convection will transport heat to an altitude where it can be emitted "quicker" to space. But your numbers were all over the place. You hadn't considered the multiple absorptions and emissions throughout the atmosphere. To be honest there's no point in trying to point out the errors and the irrelevance in you posts because you don't appear to have the basic understanding.

However, if you think you've found a strongly negative feedback mechanism then try emailing Spencer or Lindzen. I'm sure they would be glad to hear it.

Let me just end with this quote from Lindzen

For example, if one simply doubles the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature increase is about 1°C.


So Lindzen, with more than 30 years experience in climate science, recognises the relevance of the 1 deg no feedback estimate (along with several other leading scientists) but icefisher (and Jim Cripwell), despite having little or no understanding of the physics of the atmosphere and how it relates to the surface argue against him.

I think its fine if you want to rely on Lindzen GLC because he concludes:

"The earth’s climate (in contrast to the climate in current climate GCMs) is dominated by a strong net negative feedback. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.3°C, and such warming as may arise from increasing greenhouse gases will be indistinguishable from the fluctuations in climate that occur naturally from processes internal to the climate system itself."

So ultimately I think that means Lindzen agrees with me. The fact that he bins it theoretically with concepts drawn from the real earth climate system and an atmosphere free perfect blackbody doesn't mean that there is anything real about 1 degree surface warming.

Lindzen merely acknowledges the hypothetical warming of an atmosphere free perfect blackbody (which is impossible because you cannot have a greenhouse effect without an atmosphere) that the CAGW nutcases like to rely upon. But that doesn't get in the way of nor is any part of his conclusions drawn from satellite observations. You should also note that Lindzen nowhere says anything about 1 deg surface warming which was our topic.

So if you can resist cherry picking what you want to accept from Lindzen and what you do not want to accept from him it would do us all some good in keeping this conversation real as opposed to tripping through Wonderland which probably would never have happened if somebody had not written a CAGW fairy tale. where the concept of "feedbacks" becomes just jabberwocky.

[AstroMet]

Dec 28, 2010 17:57:03 GMT icefisher said:

Dec 28, 2010 11:28:24 GMT glc said:

It seems to be a pattern of yours to skip read and then criticize. It was evident in your discussion of primary responses to TOA summed attenuation of the GHE where you kept disregarding the relocation of heat in the atmosphere system and never identified the source of the outgoing radiation, merely concluding it all originates from the ground

Icefisher

I said it was pointless discussing this with you because you struggle with the concept of IR transmission through the atmosphere. But let me make a few points clear:

I never said or "concluded" that outgoing radiation is emitted DIRECTLY from the ground. It's clearly not. If it were the earth would be considerably colder than it currently is.

Radiation is emitted from the TOA. The TOA is not a precisely defined layer in the troposphere but rather a position where the radiation received by the earth has been emittd to space. Some is emitted from the surface (IR window), some from atmospheric water vapour, and some ultimately from CO2. There are thousands of absorptions and emissions - both UP and DOWN - going on all the time before radiation is finally emitted to space.

Here is an emssion spectrum graph

www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page15.htm

Have a good look at it. Note how emission is from different temperature layers (altitudes) dependant on the concentration og ghgs. Energy from the surface finds it's way up to these layers by radiation and also by evaporation and convection. But energy can only leave the atmosphere BY RADIATION.

The Surface emits ~390 w/m2 of radiant energy. This is driven by the surface temperature. If we increase Ghgs in the atmosphere the surface temperature will increase. That will almost certainly result in a convection/evaporation feedback - but this will act to further increase the ghg effect. Your argument seems to be that the increase in evaporation and convection will transport heat to an altitude where it can be emitted "quicker" to space. But your numbers were all over the place. You hadn't considered the multiple absorptions and emissions throughout the atmosphere. To be honest there's no point in trying to point out the errors and the irrelevance in you posts because you don't appear to have the basic understanding.

However, if you think you've found a strongly negative feedback mechanism then try emailing Spencer or Lindzen. I'm sure they would be glad to hear it.

Let me just end with this quote from Lindzen

For example, if one simply doubles the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature increase is about 1°C.


So Lindzen, with more than 30 years experience in climate science, recognises the relevance of the 1 deg no feedback estimate (along with several other leading scientists) but icefisher (and Jim Cripwell), despite having little or no understanding of the physics of the atmosphere and how it relates to the surface argue against him.

I think its fine if you want to rely on Lindzen GLC because he concludes:

"The earth’s climate (in contrast to the climate in current climate GCMs) is dominated by a strong net negative feedback. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.3°C, and such warming as may arise from increasing greenhouse gases will be indistinguishable from the fluctuations in climate that occur naturally from processes internal to the climate system itself."

So ultimately I think that means Lindzen agrees with me. The fact that he bins it theoretically with concepts drawn from the real earth climate system and an atmosphere free perfect blackbody doesn't mean that there is anything real about 1 degree surface warming.

Lindzen merely acknowledges the hypothetical warming of an atmosphere free perfect blackbody (which is impossible because you cannot have a greenhouse effect without an atmosphere) that the CAGW nutcases like to rely upon. But that doesn't get in the way of nor is any part of his conclusions drawn from satellite observations. You should also note that Lindzen nowhere says anything about 1 deg surface warming which was our topic.

So if you can resist cherry picking what you want to accept from Lindzen and what you do not want to accept from him it would do us all some good in keeping this conversation real as opposed to tripping through Wonderland which probably would never have happened if somebody had not written a CAGW fairy tale. where the concept of "feedbacks" becomes just jabberwocky.

There's been far too much "cherry picking" going on in the so-called "climate change" debate. Moreover, there are far too many people out there who frankly, should refrain from offering their opinions on the climate considering how ignorant most are of weather in general.

For instance, in the AGW-community there continues to be "experts" who claim that the current cold climate is because of global warming.

"Recent short-term cooling of global temperatures shouldn't be misinterpreted as meaning an end to global warming, an Australian expert says." See -> www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/12/28/Expert-says-climate-cooling-misinterpreted/UPI-61081293581758/

Technically, he is correct, but for all the wrong reasons.

We are in the 30th year of this global warming cycle, forced by the Sun.

What is noticeably absent from AGW claims is any understanding of the climate in general, while the persistence of pushing man-made global warming on the public continues in weak media attempts to resurrect an ideology that was never true to being with.

For three years straight computer models have predicted - and failed - that Europe would have warm, snow-free winters.

Those practicing astrometeorology, like British astrophysicist Piers Corbyn warned Europe of the coming December storms.

Astronomic forecasters have been much more accurate than conventional science but again, mostly ignored by the establishment which consistently fails to forecast the weather year in and year out.

Because of the failure to let go of ego, junk science, jealousy, and pseudo-ideologically beliefs, the world's public gets screwed time and again by those who claim to be able to forecast, but who fail to forecast at such low percentage rates that they should be ashamed of - yet they continue to claim those things which they cannot perform. And they get a paycheck for doing so.

Those climate modelers looking for the "holy grail" of forecasting seasonally and long-range continue to muck up meteorology to the point of a farce as they push to create a "product" that will give them a perceived advantage over others, which they never had.

That tells you right there just how low climate science and meteorology has fallen under the tutelage of ideological pseudo-scientists and their followers who tout AGW as their "reason" for all things climate change.

[glc]

Dec 28, 2010 17:07:15 GMT magellan said:

Dec 28, 2010 12:20:35 GMT jimcripwell said:

gl writes "So Lindzen, with more than 30 years experience in climate science, recognises the relevance of the 1 deg no feedback estimate (along with several other leading scientists) but icefisher (and Jim Cripwell), despite having little or no understanding of the physics of the atmosphere and how it relates to the surface argue against him."

My intuition tells me that the 1 C for a doubling of CO2 is nonsense; it is a purely hypothetical number which can never be measured. My physics does not allow me to state why it is nonsense. Tomas Milancovic does seem to provide the answer as to why it is nonsense, and so far, no-one has shown me where Tomas is wrong. I suspect Tomas is correct, and the 1 C is garbage science; that 1 C is not just hypothetical; it is meaningless.

Recall it was glc who defended CET as being representative of global temperature? I wonder if he still thinks that.

The CET record is the only one in existence which covers at least part of the maunder minimum period. Since you have no other temperature data you have no way of telling whether the MM was cold or not.

The CET correlates with other long term records. It also correlates with the NH record so it's reasonable to assume the CET record is a decent proxy for NH or northern europe climate.

If you knew anything about climate research, Magellan, you'd know that the CET was used to support theories about the LIA. almost all LIA studies began in the UK and Europe.

[glc]

Dec 28, 2010 12:20:35 GMT jimcripwell said:

gl writes "So Lindzen, with more than 30 years experience in climate science, recognises the relevance of the 1 deg no feedback estimate (along with several other leading scientists) but icefisher (and Jim Cripwell), despite having little or no understanding of the physics of the atmosphere and how it relates to the surface argue against him."

My intuition tells me that the 1 C for a doubling of CO2 is nonsense; it is a purely hypothetical number which can never be measured. My physics does not allow me to state why it is nonsense. Tomas Milancovic does seem to provide the answer as to why it is nonsense, and so far, no-one has shown me where Tomas is wrong. I suspect Tomas is correct, and the 1 C is garbage science; that 1 C is not just hypothetical; it is meaningless.

Tomas Milancovic relates the Forcing at the surface with the surface temperature - nothing wrong with that - but he assumes (very wrongly) that it is the forcing at the surface which is input to the equation. It's NOT - it's the forcing at TOA. He has mis-defined the problem. A poster pointed out his error but he simply hurled back abuse about their lack of understanding.

Rest assured, Jim, he has shown nothing other than to calculate the derivative of the S-B equation. This is a calculation you can see written down in countless blogs (including realclimate). You are right about one thing though, Jim. You don't have "the physics" to know whether he is right or wrong.

[magellan]

Dec 29, 2010 2:49:03 GMT glc said:

Dec 28, 2010 17:07:15 GMT magellan said:

Recall it was glc who defended CET as being representative of global temperature? I wonder if he still thinks that.

The CET record is the only one in existence which covers at least part of the maunder minimum period. Since you have no other temperature data you have no way of telling whether the MM was cold or not.

The CET correlates with other long term records. It also correlates with the NH record so it's reasonable to assume the CET record is a decent proxy for NH or northern europe climate.

If you knew anything about climate research, Magellan, you'd know that the CET was used to support theories about the LIA. almost all LIA studies began in the UK and Europe.

glc leaves us with more mystery.

You have been preaching how representative CET is of global temperatures, not us. No comment on the very unusual cold December? It's off the chart. Nothing constructive at all glc?

Are you now in the global-warming-causes-global-cooling camp?

[glc]

Icefisher

Re: #784

If there are strong negative feeedbacks which dampen climate sensitivity - could you explain how we entered ice ages and, more importantly, how we emerged from them.

Thanks

[jimcripwell]

glc writes ". A poster pointed out his error but he simply hurled back abuse about their lack of understanding"

Can you givde me the reference.

[glc]

Dec 29, 2010 11:33:51 GMT jimcripwell said:

glc writes ". A poster pointed out his error but he simply hurled back abuse about their lack of understanding"

Can you givde me the reference.

It was in the link you provided. The post suggests (among other things) that F is ill defined. He's right. Apart from the abuse, Tomas Milancovic responds by telling him that F is the forcing and that it corresponds to the surface temperature. That might be the case but it's about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Whatever TM is trying to calculate it isn't the resultant surface temperature from a TOA forcing. He needs equations which model the coupling of the TOA to the surface.

[steve]

astromet

Those practicing astrometeorology, like British astrophysicist Piers Corbyn warned Europe of the coming December storms.

Reference please?

I'm aware of the warning he issued in the middle of the cold spell and long after everyone else (including his bete noir) had issued snow forecasts.

[AstroMet]

Dec 29, 2010 18:23:51 GMT steve said:

astromet

Those practicing astrometeorology, like British astrophysicist Piers Corbyn warned Europe of the coming December storms.

Reference please?

I'm aware of the warning he issued in the middle of the cold spell and long after everyone else (including his bete noir) had issued snow forecasts.

Steve, you can easily do this yourself. Corbyn has been astronomic forecasting for years, in your home nation of Britain. He's been doing it well in advance of the Met Office.

[stranger]

I really would hate to be a lawyer forced to cross examine Steve, Socold, or GLC. The last time I heard of something like this was the defense lawyer who discovered a famous vaudeville double talk artist was a witness to an accident. Think of a version of Abbot and Costello's "Who's On First," in which the last half of any statement was unintelligible.

By the time the lawyer and the artist were through there was no way the plaintiff's lawyer or the jury had the slightest clue to anything concerning the accident.

Stranger