text:
← More on the 'pause'
Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change →
Open thread weekend
Posted on May 11, 2013 by curryja | 716 Comments
It's your turn to introduce topics for discussion.
716 responses to "Open thread weekend"
omanuel | May 11, 2013 at 8:49 am |
Thank you, Professor Curry, for having the courage to open up the discussion of causes for Earth's changing climate. The conclusion will be put in my dropbox and then the link will be shown below.
Peter Lang | May 11, 2013 at 10:16 am |
The climate doomsayers have had their day. The climate scare campaign has lost its effect.
And carbon pricing is over too. There can be no global carbon pricing scheme, and without a global carbon pricing scheme, local carbon pricing schemes cannot survive. With less than full participation the cost penalty for participants would be huge.
For evidence of the waning interest see these Activity charts.
Climate change: http://climatechange.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?
Carbon credits: here: http://carboncredits.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?
These charts show the interest is waning world wide since the peak at Copenhagen in 2009. The charts show the interest in climate change and carbon credits in the English speaking media world wide.
Click on the headings at the top of the page to see the activity charts for alternative energy, biofuels, geothermal, solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, coal, natural gas oil. Interest in alternative energy is declining.
Further evidence the declining interest is the collapse of the EU and Chicago carbon markets:
EU carbon price: €25 in 2009 to €3.37 today.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/02/carbon-trading
Chicago Carbon Exchange (CCX): $7.40 in 2008 to $0.05 in 2010. Then the CCX was closed.
https://www.theice.com/ccx.jhtml
Taken together, there is persuasive evidence it's all over bar the shouting. No fancy statistics needed.
All the doomsayers have achieved by advocating irrational policies that would not be acceptable to rationalists is to delay progress by twenty years.
The next step will be for the rationalists to take over.
omanuel | May 11, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
Explosion of the Crab Nebula in 1054 AD [1] exposed the Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of all atoms, lives and worlds in the Solar System.
Here's a link to a peaceful ending of the global climates war and the restoration of sanity to our deeply troubled society:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Our_Dilemma.pdf
[1] A.A. Abdo et al., "Gamma-ray flares from the Crab Nebula," Science 331, 739-742 (2011): https://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/739.abstract
Wagathon | May 11, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
None other than weatherpersons' weatherman, Joseph D'Aleo, tells us, "In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit," and asks the big question: is ALASKA HEADED FOR AN ICE AGE? "It's most significant in Western Alaska," D'Aleo reported, based on a paper from UAF's Alaska Climate Research Center, "where King Salmon on the Alaska Peninsula saw temperatures drop most sharply, a significant 4.5 degrees for the decade."
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | May 11, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
If D'Aleo really asked the question: "Is Alaska headed for an ice age?", it would once more display the fact that he should stick to weather prediction and discussion and not talk about things he has no understanding of.
Fact: The planet is still in an ice age, and has been for several million years so Alaska cannot possibly "head back" to a condition it has never left.
J Martin | May 11, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
Gates, I would think that J D'Aleo was using the Joe Public term 'ice age' as opposed to the cognoscenti's term 'glaciation'.
J. Martin,
Could well be, all the more reason that he should probably not talk about things he has no background in. Maybe he should consult with Richard Alley or other glacial experts? Him talking to "Joe Public" in inaccurate ways about things he knows nothing about only leads to even greater confusion in the minds of "Joe Public". So long as the amount of snow on the ground in late spring/early summer has been in decline in the NH (as it has been), there is no chance of a glacial advance. Joseph should know this. But he's got a political axe to grind with his faithful– I understand that.
lolwot | May 11, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
To be fair I don't think Joseph D'Aleo has anything sensible to add to the debate, so lets leave him out of it rather than dragging him into the discussion to face potential ridicule.
Mind you, if one was looking for first signs of a glaciation, then Alaska may well be the right place to look, especially given that Bering sea ice has shown some growth over the last few years.
Where does a glaciation start ? In just one place which then spreads ? Or does it start in multiple places in the Northern hemisphere. Or perhaps the first place to look is in the Antarctic.
I quite fancy Alaska as the starting point.
First, the growth of Bering Sea Ice would have very little to do with the advance of continental glaciers, as the Bering Sea freezes in winter and thaws completely in summer (i.e. there is no sea ice left in the Bering Sea each summer). Periods of glacial advance are marked by cool summers in which snow on land from the previous winter does not completely melt by the time the first snow of the fall begins again. This cycle is repeated year after year, beginning at higher altitudes and higher latitudes until the great ice sheets form, moving down the mountains and down to lower latitudes. The key to glacial advance is many years of cooler summers in which snow from the previous winter does not completely melt. Heavy winter snows, heavy spring snows, heavy fall snows in and of themselves are not indicator of an impending glacial period– and if fact, can be quite the opposite, in that a warmer atmosphere at these times means more moisture can be carried by that atmosphere and you can get great snowfall. However, this warmer atmosphere also means we have warmer summers in which all the snow melts and no glacial advance occurs. Based on the best long-term data we have– Northern Hemisphere late spring and early summer snow cover has been declining for many years, and thus, any notion of an impending glacial advance is not based on facts or sound scientific knowledge of how glaciers form.
Tonyb | May 11, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
Here is cet to date
I graphed all the glacier movements back to 0AD and would say that cet gives a reasonable but by no means perfect correlation to glacier retreat/ advance which occurs around the plus 0.1 to plus 0.2 c temperature anomaly so some way to go yet, but we could reach the point in a few years IF and it is a big IF , temperatures continue to decline
Thanks for that Tony! Very useful.
One should also keep in mind that glaciers around the world don't all advance and retreat exactly in step with each other, especially NH versus SH and in different regions in both. You can in fact, get advancing and retreating glaciers within the same general mountain ranges. Overall though, warmer temperatures globally will lead to the majority of the glaciers retreating globally as they have been.
Also, in regard to CET temperatures continuing their downtrend– IMHO, very unlikely over the next few decades. Once we get to an ice-free summer Arctic (as I think is very likely we will within the next 10 years), the oceans are headed to get even warmer as even more solar SW will be absorbed on a net basis globally by the oceans. Especially in the Arctic region, this will only amplify the trends we've seen over the past several decades leading eventually (within a few centuries?) to a very Pliocene-like climate. I think the data coming from Lake E is confirming this very nicely:
http://www.livescience.com/29471-arctic-climate-change-global-warming.html
Cet has been rising for 350 years so the odds are that it will continue to follow its long term trend. I hope so as the current level of temperatures has caused considerable problems with heating costs, crops, and tourism.
David Springer | May 11, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
Of course everyone with more than half a brain knows what d'Aleo was talking about in regard to Alaska re-entering an ice age. Someone who knows the ice age oscillates between glacial and interglacial epochs should be smart enough to know the terminology is for a lay audience and people in the lay audience knows he means Alaska 'a la' Ice Age the fantastically popular children's animated movie with about a dozen sequels.
You're argumentative and a bit of a nitwit, Gates. What you think is clever because you think you're smarter than the average bear just comes across as boorish to people who are smarter than you are which on this blog would be to say you're boorish to over half the participants.
Snow is a great insulator Gates. Glaciers build when the ocean pumps lots of water vapor into the atmosphere to drive large amounts of frozen precipitation which makes it take longer to melt. When the Arctic ocean and north Atlantic is warmer in the winter it causes more frozen precipitation on the continents which causes a positive feedback of even less melt. Evidently after a number of decades the situation reverses while the ocean cools and continents warm. It appears to be about a 60 year cycle so back around the turn of the century the Arctic was where it is now and Amundsen was able to make the first successful northwest passage. About 60 years later another spate of crossings sans-GPS navigation and real-time satellite imagery of the ice pack. Then after about 1990 it started getting almost routine to be able to pick your way through the ice with real time satellite images of the ice pack to pick a clear path and GPS navigation to stay on path within a few meters at all times.
Tough luck Gates. Mark my words, if you take the side of this argument that says global warming is a problem you took the wrong side. You're about to learn that it's regional, it oscillates between land and ocean, and people are only really troubled when it's the continent's turn to chill and that's what's happening as we speak.
Bill | May 11, 2013 at 7:46 pm |
Well, I think it would be kind of silly to move from talking about an ice age to talking about global change-a-warmin or whatever they call it now and then back to ice age talk. Let's just wait and see a few years and realize any ice age (or warming) will take centuries to develop.
stefanthedenier | May 11, 2013 at 9:32 pm |
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | May 11, 2013 at 1:09 pm said: "Fact: The planet is still in an ice age, and has been for several million years so Alaska cannot possibly "head back" to a condition it has never left"
WRONG! During the last ice age, Alaska was a permafrost / no ice, desert. Moist winds were intercepted south; by the time were arriving to Alaska, they were freeze-dried – same as the dry winds today in Siberian permafrost. No imprint of glaciers movements there during the ice age. Gates. you talk crap with full confidence, bravo!
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | May 12, 2013 at 2:30 am |
David Springer,
Speaking of boorish…something about a pot calling the kettle black?
Alaska is not heading "back" to anthing other than Pliocene-like conditions over the coming centuries, which of course would mean the end of the current ice age.
Your comment has no relevance to the discussion. Why did you bother to post your tripe?
David Springer | May 12, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
You're half right, Gates, which is half more than usual for you. You are indeed a kettle.
Herman Alexander Pope | May 13, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
Northern Hemisphere late spring and early summer snow cover has been declining for many years, and thus, any notion of an impending glacial advance is not based on facts or sound scientific knowledge of how glaciers form.
Yep, they don't really understand. The snow falls in warm times like now and advances and causes the cooler summers later.
Overall though, warmer temperatures globally will lead to the majority of the glaciers retreating globally as they have been.
Backwards, glaciers retreating globally does lead to warmer temperatures globally. Ice extent is the driver an not the driven.
You have the correlation right, but you have the cart before the horse.
Wagathon | May 13, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
If it is true that–e.g., figures tell us the mean global surface temperature has dropped 1C over the last 25 years, assuming that rate were to continue would you say that by the year 2100 we would be, "in an ice age?"
A fan of *MORE* discourse | May 11, 2013 at 9:45 am |
GOP Civil War Over Climate Change
"People who think of themselves as conservative or independent but are turned off by what they see as a willful denial of science and facts, will abandon the GOP, unless the party comes to an honest reckoning about global warming."
That's just common sense, right?
Because the four pillars of climate-change science just keep getting stronger:
• Pillar #1 strong transport theory and
• Pillar #2 strong energy-budget analysis , and
• Pillar #3 strong paleoclimate correlations , and
• Pillar #4 strong dynamical and/or statistical analysis (uncountably many).
Week-by-week, denialism weakens. Good! And faster is better! Because the willful ignorance of ideology-first denialism cannot stand, eh?
Question Which will happen first? (1) An ice-free Arctic ocean? (2) A GOP Platform that calls for a carbon-neutral energy economy?
It's looking like a mighty close race!
jim2 | May 11, 2013 at 2:24 pm |
The publisher of the "GOP civil war" is just more BS from Fan of More BS. You are at least consistent FOMBS. The National (Yellow Journalism) Journal! Let's look as some of the articles from the lefty rag …
National Journal's Fournier Blames NRA for Democrats Lacking Votes to Ban Guns
National Journal's Ron Fournier Asks Why Obama Doesn't Just Murder John Boehner
National Journal Campaigns Against Climate 'Extremist' Cuccinelli
CNN on Obama's Treasury Secretary Picks: 'Perfect' If Wall St. Hates Them, Good If Wall St. Likes Them
http://newsbusters.org/media-places/magazines/national-journal
andywest2012 | May 11, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
Goodness, only four. Seems a bit thin. Why not go for 5 or 7 or 9?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/eastern_orthodoxy/sorted/04_Problems_in_Eastern_Orthodoxy/The_Seven_Pillars_of_Orthodoxy.pdf
http://www.mayanmajix.com/art4921.html
Canman | May 11, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
A GOP Platform that calls for a carbon-neutral energy economy?
Unless it has really ambitious plans for the Pentagon, the GOP platform can only call for a US carbon-neutral energy economy.
And calling for a US carbon-neutral energy economy is a far cry from delivering one!
CC Squid | May 12, 2013 at 4:16 pm |
Here is a pointer that should put a stake-in-the-heart of CO2 induced global warming. The title and excerpt summarize the article which tied together the GHG articles presented by Dr. Roy Spencer.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-effectiveness-of-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas-becomes-ever-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration
"…According to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of ~390 ppmv, (parts per million by volume). Accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level…"
Ah mental illness on display at WUWT. Quite sad really.
Scroll down the comments and you encounter the few sane people, such as Ferdinand Engelbeen, stumped at the mentally ill all around him:
Something wrong here
What is going wrong here?
It's called climate denial Engelbeen. At least that's my diagnosis. On no other subject have I seen such levels of self-willed regressive education. The more time they spend "learnin' stuff", the dumber they get.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | May 12, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
calamari said:
"Accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level…"
This is not WUWT and you need to cite at least a credible person for that. I had to look twice for it to register that David Archibald is not the same as David Archer.
Here is what David Archer has to say about the low-baller Archibald:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/
I like the title of Archer's post "My model, used for deception"
Here is ferdinands web page.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
Glad you believe he makes sane comments. You do know he is a sceptic don't you?
" lolwot | May 12, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
Mental illness plus intentional FUD.
Here is what David Archer thinks about his evil twin David Archibald:
"But then Archibald multiplies the radiative forcing by an absurdly low value of the climate sensitivity parameter. In this case he is using the parameter in units of degrees C per Watt / m2. The two forms of the climate sensitivity parameter that we have discussed here are related by a factor of about 4 Watts / m2 for a doubling of CO2. The value Archibald uses is 0.1 degree C per Watt / m2 which was "demonstrated" in a paper entitled "CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change" by Idso, 1998. Translated, Idso's climate sensitivity winds up to be 0.4 degrees for doubling CO2."
Archibald chooses to cherry-pick data from the devolving krank Sherwood Idso, who has shown a slow decline into mental deficiency with age. You can read the 1998 cite for yourself
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf
"Venus exhibits a greenhouse warming of approxi-
mately 500°C (Oyama et al. 1979, Pollack et al. 1980)
that is produced by a 93-bar atmosphere of approximately 96% CO2 (Kasting et al. 1988); while Mars exhibits a greenhouse warming of 5 to 6°C (Pollack 1979, Kasting et al. 1988) that is produced by an almost pure CO2 atmosphere that fluctuates over the Martian year between 0.007 and 0.010 bar (McKay 1983). Plotting the 2 points defined by these data on a log-log coordinate system of CO2-induced global warming versus atmospheric CO2
partial pressure and connecting them by a straight line produces a relationship that,when extrapolated to CO2 partial pressures characteristic of present-day Earth, once again yields a mean
global warming of only 0.4°C for a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the air's CO2 content (Idso 1988a)"
Idso is chock full of this kind of tossed-off scientific spew.
It really is sickening to witness this anti-science war continuing.
timg56 | May 13, 2013 at 3:15 pm |
The same Prof Archer who likes to claim tens of meters of sea level rise by the end of this century.
As I've said before, you don't need physics. Simple arithmatic will do. At the current rate of 3 mm / yr, arithmatic should tell you the expected rise should be a lot closer to 10 inches rather than 10 meters.
grumpydenier | May 11, 2013 at 9:48 am |
Week-by-week, denialism weakens.
Denialism is weakening. For example on this blog denial of the greenhouse effect has all but vanished. The sky dragon have been slain. Judith Curry has directly dismissed their arguments, as well as Roy Spencer. Not even WUWT will give time to greenhouse deniers anymore.
We can see from this that climate skeptics have shifted away from this denial. A lot less of them are linking to and pushing anti-greenhouse effect arguments.
Another big difference from a year ago is that skeptics are shifting towards higher climate sensitivity values such as 1.5C warming per doubling of CO2. Eg see the acceptance of the ECS estimates by Nic Lewis.
The next step, which to be fair I haven't seen any skeptic admit yet, is to acknowledge that 1.5C ECS means human activity will be the primary driver of global temperature over the 21st century.
We are getting there slowly.
grumpydenier | May 11, 2013 at 2:00 pm |
Keep the faith. Don't weaken. It'll all work out in the end. Fingers crossed. That's the spirit.
the only exception has been the resurgence of the silly idea that man isn't the cause of the ongoing CO2 rise.
it's a mystery why exactly skeptics would be jumping onto that nonsense even as they are abandoning the equal lunacy of greenhouse denial.
The skepticism is also bifurcating into multiple categories.
Some of the skepticism is switching into not believing that excess atmospheric CO2 is caused by man. At that point it becomes strict contrarianism.
Another splintering branch is the set of skeptics that suggest that hotter weather is better anyways, and that plants will love it.
And then there is the group that uses this forum as a way to displace their anger and redirect it against sustainable energy advocates. Their skepticism is essentially one of not believing that alternative energy strategies will ever work (except nuclear of course).
"Any port in a storm…" As to why certain uneducated skeptics might be jumping back to the notion that humans are not the cause of the rise in CO2– though they might not admit it even to themselves, there could be political and/or religious reasons why they might want to hold that notion. It is probably psychologically comforting and minimizes their cognitive dissonance.
lolwot, yes, I just reiterated that point. That group will always be there and are essentially the same mindset of people attracted to Coast2Coast AM types of discussions, chemtrails, water flouridation, moon landing, abiotic oil, etc.
Peter Lang | May 11, 2013 at 8:50 pm |
Is this a rather unbalanced statement? Why didn't you mention that the CAGW Alarmists are pulling back from their outrageous scaremongering about catastrophic consequences of CO2 emissions – such as Jame's Hansen's alarmism (e.g. oceans will evaporate if man doesn't stop the death trains and other evilness; we're all gonna fry and die).
lolwot | May 11, 2013 at 1:58 pm said: "Denialism is weakening. For example on this blog denial of the greenhouse effect has all but vanished"
Wishful thinking lolwot; when you wake up from your dream – you will get the shock. For now, you can only tell lies to yourself, others see differently….
Fjodor | May 11, 2013 at 10:03 am |
There are no pillars. Only straws propped up by other straws.
kim | May 11, 2013 at 10:09 am |
We'll laugh, and we'll clown,
And blow straw house down.
Beth Cooper | May 11, 2013 at 10:45 am |
Well on the way, head in a cloud,
The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud,
But nobody ever hears him or the sound he appears
to make, and he never seems to notice…
But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round …
IGNORE this. Posted wrong place.
Worth saying twicet,
The beasts' laughs bite.
More on Pielke Pere's latest landmine laid in the path of the Trenberth juggernaut. Please and thank you.
mosomoso | May 11, 2013 at 10:32 am |
Reposting some of my comments from elsewhere on Australian cyclones in the post-1980 period, regarded by so many as the era of CAGW.
Here again, it seems the New Normal we are welcomed to after every new climate disaster is hard to tell apart from the Old Normal. (Maybe some people are hoping we don't bother to check?)
Interesting to look at West Australia's notorious cyclone alley, with regard to both frequency and intensity:
While Vance, 14 years ago, was a real terror, we see that Exmouth's cyclone history was also most dramatic in the early 40s and through the 70s.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/wa/exmouth.shtml
Not much measured or known about 1945, as they were maybe busy just staying alive at the time, but the force was enough to bend metal telegraph poles level with the ground. Someone's barometer measured 945 hKp during the 1875 mess that wiped out the fleet, not that that tells one much…except to be careful of spending Chrissy hols boating at Exmouth.
Northern Territory has had some quiet times, but not many. Though high-cat cyclones are certainly not on the wane now, the 70s seem to have been the most turbulent era. Not surprising, from the decade that ended with Typhoon Tip (thankfully, not one of Australia's own).
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/about/northern.shtml#history
As for Queensland, it's had some real brutes lately, but whether they are competition for Mahina or Innisfail 1918, that's doubtful.
With cyclones, it's always worse than we thought, is it not? Mahina was certainly worse than anybody thought back in 1899. Perhaps someone like Lewandowsky (of "Frankenstorm" fame) can come up with a slogan to promote the exceptionalism of present day cyclone disasters. Maybe: All "worses" are equal but some "worses" are more equal than others. Oink oink.
John Plodinec | May 11, 2013 at 12:36 pm |
The same holds true in the US. Take for example the "unprecedented" Hurricane Sandy. On average, NY gets a storm like that every ~75-80 years. The one in 1938 ["Long Island Express" – 74 years before Sandy] was much more intense than Sandy. If it had occurred in 2012 its impacts would have dwarfed those of Katrina. Just as much of the danger of "sea level rise" is due to land subsidence, so too much [most?] of the increasing costs of coastal disasters in the US is due to migration toward the coasts.
mosomoso | May 11, 2013 at 6:24 pm |
If 1821's hurricane had arrived with Sandy's aim and timing, it would have dwarfed Sandy…and maybe even the great Bloomberg soda issue. No. I'm just kidding. Nothing dwarfs the soda issue. People who build a poorly drained city near sea-level in a notorious hurricane belt have to be made aware…of soda sizing.
Chief Hydrologist | May 11, 2013 at 6:56 pm |
"We have two types of records on past cyclone activity. Sand deposits going back five thousand years (the period sea levels have been at current heights) tell us how big and where a cyclone hit, based on the amount of sand left above the highest tides.
"The other uses limestone stalagmites in caves to tell us about different chemical signatures in tropical cyclone rain compared to normal and monsoon rain".
Using these techniques, Nott and colleagues have found that cyclones with winds of up to 300kmh cross the Queensland coast every 200 or 300 years.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/02/07/3132144.htm
Cyclones in Australia are much more frequent and intense in La Nina – something we can forward to a lot more of.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg.html?sort=3&o=48
Wagathon | May 11, 2013 at 10:43 am |
Going on 20 years (since 1998) the Earth has been tilting towards global cooling.
Let's concede that we begin by using the same methodology that brought us fears of climate change — albeit statistical tools that are fraught with brazen threats to common sense and scientific reason — that Al Gore et al., used to conjure up fears about climate change. Still, it is hard to argue that the methodology — essentially taking the average temperature of the world on a regular basis — was completely free of bias when Western academics and politicians on the Left used it to predict out-of-control global warming due to the perfidy of America, capitalism, oil companies, cars, planes, trains, power plants and ostensibly every mechanical tool or toy that draws current to operate.
Jim Cripwell | May 11, 2013 at 10:54 am |
I have a bet with Bob Droege on the extent of Arctic sea ice at minimum this September; see Arcus.
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook
I guessed 4.8 million sq kms; Bob's figure is 1.8. Maybe others might like to join in. I will keep a list on names and numbers. No money is involved; just prestge. Bob and I haved promise that the loser will post a mea maxima culpa on Climate Etc.
A fan of *MORE* discourse | May 11, 2013 at 11:07 am |
FOMD prediction: 3.2 ± 0.5 km^2.
(This is a purely data-driven extrapolation).
Neven's Arctic Sea Ice weblog similarly is sponsoring Crowd-Source Prediction of Minimum Arctic Sea Ice.
Best wishes to all prognosticators!
FOMD
Sorry to capitalise your name but if I don't the iPad turns it into 'fond'
I think yours is a good estimate but so we don't clash I will go a little higher at 3.5 plus or minus.5km2
manacker | May 11, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
Your precisely calculated estimate was 3.5 +/- 5 million sk.
The pundits consider the Arctic "ice free" when the summer melt gets it down to below 1 msk., so this would be well below the dreaded "ice free" level.
Even more alarmingly, you have calculated that it could conceivably get as low as -1.5 msk (the low end of your range). Just think about the devastating impact of a negative sea ice extent on the polar bears!
This is truly alarming and could cause some easily frightened individuals like Fanny of Bob Droege to become completely hysterical, so I hope you'll come back with a comment on "likelihood" to allay their fears, e.g.
"Arctic sea ice extent is extremely unlikely (less than 5% likelihood) to reach a value under 0 this September, despite the horrific fact that CO2 levels are close to an extremely dangerous level of 400 ppm".
(Wouldn't want some "scaredy-cats" to go jumping off a bridge in hysterical despair, would you?)
I thought I was saving myself some work by not typing 'million' but now you have raised me from my mid summer torpor caused by the return of cold blustery weather I confirm it was 3.5 MILLION sqkm
But if the arctic does reduce to the volume of an ice lolly I shall of course claim I predicted it
Jim Cripwell
The average end-September Arctic sea ice extent over the past 6 years was 4.64 msk.
The average end-March extent over the past six years was 14.94 msk.
So, on average, we had a March-September melt of 10.3 msk.
This year's end-March extent was a little bit higher than the 6-year average at 15.04 msk.
So, if we had an "average" March-September melt, we would have 4.74 msk by end September.
My WAG is that it we will have an average (ho-hum) sort of melt this year and that the extent will reach a level of 4.74 msk by September 30 of this year.
PS Bart better get out there with a bunch of high capacity hair dryers.
Of course Max, in a system undergoing as rapid change as the Arctic is, prior averages mean absolutely nothing. No model has been able to account for the rapid declines we've seen in the Arctic because no model accurately has all the dynamics behind that decline nor the related feedbacks that result from those dynamics.
The September sea ice extent will be either a little more or a little less than last year, but will be in line with the long-term trend leading to an ice-free summer Arctic sometime in the next few years. It would be very rare to see the sea ice decline 4 years in a row at the September minimum, but it could happen this year, and even if it does or doesn't it would say very little about the longer-term trend leading to an ice-free summer Arctic far sooner than any of the models have shown possible.
manacker | May 12, 2013 at 12:01 am |
What's your end-summer extent guess to Jim Cripwell's question?
So far we have (msk on September 30, 2013):
1.8 – bob droege
4.8 – Jim Cripwell
3.2 – Fan
3.5 – tony b
4.74 – me
bob droege is the odd man out with a low ball estimate, Fan and tony b are neck in neck, and Cripwell and I are also very close.
As you know, what we have here (as well as in the Antarctic) is a major melt and refreeze every year and a relatively small (in comparison) year-to-year deviation, which shows receding ice in the Arctic and increasing ice in the Antarctic. The sum of both was slightly higher than the sum of the two 1979-2000 baseline values last month, i.e. end-April global sea ice extent has grown (very slightly) in comparison with the 1979-2000 baseline:
April 1979-2000 baseline
N 15.00 S 7.30 Global 22.30 msk
N14.37 S 8.07 Global 22.44 msk
I explained to Jim Cripwell how I reached my guess: by assuming that the annual melting from the annual winter recovery would be the same this year as the average over the past 6 years (= nothing unusual). This seems quite reasonable to me.
You don't need to second-guess my guess or have to explain how you arrive at your guess, just make one.
How about making this end September Arctic sea ice extent guess a wager, say with each "guesser" putting in $100 and the winner (the guess closest to the Arctic sea ice extent reported by NSIDC for September 30, 2013) the "take all" winner? (Split in case of a tie.)
I'd be "in" on such a wager.
How about the rest of the commenters here?
PS Looks like we already have 7 "guessers". I'm sure we could get the smart guys like Web and Gates interested (they'd figure it out very scientifically) – maybe even Peter Lang, Faustino and Beth would join in.
PPS With JCH we've now got eight "guessers"!
(And I forgot all about Mosh – who could tell us his "code" – and Willard, who could cite several references backing his guess.)
Manacker,
The only thing I'll bet on is the outcome of the Australian election on 14 September 2013. And I'll only bet on that if I'm give even odds (the odds on Labor winning are now out to 11:1 against).
I once worked at a mine in Northern Canada. An engineer who worked for me bet me he could hit a golf ball some ridiculously long distance. he won the bet.
[he took me out on the Athabasca River, which was frozen over, and hot the damned thing past the ridiculously long distance.
So, I am ware there is always a faint possibility that someone could, possibly, know more than I do about something – remote as that possibility may seem to others – or have information I don't have (also very unlikely, but still a faint possibility).
bob droege | May 12, 2013 at 1:20 am |
You guys can go here and see what visitor's to Neven's blog think:
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/05/crowd-source-prediction-of-minimum-arctic-sea-ice.html#more
Most predict another record and a few are predicting a lower extent than I am.
manacker | May 12, 2013 at 1:25 am |
Aw, c'mon, Peter – make a guess.
Your guess will be as good as anyone's.
(For example, you can play the "safe" odds by guessing the average of all other guesses, so you have the best chance of winning – Mosh or willard can explain to you how this works.)
Or you can toss in a "low-ball" or "high-ball" shocker to see if you can make anyone (like R. Gates) angry enough to try to explain to you why your guess is absurd.
Join the fun.
PS I'd be at a real quandary to try to guess how your election will turn out, but it looks like the bookies are thinking there will be a change (after a while it's good to "clean house and toss da bums out", so maybe that's what is going to happen).
Peter Lang | May 12, 2013 at 2:10 am |
Come to think of it, I did bet on what the winning bid for the Whitehorse (Yukon, Canada) hydro plant would be. I'd done much of the site investigations and worked with the estimator. He won the bet (it came in at his original estimate (we were the designer and project manager) and I cam second of about 60 bets.
But that was before I lost the roughly $10 bet on the golf ball.
In short. I won't be betting on nature. I am conservative. :)
But I do look forward to you winning the bet, and will be very happy to accept a share of your winnings (for giving you my verbal support).
Seems there is some confusion among a few here (as there was at Neven's site) about exactly what is being estimated. Monthly September mean extent from NSIDC or absolute low daily extent? Two very different numbers. But, for either I would currently say:
September mean extent as measured by NSIDC around 2.95 million sq. km.
Absolute September low extent around 2.55 million sq. km.
Should we get another Great Arctic Cyclone that chews up the thin ice in August and brings up warmer water from depth, these numbers will be lower.
I am expecting a virtually ice-free Summer Arctic by 2016 or so, and a 100% ice-free summer Arctic Ocean by the early 2020's.
mwgrant | May 12, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
Jim Cripwell, manacker
My estimate is 1 msk – 6 msk. Just a comment.
I was referring to the monthly mean sea ice extent figures in msk published at the end of each month in
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
(Rather than the instantaneous lowest or highest values experienced sometime during the month.)
mwgrant
Your 1-6 msk equals 3.5 +/- 2.5 msk.
Since Jim isn't including error ranges, your figure comes out at 3.5 msk.
mwgrant | May 13, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
manacker
Why is it always 'give me a number'? Never broke managers of this when doing risk work. But to be a friendly sort, OK. 3.5 msk it is. Harumpfffff
We had a slightly longer colder winter this year so if that has any bearing on sea ice, then a slight recovery compared to last year, say an extra .5
Jim Cripwell | May 11, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
J. Martin. Last year's minimum was 3.6 msk. So I am putting you down for 4.1. I hope that is right.
Temps in the Arctic Circle proper were not colder than average this winter, but January's SSW event shunted a lot of colder air to lower latitudes.
tonyb | May 12, 2013 at 3:09 am |
Prior to satellite readings, measurements were taken to end august. The final sea ice charts were mostly drawn up accordingly even though there was often a lot of melting still to do. I previously quoted reports where passage through the Northern sea route was impossible in August but relatively easy in September.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/
It would be interesting to see if there is any material difference between last week of August measurements and absolute minimum readings whenever they are reached.
That's always assuming we are able to determine ice, water resting on ice and water, which seems to be no easy trick.
J Martin | May 12, 2013 at 6:00 am |
I figure Arctic ice is difficult to predict, as I think that the primary weakening effect, a reduction in thickness, comes more from the behaviour of ocean currents than surface temperatures. Once the ice has been reduced to a critical thickness then it becomes more vulnerable to storms.
So to make an assessment or guess with any confidence then some work would need to done. I doubt that we have sufficient measurements of temperatures and flow rates and directions of the currents involved.
If the tipping point in thickness is known and this area monitored and some passable statistics on currents and temperatures are available then an educated guess can be made, but the final result will always be subject to lady luck as to whether or not a suitable storm arises to dismantle the no doubt substantial area of ice that has reached a vulnerable thickness.
So much as I would like to improve my guessing technique I currently base my guesses on how I feel the weather outside my back door has been thus far here in Southern England UK.
5.7 million km squared – as I explain below.
Cool conditions are most predictable with a cool PDO and La Nina.
JCH | May 12, 2013 at 12:20 am |
I'm going with 2.66. That was the increase in CO2 ppm last year.
bob droege | May 11, 2013 at 8:00 pm |
Just so you know who you are dealing with, I smoked them all last year.
No one was closer.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/early-ice-bet-winner/
That was at the blackboard, no one at ARCUS predicted below 4 mil sq K either.
This year looks like it might not be a ho hum melt year like last year. Looks like there is significant export through the Fram straight already this year. The Beaufort Gyre looks like it could twist up like 2010 as well.
If both happen late in the melt season it could be all over, and the Beaufort Gyre, if it gets free of ice, will make successive freeze seasons a little on the weak side.
Chief Hydrologist | May 11, 2013 at 10:56 pm |
The Arctic Oscillation also impacts sea ice movement in the Arctic. The negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation is linked to an increase in the strength of the Beaufort Gyre and reduced outflow of ice through Fram Strait. A negative AO used to help promote ice survival through summer by strengthening the Beaufort Gyre and thereby increasing the distribution of old, thick ice along coastal Alaska and Siberia. However, the location and strength of positive sea level pressure anomalies has varied throughout winter, with varied impacts on ice motion.' http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/03/
Sure it wasn't just dumb luck Bob?
http://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/atm/ao.php
bob droege | May 11, 2013 at 11:44 pm |
Cheif,
You have a chicken and the egg problem, and you are seeing correlations but not causation. The transport of ice through the Fram Straight might be correlated with the Arctic Oscillation, and you are right that the Beaufort Gyre used to be responsible for the thick ice on the Canadian side of the Arctic. But times they are a changing and the arctic no longer freezes like it used to. There is not so much ice to pile up anymore.
You can't blame anything on all the oscillations, after all, they are just oscillations and are not responsible for the total energy changes we are seeing.
"win a little, lose a little"
That's how it goes in the guessing game.
Chief Hydrologist | May 12, 2013 at 12:51 am |
There has been some fundamental change? As a result of CO2?
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/arcticice-2_zps37ba208d.jpg.html
I think the fundamental of the IPO and AO will prevail – and even if they are called oscillations they are not.
Oh – and the data says they are responsible for the total energy changes.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=32
Chief Hydro,
The fluctuations of the AO this winter were anything but dumb luck. The strong SSW event of early January disrupted the vortex and set the stage for easterly winds and the rotation of the gyre. This was especially pronounced in March when rhe strong easterly winds actually created big cracks in the Arctic sea ice which were reported on at Neven's site and in the media. These SSW events are just one more way that energy is advected from lower latitudes to the polar region. Without them, the North Pole would be much colder and sea ice much thicker.
Chief Hydrologist | May 12, 2013 at 4:33 am |
The guess on ice extent was dumb luck.
'Sudden stratospheric warming has split the polar vortex in two. The polar vortex, which forms and deepens as the atmosphere loses heat to space in the darkness of the long Arctic winter night, was split in two by massive heating from below. A series of intense storms in the far north Pacific intensified a very long wave in the lower atmosphere. Energy on that planet sized wave went upwards from the lower atmosphere around the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau and broke into the stratosphere, causing major sudden warming. It rapidly reversed the strong cyclonic winds in the stratosphere around the pole, creating a central dome, breaking the vortex into two smaller vortices.' http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/16/1179397/-Sudden-Stratospheric-Warming-Split-the-Polar-Vortex-in-Two
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/16/1179397/-Sudden-Stratospheric-Warming-Split-the-Polar-Vortex-in-Two
Who am I to begrudge standing waves in the ocean and atmosphere behaving as nodes on a complex and dynamic system as changes sweep the planet through multiple sub-systems like a Mexican wave at a stadium. Although energy transport from the equator to the poles is pretty much a foundational concept of hydrology, oceanography, meteorology… and I have little patience for people who spout baby physics as if they are some profound insight – or the equivalent in Earth sciences. Energy dynamics across the planet are immensely complex and variable.
Without doubt these standing waves signal changes in the Earth's energy dynamic. In this case we are looking at a cooler Arctic as La Nina evolves in the Pacific – I am already wide eyed at what this La Nina looks like it is developing into – along with the established PDO. And as the negative AO results in an 'increase in the strength of the Beaufort Gyre and reduced outflow of ice through Fram Strait.' This allows more multi-year ice to form around the margins of Alaska and Siberia.
So I am looking for a rebound of summer ice this year – 5.7 million square kilometres. I was wondering if this is a little high – but decided that the urge to go with the herd is best resisted. There is a technique in hydrology where you look for equivalent patterns of sea surface temperatures historically and assign probabilities on that basis. I think I will go with my PDO+ENSO expertise as an Australian hydrologist and the AO pattern.
vukcevic | May 12, 2013 at 3:37 am |
The Arctic see ice level does not tell anything about future, it is a reflection of the recent past (the N.A. SST). For a 'tea leaves' reading exercise you need to look at the Arctic atmospheric pressure.
You are flat out wrong Vuk. The state of Arctic sea ice tells us a great deal about how much energy is being advected to the pole– both via the atmosphere and via the ocean. Given that the Earth as a system continues to accumulate energy, more energy is reaching the Arctic, and sea ice will, over the long run, decline to an ice-free summer condition.
vukcevic | May 12, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
Hi Gates
I might be wrong, but ain't flat yet !
Major old ice melt is few meters below the surface, by worm currents. Summer ice is of no consequence to N.H. climate, extent of winter surface ice in the Norwegian seas is.
atmospheric pressure at Reykjavik is your best bet if you know what to look for.
Bart R | May 20, 2013 at 12:06 am |
A pointless exercise with no meaning whatsoever.
Chances of 'effectively zero' Arctic sea ice level for September 2013-15 (or even during September) have risen to just under 5%, which is a spectacular increase.
Chances of Arctic sea ice level for September 2013-15 exceeding the mean of the previous 5 years also approaches only 5%, which is a spectacular drop.
2.2 msk +/- 0.8 for the minimum of the next three Septembers is around 70% likely in this pointless prognostication.
Odds that September 2013 is the lowest of the next three September Arctic Sea ice extent are small.
Chances that we will need to refine how we talk about Arctic Sea ice extent going forward to accommodate the new state of the Arctic are good.
A better wager would be on number, intensity, duration and cost of superstorms in the coming Frankenseason.
No wonder there's an growing internal GOP insurgency against mush-brained climate-change denialism!
The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism
(Amazon review)
"I received the book Mad Mad Mad World of Climatism unsolicited. It was obvious that it is a blatant attempt to discredit climate change science via misrepresentation, distortion, and even occasional lying about facts. My personal opinion is that this book has zero scientific credibility.
The vast majority of individuals who have provided 5-star reviews of this book are individuals who work for, or are directly associated with The Heartland Institute: Joseph L. Bast, Dr. James H. Rust, David G. Herro, Jay Lehr, Terry Dunleavy.
You should know that you will not be getting credible scientific information from this book."
LOL … astro-turf much, Heartlanders?
Hint Heartland's peculiar brand of mush-brained willfully ignorant anti-science ideology-first denialism is driving millions of thoughtful voters away from principled conservatism.
Get a clue, Heartlanders!
Girma | May 11, 2013 at 11:17 am |
There is no blog activity in the alarmists' blogs.
Have they surrendered?
What does all of this mean? For starters, weather oscillations literally come and go, regionally, globally and on yearly to millennial time scales that trade-off, coincide, overlap, brush up against and sometimes bend over or spit in the face of the celestial winds of fortune. Let's look as some recent examples:
Since 1990 we are looking at 1°C drop in the mean global temperature of the Earth's surface. (See—e.g., Coming Ice Age… According To Leading Experts…!)
JCH,
Ocean Heat Content is of course what you are referring to. As this data gets better and better (as it is) it will no longer be a refuge for fake-skeptics to pick at. All the while, the bulk of data in looking form a full Earth-system perspective leads to one conclusion– we're warming, and rapidly. The first ice-free summer Arctic in the next few years will change the tune of the honest skeptics who will realize that no "recovery" was ever in the cards for Arctic sea ice as long as GH gases continue their rapid march upward.
You are right on one point: since ARGO, the data on OHC has been "getting better".
And it is showing us that warming rate of the upper ocean is much less than was previously reported, based on very sparse and inaccurate data. [In fact, the ARGO data first showed slight net cooling; the data were then corrected, and now show slight net warming, instead.
It will be increasingly difficult for "CAGW believers" to hide behind cobbled-together graphs of ever-increasing OHC of the past (measured in thousandths of a degree warming per decade, but expressed in the tiniest of all possible measurements = Joules).
The jig is up, Gates.
Wish the "jig" was up Max, but the Earth system continues to accumulate energy because the rapid rise in GH concentrations. You fixation on the taking the smallest measure of the Earth system energy is telling. Bob Tisdale would like to just measure SST's, you seem fixated on upper ocean. Why not measure the whole thing as much as we can? Honest scientists want to do just that. It tells a story of a rapidly rising ocean heat content, declining Arctic sea ice extent, Greenland and Antarctica losing ice mass, and a planet headed toward a Pliocene-like climate:
The jig is indeed up, and fake-skeptics have very little room to hide.
JCH | May 11, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
Why would they surrender? The earth is gaining energy because of the GHE.
"The earth is gaining energy" (= warming) despite all those thermometers out there that say it is NOT warming?
What's wrong with this picture?
The continual reliance of fake-skeptics to tropospheric temperatures over a short time frame is quite telling, eh?
JCH | May 11, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
I don't know Max, how far up a tree, or how deep a dive, would it take one to escape the tiny little part of the earth that is measured/estimated by GISS LOTI, or HadCrappy3, or HadCrude4, or UAH?
You and your ilk of fake skeptics are fortunate that all you have is temperature to base your questionable metrics on. If we could measure heat accumulated through a more accurate calorimetric method, I wonder how you would respond to the trend?
Webby, JCH and Gates
Hey guys, I'm simply using the metric for "global warming", which IPCC used in AR4 (and all preceding reports), namely the "globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly" (as measured by HadCRUT3 at the time).
This is a "sensible" metric (even if it has some warts and blemishes we all know about), because it measures something everyone can experience – the "temperature", as we humans know it. The tropospheric anomaly measured by satellites may be more "accurate", but it measures something more ethereal (if you'll pardon the expression), which most humans are not all that interested in.
This "global surface" metric shows no warming over the past decade or more despite unabated GHG emissions (principally CO2) and concentrations reaching record levels.
Measuring increases of thousandths of a degree of total ocean (or upper ocean) temperature over decades in a frantic search for "missing energy" leaves us all sort of "ho-hum" uninterested, for two main reasons: it has no impact on us humans and it cannot even be measured with any degree of accuracy. And, at the teeny bit of warming we are supposedly seeing, it has no impact on all those fishies out there, either. IOW it's a "non-item".
Now, as far as the "deep ocean" is concerned, ducks can dive fairly deep when they are looking for food, but the idea that the lower ocean could heat up without us noticing it in the upper ocean is a "canard".
Sorry, NO SALE, guys.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | May 12, 2013 at 11:52 pm |
Marx Manacker says
"This is a "sensible" metric (even if it has some warts and blemishes we all know about), because it measures something everyone can experience – the "temperature", as we humans know it. "
OK, then we will go with the land-only BEST temperature data set. This is closely aligned to what people feel, since humans live on land.
Glad to oblige with a meaningful metric. The land-only data is also quickest to reach the ECS, of which the current observational data shows a 3C increase for an atmospheric CO2 doubling.
Hope this helps on your road to understanding climate science.
captdallas 0.8 or less | May 11, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
I think they are doing some tidying up. Some of their more outrageous claims can bite them in the butt. At least that might be a good idea.
"It will not have escaped the notice of keen observers that the satellite/model discrepancy has been used extensively in certain circles to cast doubt on the models, surface temperature record and our understanding of basic physics. Some recent examples for instance, used the UAH 2LT record absolutely uncritically (despite the fact that there have been many previous revisions, and that other analyses give very different results). Recently, one of these authors was quoted as saying:
… as long as weather satellites show that the atmosphere is not warming, I cannot put much faith into theoretical computer models that claim to represent the atmosphere but contradict what the atmosphere tells us.
Since the satellites now clearly show that the atmosphere is warming at around the rate predicted by the models, we will report on his no-doubt imminent proclamation of a new found faith in models as soon as we hear of it…"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/
While the "pause" was being ignored, the satellite data required a little revision since that data didn't jive with the models. Now that the satellite data has proven to be a bit ahead of the curve, some of the more nasty comments could end up being a bit embarrassing.
Especially when the "experts" explain nature like this;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/why-does-the-stratosphere-cool-when-the-troposphere-warms/
When it should have been more like this;
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/05/more-rehashing-of-obvious-ohc-and.html
Then they might just be at Starbucks.
Looks to me like they are grasping at straws.
Now the missing heat we do not see at the surface is allegedly in the deep ocean, warming it by an imperceptible (and non-measurable) 0.001C (howdat?) over the past decade and sneaking past us without us even noticing it at the surface (ouch!).
steven | May 11, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
They are busy practicing how to get out of a pickle jar.
https://www.photospin.com/singleproduct.asp?id=49945&search_id=0&the_page=1&page_offset=0
They are busy getting psychiatric counselling due to depression.
Tom | May 11, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
Overrun.
"There's less and less investment in the green energy sector and governments have even started to tax renewables," according to Dr. Benny Peiser who warns that, "The green energy obsession is self-destructive."
A fan of *MORE* discourse | May 11, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
More good global news:
Who's Winning the Clean Energy Race
Pew Charitable Trust Report (2012 edition)
"The clean energy sector moved inexorably forward, with overall investment in 2012 five times greater than it was in 2004.
Beyond its resilience, the clean energy sector also continues to demonstrate dynamism as the cost of wind, solar, and other sources declines in the global marketplace."
A Simple Common-Sense Fact History, science, and economics all stand against the willful ignorance and short-sighted stupidity of ideology-driven climate-change denialism.
In your enthusiasm you accidentally forgot to mention that worldwide investment actually declined 11percent from 2011.
I am not against renewables per se provided they can be made cheap and efficient and dont try save the environment by trashing the countryside
( windfarms tend to be on our finest upland landscapes)
My concern is that countries should stick to the maxim ' horses for courses' For example the idea of solar farms in such countries as the uk and Germany is hilarious bearing in mind the amount of sun/ bright light we get is very limited. Britain however has a fantastic resource of waves/ tides which is totally unexploited.
Have you checked out Germany's latest results with clean energy?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/23/germany-to-open-six-more-coal-power-stations-in-2013/
"A crisis in UK energy Policy looks inevitable"
http://liberum.eu.bdvision.ipreo.com/NSightWeb_v2.00/Handlers/Document.ashx?i=e7f798d1a60646efb76a03a030054be9
The background is important. Al Gore is a retired lifetime federal government employee. The federal government is incompetent. And, U.S. Senators are the most out of touch with the real world than anyone else in the world–no one but the devil's spawn will ever be elected and that is why the Constitution essentially is a document to protect the public from U.S. Senators and every other elected and unelected government bureaucrat who all could care less about anything but themselves. "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power," as lover of liberty, James Madison understood and worked so diligently and with such foresight to prevent, "than by violent and sudden usurpations."
Nature is utterly indifferent to politics, eh Wagathon?
Red Alert.
That graph is disturbing, but there is no amount of windmills, solar cells or expensive light bulbs that is going to stop it! Living with it is going to require lots of energy. I'd say humanity's best choice is gas and nuclear.
Canman,
Why is the chart disturbing?
For 75% of the past 500 million years there's been no ice at either pole. When the Earth is warmer, life thrives. What's the problem?
Canman | May 11, 2013 at 10:35 pm |
While I'm not really all that alarmed about the actual climate, I will admit that that chart shows a pretty significant change in Arctic ice trends over a pretty short geological time span. I suppose such a fast change could be not all that uncommon over geological time, but from what I've seen of the paleoproxies and their purveyors, I don't think anyone knows for sure. I don't completely discount the possibility of a severe clathrate and permafrost methane release.
Peter Lang asserts (wrongly) "When the Earth is warmer, life thrives"
Your post is wrong-on-the-facts, Peter Lang.
Which is worse for the polity, Peter Lang?
• (remediable) denialism that arises from ordinary ignorance, versus
• (irremediable) denialism that is grounded upon ideology-driven willful ignorance?
The world wonders, eh?
Fortunately, many forms of denialism can be cured! So be hopeful, Peter Lang!
Bit of an exaggeration talking about Triassic conditions, eh Fan?
Besides which, wasn't it the case that there was more carbon tied up in the biosphere then than now, oh knowledgeable one?
If so, doesn't that demonstrate that life thrives when warmer?
Isn't picking out some species that don't like warmer cherry picking?
Peter Lang asserts (wrongly) "Bit of an exaggeration talking about Triassic conditions, eh Fan?""
To the degree that the Sun was dimmer in the past, CO2-driven warming risks are greater in the present.
Ain't that plain common-sense, Peter Lang?
Yikes … so maybe Hansen's world-view is correct?
It is a continuing pleasure to assist you toward a common-sense appreciation of the basic principles of climate science!
cjshaker | May 13, 2013 at 6:28 pm |
Does Hansen's World View take into account what these Astrophysicists are saying about recent changes in the sun's activity levels? They say that we're moving from a Grand Solar Maximum to a Grand Solar Minimum. How much will that reduce energy input? They're talking about the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age.
A History of Solar Activity over Millennia
Ilya G. Usoskin
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2008-3/
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2008-3/download/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf
It's full of interesting information:
"• The sun spends about 70% of its time at moderate magnetic activity levels, about 15 – 20% of its time in a grand minimum and about 10 – 15% in a grand maximum. Modern solar activity corresponds to a grand maximum."
"• The modern level of solar activity (after the 1940s) is very high, corresponding to a grand maximum. Grand maxima are also rare and irregularly occurring events, though the exact rate of their occurrence is still a subject of debates."
It has been at least 4,000 and possibly 8,000 years since a Grand Solar Maximum of this magnitude. You will remember reading about the breakout floods around various parts of the world 8,000 years ago?
"A quantitative analysis is only possible using proxy data, especially cosmogenic isotope records. Using a physics-based analysis of solar-activity series reconstructed from 10Be data from polar (Greenland and Antarctica) archives, Usoskin et al. (2003c, 2004) stated that the modern maximum is unique in the last millennium. Then, using a similar analysis of the 14C calibrated series, Solanki et al. (2004) found that the modern activity burst is not unique, but a very rare event, with the previous burst occurring about 8 millennia ago. An update (Usoskin et al., 2006a) of this result, using a more precise paleo-magnetic reconstruction by Korte and Constable (2005) since 5000 BC, suggests that an increase of solar activity comparable with the modern episode might have taken place around 2000 BC, i.e., around 4 millennia ago. The result by Solanki et al. (2004) has been disputed by Muscheler et al. (2005) who claimed that equally high (or even higher) solar-activity bursts occurred several times during the last millennium, circa 1200 AD, 1600 AD and at the end of the 19th century. We note that the latter claimed peak (ca. 1860) is not confirmed by direct solar or geomagnetic data. However, as argued by Solanki et al. (2005), the level of solar activity reconstructed by Muscheler et al. (2005) was overestimated because of an erroneous normalization to the data of ground-based ionization chambers (see also McCracken and Beer, 2007). This indicates that the definition of grand maxima is less robust than grand minima and is sensitive to other parameters such as geomagnetic field data or overall normalization."
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2008-3&page=articlesu16.html
Chris Shaker
Barry Elledge | May 11, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
After reading some of the commentary on the previous posting, I realize I don't understand how the calculations of climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling are made. I had assumed that the infrared radiation from the earth within the CO2 absorption window caused a T increase in the troposphere as CO2 levels increase, resulting in an increase in long-wave radiation from the troposphere, roughly half of which would strike the earth as back-radiation. That calculation quickly gets messy, but is conceptually straightforward.
However, there must be more involved. For one thing, this mechanism would seem to require that the troposphere is heating up, especially over the tropics; yet the 30+ year satellite record doesn't demonstrate such heating. For another, the CO2 IR absorption bands are already near saturation (I've seen the figure 95% at current CO2 levels). If CO2 levels double, then absorbance would increase to 0.95 + (0.95 X 0.05) = 0.9975; at that point almost all the energy in the CO2 IR bands would already have been absorbed, and further CO2 increases would have essentially no effect. Yet the literature seems to treat the sensitivity to CO2 doubling as a constant. What's going on?
Please note that these questions pertain to the primary climate sensitivity issue; I know that the feedback question is even more controversial. But for now I'd like to know:
1. is there a general consensus on how to calculate the primary sensitivity to CO2 doubling? That is, do skeptics and warmists agree conceptually on how to calculate sensitivity?
2. is there a generally accepted value or range of values for primary sensitivity which skeptics and warmists agree to?
3. are there any experiments which in principle could verify or falsify the calculated sensitivity, using the proposed mechanisms for primary CO2 sensitivity? If so, have these been performed, and to what result?
I'm hoping for enlightenment from people who know more about this than I do; I'm no expert in climate but I do understand chemistry and spectroscopy. If there is little controversy over primary sensitivity, then so much the better; if there are substantive disagreements, I would like to understand them.
As far as I know, which isn't much, each cube in the 3D grid of a climate model has a bunch of equations governing how energy crosses between each face of the cube. eg radiation, convection, etc.
The model is run forward in time with increasing CO2. It is found that when CO2 is doubled, the surface temperature increases. How much higher it stabilizes is the CO2 sensitivity.
The exact mechanism by which the temperature increases in the models (eg is it because the troposphere warms) would take some inspection of how all the cubes update over time. What exactly changes in the model is an emergent behavior of all of the equations.
Lolwat, thanks for that info. If the calculation of CO2 sensitivity relies on GCM models, then that suggests there are probably multiple versions of that calculation and therefore considerable variation in the calculated value. Moreover, the apparent failure of the collective GCMs to accurately predict global T calls into question the underlying assumptions of these models. If something as fundamental as the CO2 climate sensitivity without feedback hasn't been reliably established, then the whole CO2 warming argument is considerably more tenuous than I have assumed.
lolwot | May 12, 2013 at 6:23 am |
"If the calculation of CO2 sensitivity relies on GCM models"
Sorry my mistake I didn't realize you wanted the no-feedback sensitivity.
The forcing to a doubling of CO2 is 3.7wm-2. This is known with high accuracy from accurate radiation models.
This means with a doubling of CO2 Earth's IR emission is reduced by 3.7wm-2.
To satisfy this imbalance the Earth must find a way to emit 3.7wm-2 more.
With no feedbacks the only way to emit more CO2 is for the Earth to warm up. According to stefan-bolzmann law the Earth must warm up about 1 degree C to emit 3.7wm-2 more.
This means the no-feedback sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is about 1C.
Tom in LA | May 11, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
To Barry Elledge:
Good, honest questions.
The sensitivity of surface temperature to CO2 concentration (hereafter [CO2]) is not linear because absorption is logarithmic. At the center wavelength of the CO2 infrared absorption band, all of the radiation from the earth's surface is absorbed within a few tens of meters of the surface. This is the "saturation effect" that climate deniers use to argue that added CO2 cannot have ANY effect at all. Their argument is wrong, however, because as [CO2] increases, low intensity rotational-vibrational transitions at the edges of the absorption band become more important. In effect, the band becomes broader. Total absorption is the integral under the entire band and so the absorption still increases, although only by a small percentage and non-linearly as a function of [CO2]. The approximate expression can be used
Delta F = 5.35 Ln ([CO2]new/[CO2]reference)
where Delta F in the change in "radiative forcing" in watts/square meter (W/m2)and 5.35 is a proportionality constant in the same units. Ignoring non-linear feedback effects, atmospheric temperature at the earth's surface should be closer to a linear relationship with the forcing, not [CO2].
Using 280 ppm as the average interglacial [CO2] over the last 400k years (our reference concentration), the above expression gives Delta F = 1.9 W/m2 for 400 ppm [CO2] (where we are now), and 3.7 W/m2 for 560 ppm (CO2 doubling).
Notice that the "climate sensitivity" that everyone talks about is in units of temperature change per doubling of [CO2]. So it is not the 3.7 W/m2 given above. It comes from modeling studies and generally includes what you are calling the "primary" CO2 greenhouse effect in addition to non-linear feedback mechanisms that depend mainly on change in temperature and not [CO2] directly. Feedbacks include things like change in albedo as ice melts, increased methane liberation as permafrost melts, increases in humidity, and changes in cloud cover.
My impression is that there is a general consensus that the primary sensitivity is near to 1 ºC for [CO2] doubling, and I think it comes essentially from modeling, but someone more on the inside will need to comment on this.
I suppose I have most directly addressed the issue of saturation, but I hope these comments help some?
Tom in LA:
Thanks for your reply. I do have some questions you may be able to clarify.
I well understand the logarithmic nature of transmitted energy versus concentration as described in Beer's Law, and the fact that the energy of the whole absorption band is the relevant measure rather than the energy of the absorption peak. However, that raises the question: what fraction of the energy in the total CO2 absorption spectrum is absorbed at current CO2 levels? If the great majority of energy capable of being absorbed by CO2 is already absorbed, then the possible effect of further increases in CO2 is constrained; and the effect of further CO2 doublings in the remote future is still more attenuated.
You mention a coefficient of 5.35 which relates the change in forcing in units of W/m2 to the ln of CO2 concentration. It's unclear to me whether the 5.35 value derives solely from the conversion to W/m2 units coupled with known absorbance values of CO2, or if other considerations are involved which are implicit in climate models. This question matters: if the former, then the value of the coefficient ought to be noncontroversial; if assumptions embodied in GCM models are required to calculate the coefficient, then some caution is appropriate.
Thanks for your answer and I hope you can clarify these points.
WUWT recently had a couple of articles that might answer your queries
My one here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
Queried what real world effect we were seeing. The one immediately prior to that which can be accessed at the top left of the article heading, was entitled 'The effectiveness of co2…' in both cases the comments also explain a great deal
Thanks Tom,
Early on I also wondered about the "saturation" issue, as I remember it from my Atmospheric Physics course. Your explanation is perhaps the clearest I've seen.
Jim D | May 11, 2013 at 6:52 pm |
Barry, it isn't absorption in the atmosphere that causing warming, but the effect of the atmospheric change on the surface. Just as a cloudless night cools faster, and clouds act as a blanket, adding CO2 also raises the mean surface temperature through a blanketing effect. The tropospheric temperature is governed by the surface temperature via convection, so just a warming of the surface also warms the troposphere. The effect is strongest in drier air, so the immediate warming is less obvious in the tropical ocean areas, which is different from a solar forcing, for example, where the effect would be greatest in the tropics. The stratosphere is not connected to the surface, being above convection, and actually adding CO2 cools the stratosphere by increasing its efficiency in radiating to space.
Jim D,
Your reply raises an interesting point. A cloud acts as an insulating blanket because the water droplets reflect radiation back downward; this effect relies upon the presence of a droplet surface which partially reflects and partially refracts incident radiation. Unlike H2O, CO2 does not change its phase and form a reflecting surface. Rather, each CO2 molecule can absorb radiation and re-emit it, roughly half of which returns to the ground. However, the absorbed radiant energy can also cause the T of the air to increase if the absorbing CO2 molecule collides with another molecule before it can re-radiate the photon of infrared energy (radiant energy is converted to kinetic energy, expressed as heat). Consequently a rise in T should accompany the absorption of IR energy; re-radiation isn't 100% efficient.
Convection from a warmer earth surface should add to the warming effect. As you say, the effect of convection is more straightforward in dry air. But warming of the troposphere should be enhanced in warm moist air where the phase change from vapor to liquid at altitude should liberate heat. To me, the failure of the tropical troposphere to warm over time as CO2 increases is both puzzling and potentially invalidating to the CO2 warming hypothesis.
If you have an explanation as to how the lack of tropical tropospheric warming can be reconciled with the CO2 hypothesis, please fill me in.
Chief Hydrologist | May 11, 2013 at 6:56 pm said: ""We have two types of records on past cyclone activity"
Hello Chief, greetings!…
Barry, IR isn't really reflected at all. The process is emission downwards by clouds or GHGs that keeps the surface warm like a blanketing effect. In the tropics the CO2 competes with a lot of H2O, so its relative effect is less when doubling it than in drier regions. The main way heat gets from the surface to the atmosphere is through convection rather than radiation absorption, which is why the lapse rate is determined by convection.
Barry,
You will make no progress in your understanding unless someone informs you or teaches you that radiation occurs across a continuous photonic spectrum of wavelengths. Then someone needs to inform or teach you about quantum mechanics and how the photonic state space fills according to B-E statistics. Sprinkle in some thermodynamics of atmospheres as well. Until then you will be hopelessly confused because you will enter a trick-box where you will have convinced yourself that the global temperatures can't rise.
OTOH, if you do accumulate this knowledge, everything will become clear.
Blame Einstein, Planck, Boltzmann and all the other heavyweights of physics for creating this formidable yet surmountable barrier to understanding.
stefanthedenier | May 11, 2013 at 10:47 pm |
Jim D | May 11, 2013 at 6:52 pm LIED: "adding CO2 also raises the mean surface temperature through a blanketing effect"
Jim D, CO2 is only 250-400ppm – if you take only 400ppm off a blanket; would be the size of a tenth of a postage stamp. That size blanket will freeze your… Stop telling lies!
Jim D | May 11, 2013 at 10:53 pm |
Even Spencer and Watts have tired of the "dragonslayers". They ask you to show your version of the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, "put up or shut up" to quote Spencer in his recent post.
What a load of preening and prattling from the dweeb.
The sun emits over a range of frequencies – and some of that is reflected or absorbed leading to the this approximation of radiation at sea level – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
Most of this heats the oceans and land leading to warming and emissions at a different frequency – the distribution remains the same but the peak moves to the right on the graph – right into the region of absorption bands shown. The only quantum effect of relevance is that photons have an energy associated with frequency (E=hv) and that there are therefore a number of discrete energy states that a molecule of carbon dioxide can have. Bose-Einstein statistics define the energy states that particles can have at a temperature.
There is an animation plus an explanation here that is probably beyond the dweeb – http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/what_is_it.html
Most people have an idea of the laws of thermodynamics – they are taught in kindergarten aren't they? This is of course a lot more to climate than simple radiative physics.
David Springer | May 12, 2013 at 6:52 am |
The lack of tropospheric hotspot is a problem for warmists. If the surface warms faster than troposphere that's indicative of increase in short-wave at the surface not long-wave. In other words it supports Lindzen and Spencer and many other skeptics who say clouds throttling how much short wave reaches the surface to warm the ocean is The Big Kahuna. I tend to agree with them.
"If the surface warms faster than troposphere that's indicative of increase in short-wave at the surface not long-wave"
No it isn't, the reason the troposphere warms faster is due to lapse rate feedback, which also makes the troposphere warm faster under an increase in short-wave too.
Models forced by increased solar output also show a hotspot.
Pay attention for a change, LOLTWAT.
If the surface warms FASTER than the troposphere that's SW warming. If the troposphere warms faster that's LW warming. The mechanisms are different. SW arrives at the surface, warms it, and then warms the atmosphere. The surface warms more in this case. LW warming caused by increased greenhouse gas warms the troposphere first by the gases absorbing upwelling LW from the surface then the excited GH molecules spread the warmth to non-GH molecular neighbors through collisions. This indirectly causes the surface to warm but not as much as the troposphere.
That's the IPCC's story. It's not universally accepted but I tend to agree with the IPCC fingerprint narrative. Roy Spencer, for instance, doesn't agree. It's funny seeing you take Roy Spencer's side to say the least. You probably need to reconsider in light of that. A tough choice, no doubt. Agree with me and the IPCC or Roy Spencer and the mainstream skeptics. You're f*cked either way. Classic case of being stuck between a rock and a hard place.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/10/hotspots-and-fingerprints/
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-1.html
From the horse's mouth. Or possibly the other end of the horse.
IPCC AR4 still promotes the tropical tropospheric hotspot as the fingerprint of anthropogenic warming. (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings.
Only (c) and (f) show a tropical tropospheric hotspot. This is from Santer 2003.
Now, loltwat, if you want to make a case that the IPCC and Santer are silly arses that got it all wrong and have stuck by their mistake at least up through AR4 that's your business but it probably won't win you any friends amongst the usual suspects in climate boffinry. I happen to agree with Santer and the IPCC here. I could be wrong to agree with them.
Springer that link the IPCC report backs up what I said. It shows (a) Solar forcing has a hotspot.
Notice the color yellow in the graph is brighter in the troposphere than at the surface, denoting a faster rate of warming.
Ie a hotspot.
"If the surface warms FASTER than the troposphere that's SW warming."
That's not what climate models show.
Climate models show that in response to increased solar output, the tropical troposphere warms faster than the surface.
David Springer | May 12, 2013 at 10:14 am |
So you think the ghg forcing model looks about the same as the others.
Now THAT is denial.
Here's the graphic without labels.
Panels (a) through (e) are different kinds of forcings. Panel (f) is all of them combined. See if you can pick out which of (a) through (e) is one that is the CO2 signature (tropical hotspot). LOLTWAT claims none of them really stand out from the others. ;-)
This is exactly what the climate models show, by the way. These are not measured changes in temperature they're modeled changes from 5 different kinds of forcings. The modeled response to CO2 is a tropical hot spot in mid-level troposphere and cooling in stratosphere above it. One of these panels shows that in spades. The others do not. LOLTWAT can't tell which is the CO2 response model. I'm interested in how many others here can't pick out the CO2 response model.
And just to be clear the CO2 response model can't be found in the real atmosphere it exists only on paper.
lolwot | May 12, 2013 at 10:25 am |
I didn't say they look the same did I?
I pointed out that figure (a) has a hotspot: brighter yellow in the troposphere than the surface. Will you at least admit that figure (a) has a tropical tropospheric hotspot?
The reason why the hotspot is larger in figure (c) is because the historical CO2 forcing has been much larger than the historical solar forcing used for figure (a).
If it was the otheway round – ie the solar forcing being bigger than the CO2 forcing, figure (a) would show the biggest hotspot.
A tropical tropospheric hotspot is not a signature of CO2 warming. A tropical tropospheric hotspot is expected from solar warming too. Therefore it cannot be called a signature (a signature being unique)
"This is exactly what the climate models show, by the way. These are not measured changes in temperature they're modeled changes from 5 different kinds of forcings"
Yes but you don't seem to realize they are based on historical 20th century forcings.
The response in figure (a) is to the tiny solar forcing over the 20th century. The reason why the hotspot is tiny is because the solar forcing is so tiny.
You are effectively making self contracting argument without realizing it. First you claimed SW forcing better explains the warming. Then you link to a set of graphs in which figure (a) shows the SW forcing can only explain < 0.2C of 20th century warming.
Those graphs are produced by models. They show what the model does. What the actual does may or may not be shown to be the same as the model. Personally I think the model is correct but is missing something that nullifies the well-mixed GHG signature in the real world. That something is called negative feedback from clouds. But hey, negative feedback from clouds is just a prediction from yet another model. The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the tasting. If the pause in global warming keeps on going that won't taste very good to the usual CAGW suspects.
The tropical hotspot is a signature of the tropical ocean surface warming. Nothing more. The tropical oceans in this phase of the PDO haven't warmed as much as the models did. In the warm phase the PDO will amplify the GHG effect more than the ensemble model average.
According to the IPCC, Jimbo, the signature of well mixed greenhouse gases is in the tropics and consists of mid-upper troposphere warming greater than surface warming and stratospheric cooling. The signature is
uniquely different from the signatures of other types of forcings.
I agree with the signature if not the magnitude the models predict for 1890 through 1999.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
Everything the IPCC promotes is not wrong. Many if not most of the physics details are correct in principle. Something important is missing because, indisputably, the models are coming up short. The well mixed GHG signature in the tropics is missing in action. I believe they have clouds wrong as do many others. Water has far more control over the surface heat budget than well mixed greenhouse gases. It's long and well established that tropical deserts have the highest mean annual temperature of any climate type. Not jungles and not tropical oceans and not tropical inland seas. Tropical deserts. There's a very good reason for that. That's where there's the least water on the ground, in the air, and the most intense sun.
David Springer, it is easy to misinterpret that graphic as it came from a simulation with real forcings and the solar forcing was much smaller than the GHG forcing over that period. With equal forcings, both would have produced a hot spot that depends only on how much the tropical ocean warmed. The hot spot is just showing the moist adiabatic lapse rate change with a warmer surface. However stratospheric cooling is a CO2 fingerprint independent of the surface, and that is observed.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
Scroll down. First pair of images are the temperature response to a ~4wm-2 CO2 forcing (left) and a ~4wm-2 solar forcing (right).
Both show a tropical tropospheric hotspot.
The CO2 (and by that I mean other well mixed GHGs too) signature is the tropical troposphere hotspot plus stratosphere cooling. I agree the hotspot is caused by modeled condensation of water vapor. We shouldn't have a problem agreeing with what the model is doing since the model is created and controlled by humans. We know what every line of code does. The problem comes in when the model doesn't behave the same way as the real atmosphere.
Water vapor doesn't cause stratospheric cooling which, except for amplitude, is the difference between water vapor and CO2 as GHGs. Since the modeled outputs in the IPPC report I linked are for 1890-1999 the models also show the magnitude as much greater for CO2 than any other forcings as that is programmed to be the control knob in the models.
It should be noted no such signature is evident in the real world. The stratosphere is cooling but the lower troposphere is fastest warming part of the troposphere. This indicates that CO2 is doing what is expected in making the stratosphere cool more efficiently but isn't doing what's expected in the troposphere and/or something else is negating its expected effect. I believe the discrepancy is due to mistaken modeling of clouds. In the tropics the greenhouse effect ceiling temperature is limited by clouds and is already at the upper limit. Driving surface temperature higher with non-condensing GHGs just causes more clouds which drive the temperature back down. Where it's dry and hence potential for producing more clouds is limited by lack of water on the surface non-condensing GHGs can raise the surface temperature. That's exactly what we observe. Eventually the models will be modified to match reality as the predicted rise in global average temperature drifts further and further ways from what the real world is doing. The real world is already outside the 95% confidence low end of modeled behavior. It'll just keep getting worse. Right now climate boffins behind the failing models are scrambling to explain it in a way which doesn't make them look like bumbling fools who should get into some other line of work.
Barry, you write
I have a completely different idea from those you have already received. My answers are as follows.
1. No-one knows how to CALCULATE climate sensitivity. All people can do is ESTIMATE a value; my definition of estimate. There is no agreement between skeptics and warmists as to how to estimate climate sensitivity. My own view is that ALL current estimates are no better than guesses.
2. There is no generally accepted range of values, except that most people agree climate sensitivity is positive. My guess is that climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero, based on the absence of any measured (my definition of measured) CO2 signal against the background of natural noise in any modern temperature/time graph.
3. In principle, if you could prove how much warming is caused by additional CO2, climate sensitivity can be measured. We do not have the technology which can prove whether any particular rise in temperature is natural, or caused by additional CO2. So the experiment is currently not possible.
I am sure you wont believe me, but I sincerely think that what I have written is the proper physics..
Jim Cripwell,
Thanks for your observations. I know that I don't know how to calculate climate sensitivity; I was hoping to learn how the people who think they can do so go about it. In particular I hoped to learn whether there are unproven assumptions built into the calculations. Some parts of physical theory are built on well established foundations, some employ simplifying assumptions which limit the applicability of the results, and still others embody assumptions with tenuous bases which verge on speculation. After today's responses I really don't know how much credence I ought to put in climate sensitivity estimates, even without the putative feedback effects.
Girma | May 12, 2013 at 4:57 am |
Most of us agree on climate sensitivity of about 1.2 deg C for doubling of CO2.
Not that if the temperature decreases the CO2 reduces by half!
Here is an excellent reference:
http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity
Barry take a read of this. It is by NASA, it's the most comprehensive examination of the greenhouse effect to date:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
Edim | May 11, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
MLO CO2 is at its annual peak, daily data almost at 400 ppm.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl
10 year mean
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:120
lolwot, I'm learning how to torture your graphs.
There's a very similar oscillation (GMO) everywhere on the globe. Here the AMO and the hadcrut4 tropics (30S – 30N):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/plot/esrl-amo/trend/plot/hadcrut4tr/detrend:0.65/plot/hadcrut4tr/detrend:0.65/trend
Alexej Buergin | May 11, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
In the TAR the IPCC explained "TheScientific Basis". The used a sensitivity of 3.5°C, which is probably more than twice as high as in reality, but that is what they believed at the time.
But why did they assume a CO2 increase of 1% per year? Here we (and they) know that it has nothing to do with the real world. Since about AD 1800 CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 400ppm; in no way a doubling in 70 years.
Why do they have to manipulate even "The Scientific Basis"?
1% per year is standard modelling experiment
Alexej Buergin | May 12, 2013 at 5:44 am |
Agreed, but "why is that so" was my question.
CO2 concentration started to climb around 1775 (from 280 ppm). If it had climed with 1% per year, the concentration now would be almost 3000 ppm, more than ten times as much as in reality.
It's a standard experiment used to compare climate models. It's not supposed to be the real world.
It's like car manufactures run cars against an idealized brick wall with a crash dummy inside. It isn't supposed to be a real world experiment (eg with lamp posts and side walks)
They have to manipulate everything, otherwise the so-called hypothesis will fall apart sooner.
Beth Cooper | May 11, 2013 at 7:58 pm |
Things fall apart,
will not hold,
nor do we think
we ever heard
so loud
the quiet message
in a cloud.
H/t Yeats
H/t Kim.
The observational data is suggesting about 3°C per doubling of CO2
This is what 3.5°C sensitivity would look like plotted against actual temperatures
In my post below, you'll see why I think the observational data need to be combined with the paleoclimate data to see what the real Earth system sensitivity will be to 560 ppm of CO2. There are too many complicated feedback processes going on between oceans, ice, biosphere, land, and atmosphere for us to model, and the observational data cover only such a short time-span with way to much natural variability involved.
In a word– at 560 ppm of CO2, think Pliocene.
Girma | May 11, 2013 at 6:43 pm |
The graph missed the 1910 to 1940 warming.
The secular global warming rate is about 0.1 deg C/decade, not 0.2 deg C/decade.
You must remove the warming due to the multi-decadal oscillation.
Divide your climate sensitivity estimate by half to get the true value of about 1.5 deg C.
" Girma | May 11, 2013 at 6:43 pm |
Those are what we call natural oscillations which revert to the mean.
You have now just answered your own confusion.
You only divide by a number unless there is a need to. You have not suggested a need.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | May 11, 2013 at 2:56 pm said: "The observational data is suggesting about 3°C per doubling of CO2"
Crackpot, your observation is as crooked as your twisted mind. What kind of magnifying glass you are using; to "observe 87years in advance?
my question is: how many lies you can tell in a day; I mean, maximum?!
Here's why I think that discussions about climate sensitivity without regard to the paleoclimate data are fairly meaningless:
What ultimately matters is the Earth sensitivity to rising greenhouse gases, and this sensitivity only comes out many decades and even centuries AFTER GH gases have stabilized. Even if we somehow stopped GH gas concentrations from rising today, the Earth will continue to respond for quite some time, with subtle and complicated feedbacks going on between ocean, biosphere, land, ice, and atmosphere. We must admit, as Hansen has pointed out many times, that these feedbacks are simply beyond our ability to model. We can even accurately model the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice! The best indicator therefore of where our climate is headed based on the levels of GH gases, is to look to the paleoclimate data. The data we are recovering from Lake E is not comforting and would indicate that a Pliocene-like climate is in our future based on current and projected GH gas levels under a "business as usual" approach.
Do you have a good reference about the state of modeling specifically with regard to Arctic ice?
Tom, start here:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/08/a-most-interesting-arctic-summer/figure5-8/
R. Gates, you write "Here's why I think that discussions about climate sensitivity"
You seem to be assuming that adding CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels has a significant effect on global temperatures. My reading of what the science tells us is that that is completely wrong. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels has a negligible effect on global temperatures. All the empirical data we have on changes in global temperatures over any time period you like to consider, can quite easily be explained just by considering natural variations, and natural variations only.
You are projecting. YOU are the one assuming the cause of global temperature changes (natural) and then from that concluding that they can't be due to man.
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | May 11, 2013 at 2:56 pm said: "Here's why I think that discussions about climate sensitivity without regard to the paleoclimate data are fairly meaningless "
With "regard to the paleoclimate data" is twice as meaningless! "Paleoclimate data" is outdated mythology, used by the Fakes, to shoot themselves in the foot
What else can you say stefan, when the Paleoclimate data consistently show that the climate is very sensitive to changes in CO2, and that anything over 400 ppm of CO2 is likely to lead to Pliocene-like conditions? The data from Lake E is just one more strong confirmation of this– hence the fake skeptics must work twice as hard to deny and obfuscate.
The paleo-climate data show anything you really want them to show.
1. start with a hypothesis
2. (cherry) pick out a suitable period in our planet's distant geological past
3. gather some (dicey) proxy data
4. apply a subjective analysis to these data using argument from ignorance
5. conclude that your hypothesis was correct
If step 4 did not achieve objective, modify data accordingly or (in worst case) go back to step 2 and repeat.
This is not much better than reading tea leaves or animal entrails.
If these are the only "data" you have to quantify the CO2 temperature effect, you are in deep trouble.
The paleoclimate data do not show "whatever we want them to." This is a very sad attempt on your part to discredit this extremely valuable window into Earth's past. But as the data seem to continually show sensitivity to higher CO2 at the Earth system level is higher than fake-skeptics would like, it certainly makes sense that you need to discredit this data or your whole denialist mantra goes into the crapper.
captdallas 0.8 or less | May 12, 2013 at 8:36 am |
R. Gates, "The paleoclimate data do not show "whatever we want them to." This is a very sad attempt on your part to discredit this extremely valuable window into Earth's past."
Actually, that is not true. Paleo data can show just about anything you like. That is a problem that requires a standard methodology to avoid. Since high frequency Paleo climate reconstructions are fairly new science, that has not been done yet.
climatereason | May 12, 2013 at 8:41 am |
I Linked to this yesterday
It is very difficult to see the sensitivity you mention in the historic record even to 1538. The period 1538 to 1498 appears very similar to today. I have also done a lot of research around the 1258 AD period-you will remember we had an interesting discussion on this a few months ago.
I posed two possibilities in the article as to whether we have about reached the level of sensitivity at 300ppm or whether temperatures will eventually shoot up in tandem with co2 concentrations and render the historic record as merely a blip on an upwards path.
Don't forget this upwards path is already evident for the 350 years of instrumental recotrd
Captn. D,
The science behind the analysis of the sediment cores from Lake E is not really new at all, only the actual analysis of those cores is new. Lake E sediment core analysis provides a unique opportunity to look much further into Earth's past than other techniques at a higher degree of confidence than we've previously had. That this analysis seems to indicate a pretty high level of Earth system sensitivity to changes in CO2 levels is disturbing to those fake-skeptics who would wish for other results. To honest skeptics who only wish for clarity, Lake E data is a goldmine.
JCH | May 12, 2013 at 9:12 am |
Take the data, Max, and make a graph that does not show this. Then bring Wegman in and see if you pass.
Lol. Feynman is so proud. By dismissing anything contrary to his personal political beliefs, Max is obviously being extra careful to not fool himself. The hijacked Feynman says, "Bravo Max!"
R. Gates, "That this analysis seems to indicate a pretty high level of Earth system sensitivity to changes in CO2 levels is disturbing to those fake-skeptics who would wish for other results."
Actually, the analysis indicates a high level of temperature variability at the region of the lake. Determining a "sensitivity" of the temperatures at that location to CO2 is much more involved.
During the last glacial maximum there are indications that North America had glaciers covering vast areas to great depths while Siberia was covered by a large fresh water lake. The methane that is outgasing in Siberia now was carbon dated to ~90ka and the organic matter below the Alaskan permafrost is dated to ~ 30ka. Regional climate can have huge shifts near the poles while "global" climate remains within a +/- 2 degree range.
http://www.clim-past.net/9/367/2013/cp-9-367-2013.html
Climate "Sensitivity" also appears to be sensitive to internal ocean heat transport. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009PA001809/abstract
Currently, the northern hemisphere oceans are 3C warmer than the southern hemisphere oceans, consistent with the last paper linked. If you used the paleo temperature estimates from one polar region and compare them to data from the other polar region, you can get fruit salad. Much more tasty than just apples and oranges.
As I said, without standard methods, you can find just about any condition you like :)
Remember that a large percentage of the CET (and tropospheric temperatures globally) is driven by ocean-atmosphere energy exchange rates, and thus, as you know, cycles like the AMO, PDO, and ENSO provide a large degree of the short-term and decadal variability in the tropospheric temperature record. Additional, volcanic activity affects both tropospheric and ocean energy directly and this provides another source of natural variability. The gradual increase in anthropogenic CO2, though rapid by geological and historic standards, is providing a long-term forcing to the climate, not unlike adding a single down feather to a jacket each winter. The long-term Earth system sensitivity to the additional GH gas molecules is high (if the paleoclimate data is to be believed) but this long-term forcing is hard to extract from short-term natural variability factors described above. Bottom line: you won't see CO2 increases or decreases reflected very well on the short time scales in the tropospheric record, but when looking at multi-decadal and longer, the long term forcing shows up in both ocean and troposphere temperature records and the Earth system is shown to be highly sensitive to something like a doubling of CO2.
It is a shame you are no longer able to post at WUWT as we do miss counter views.
I have gone back to 1538, am well on the way to 1498 and have intermittent evidence of the period 300 years prior to that but not good enough to make any sort of claims.(1258 is very interesting!)
This should be long enough to be able to isolate any short term/one off factors.
We see a rise in temperature since 1660. That predates the Mann/Hansen rise by over 200 years. It is quite clear that our part of the earth was slowly warming up all that time, not declining as per Dr Mann, which is why the temperature suddenly shoots up in the hockey stick.
We can see co2 rising at several points but then a decline in temperatures such as post 1950 and around 1880 and today
Any objective observer-and I accept it is difficult to find those -would possibly comment that if co2 does affect temperature-which radiative physics demonstrates it does-any effect seems to have concluded at 280/300.
Joshua | May 12, 2013 at 9:34 am |
manacker –
A nice description – allow me to modify it a bit to describe better what you did in the previous thread:
1. start with a hypothesis [about the impact of clmategate]
2. (cherry) pick out a[n un] suitable period in our planet's distant geological past poll
3. gather some (dicey) proxy data don't bother to gather any data
4. apply a subjective analysis to these data using argument from ignorancebased on nothing other than wishful thinking and projection
1258 of course was a big volcano year. Also, you need to really consider the full Earth system in your considerations. The long-term effects of gradually increasing GH gases will be best seen when considering the total energy of ocean+cryosphere+biosphere+atmosphere. Focusing just on troposphere will find you chasing much more short-term natural variability as it has such low thermal inertia and lower overall heat content. By adding in the changes we've seen in the oceans and cryosphere over the past three or four decades we see an Earth system undergoing pretty rapid change, meaning of course that Earth system level sensitivity to the external forcing from additional GH gases is high, just as the paleoclimate data is confirming.
climatereason | May 12, 2013 at 10:50 am |
Nevertheless the facts remain that we can not observe any changes of any material amount between co2 at 280/300 (icy and warm juxtaposed) and those of the era since 1880 to the present day. Yes Glaciation shows a general warming that has been in train for hundreds of years (oceans much less certain) but equally there have been notable periods of glacial advance and retreat throughout the record to 0AD (as far back as I have gone)
You said; "1258 was a big volcano year.."
Yes, but with what effect? Here is Dr Mann with more of his modelling to try to justify his viewpoints
.http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n3/abs/ngeo1394.html
How does he get away with this sort of stuff?
In my previous comment, the sentence should have read:
"We CAN'T even accurately model the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice!"
Max_OK | May 11, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
I posted this before but got no response. It could be no one knows the answer, or few saw the post. I'll try again.
The National Review web site says it has a court date with Michael Mann next month. Back in January the National Review filed a motion to dismiss Mann's suit pursuant to the D.C. anti-slapp act. Is National Review referring to this motion when it says a court date next month, or has the motion been denied?
pokerguy | May 11, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
I don't know, but I hope not. Want to see this thing through and see what comes out. I've a feeling Mann's filed one too many lawsuits.
Sorry, that was unclear on my part. Bottom line, let the feathers fly.
GaryM | May 11, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
It looks like motions are set for hearing on June 19. Since the briefs were finished February 1, this is probably a hearing on the anti-slapp motions.
https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf
Thanks, GaryM. It does look like a hearing on the motion is coming up, so that must be what the National Review was referring to.
I don't know what all the returned mail is about.
'With respect to climate signals, the highest degree of seasonal predictability occurs during La Niñas that are concurrent with the negative mode of the PDO. This is a result of the increase in frequency of negative PNA pattern (zonal) during negative modes of the PDO (Bond and Harrison, 2000).' http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.686/pdf
This year started off fairly warm but is cooling rapidly as La Niña evolves in the eastern Pacific. It is an early and dramatic cooling of the eastern Pacific -it has me wondering just how substantial this event could be.
In particular Arctic temps are nowhere near as high as last year and will remain very much cooler.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Longer term – decadally – it is difficult not to anticipate a cooling influence for the Arctic from an intensifying Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm
http://nzc.iap.ac.cn/uploadpdf/Relationship_between_Arctic_Oscillation_and_Pacific_Decadal_Oscillation_on_decadal_timescale.pdf
So we have a year that is nowhere near the top 10 in temps – and some longer term cooling possible if not probable.
I would use 1999 as an indicator of September ice extent – 5.7 million km2
I suggest that the 8th of May should be declared the International CO2 Day.
It could be acceptable to both sides of the argument:
-AGW should stop 'emitting' any CO2, save breading out the obnoxious gas.
– Sceptics should consume more fizzy drinks, to liberate the captive CO2.
How about it then?
vukcevic | May 11, 2013 at 6:10 pm said: "I suggest that the 8th of May should be declared the International CO2 Day"
Don't you dare changing the "International CO2 Day" from first of April to 8th of May!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
vukcevic
I'll go for Veuve Cliquot brut as my "fizzy drink".
Who's buying?
I think its either Bob or Jim according to who gets the nearest to the sea ice extent, but I could have misunderstood….
Here's my take on economic impacts of climate change.
We can take the damage as proportional to the excess CO2 over 350 ppm. Let's say mitigation keeps us at 600 ppm instead of going to 750 ppm. the damage saved is 150 ppm worth, but the damage unmitigated is 250 ppm worth, which is much greater. Adaptation has to pay for this 250 ppm even if mitigation had that much effect. However cost-benefit analyses I have seen only look at the cost of the 150 ppm (or in many cases less) mitigation versus that of the raised revenue, not the cost of the adaptation to 250 ppm that is also to be paid for. The bottom line is that revenue has to be raised for adaptation too. That will likely be the largest cost in this century even if some small fraction is mitigated. The real costs of adaptation seem to be a blind spot. Carbon tax revenues have to be saved for adaptation while also funding replacement technologies for fossil fuels.
Jim D | May 11, 2013 at 7:09 pm said: "Adaptation has to pay for this 250 ppm even if mitigation had that much effect"
you'll get the middle finger, as contribution from me. You start calculating how much interest on the money squandered for the PHONY GLOBAL warming will cost; after the money is returned to the Urban Sheep
It either comes out of a carbon tax or out of your income tax, you choose, unless you are in a poor country where charity may help you.
Jim D | May 11, 2013 at 10:43 pm SAID: "It either comes out of a carbon tax or out of your income tax, you choose"
Don't spend those money; I'll be asking; not just for the money back, but modest interest on those money also. You don't bring GLOBAL warming – castration will be reintroduced, with a very blunt scissors !!!!!!!!!!
So, your problem is NOT to prevent GLOBAL warming, but to produce one. Warming is inside your head, and will stay there; not in nature
You might at least agree that there are some clowns who don't see the sea-ice melting, the deep ocean and land warming as a sign of anything even possibly happening.
You write (in your "take on economic impacts of climate change"):
We can take the damage as proportional to the excess CO2 over 350 ppm.
Why 350 ppmv? We are now at 394 ppmv and there has been absolutely no "damage" so far. So let's start with 394 ppmv.
Let's say mitigation keeps us at 600 ppm instead of going to 750 ppm. . the damage saved is 150 ppm worth, but the damage unmitigated is 250 ppm worth, which is much greater.
When? By 2100? By 2200? By 2300?
Let's ASS-U-ME it's 2100. Based on expected population growth over the rest of this century and a 30% increase in per capita fossil fuel usage worldwide, we could possibly reach 640 ppmv by 2100 (not 750 ppmv).
And based on some pretty ambitious plans to replace say 50% of all the new power plants built worldwide from coal or natural gas to nuclear, we could reduce the cumulated CO2 emissions by 2100 by around 540 GtCO2.
This would reduce atmospheric CO2 by around 35 ppmv (not "150 ppmv" – and certainly not "250 ppmv").
So, instead of 640 ppmv, we'd only have 605 ppmv.
And at the IPCC AR4 mean 2xCO2 ECS of 3.2°C we would have theoretically averted 0.25°C warming by 2100 (assuming we reach "equilibrium").
This is peanuts, Jim – and it is very likely a high estimate, since latest 2xCO2 ECS estimates are around half the AR4 estimate.
The "damage" of 0.25°C added warming is indistinguishable from nil (zero, zilch, nada).
So, no "carbon tax" justified or needed!
manacker, while it is good that you have signed on to the global carbon reduction policy and think it can be effective, I am not so sure. The more likely political scenarios put us either in excess of 700 ppm, or the developing countries have to be prevented from increasing their per capita carbon to those of developed countries somehow.
@Peter Lang | May 12, 2013 at 7:20 pm |
We need to be sure to factor in the damages already being done by expensive wind and solar.
jim2 | May 12, 2013 at 7:49 pm
You should be happy that America's arch-enemies, countries such as Denmark and Spain, are choosing the suicidal route. As they go spinning down the drain, more oil for us. Factored in, check.
Dripping sarcasm.
jim2 | May 13, 2013 at 9:04 am |
@WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | May 12, 2013 at 11:18 pm |
I don't want the US to be anything like Denmark. However, we are going down the same drain they have.
From a Dane …
"According to the 2012 Economic Freedom of the World report, America's economic freedom has declined so greatly that it has plummeted to 18th place, even trailing behind Denmark. Now more than ever, America's capitalistic society is threatened by burdensome government and a bloated entitlement state. Increasing amounts of regulations continue to come down the pipeline, making it harder for entrepreneurs and small businesses to create value.
Growing up in Denmark, I've seen this picture before. If America doesn't want socialism its people must wake up and heed the lessons being played out in counties around the world – like Denmark.. If America doesn't want socialism it must seek politicians and policies that allow the individual to have more liberty and freedom. If America doesn't want socialism it must act now. But America must first answer the questions…. Does America Want Socialism?
More on that wonderful bastion of "green" energy, Denmark.
"Here are some fun facts about Denmark. Or, facts about Denmark you would find outrageous if you have ever been in a free country.
Being born and raised in Denmark, I recently returned there after 8 years of enjoying the freedom of Mexico. It was very strange to go back and see how what had once been normal for me now baffled me. And when asking other Danes about these things I found their reactions to seem very unusual. To them, that is just the way it is."
http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2012/3/21/denmark-socialisms-prize-nation-slave-state.html
In Denmark, the State even runs over the unions. It is such a wonderful country. It has the highest taxes in Europe. Quite a feat! >= 50%. God, why can't we be more like Denmark?
"The dispute arose because the main teachers' union did not want to sign up to a new collective agreement put forward by KL, which sought to change their working week. This led to KL barring teachers from their places of work without pay from 2April. The Danish model suffered a further blow when parliament then passed a law that decided the terms and conditions of Danish teachers ostensibly without consulting them. The DFL argues that the lockout was premature and heavy-handed and the law unfairly one-sided in favour of the local authorities."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/10/denmark-model-teaching-system
Jim2,
Not only does green Denmark have the highest taxes in Europe, it's electricity has near the highest CO2 emissions intensity in Europe (according to David Mackay, "Sustainable Energy – Without the hot air" p335, http://www.withouthotair.com/cI/page_335.shtml )
Jim D and Manacker,
you are both talking about damage in units of ppv and degrees C temperature. These are not units of damage. Damage is most commonly in units of "$", or sometimes in other units such as fatalities, work-days-lost etc.
What is the damage, in "$" of your projected ppv and temperature by 2100?
Peter Lang, how much would it cost to relocate New York or London or at least build flood walls around them? I can't make that kind of dollar estimate.
Pater Lang
As indicated above, my estimate of the "damage" in $ resulting from "0.25°C added warming is indistinguishable from nil (zero, zilch, nada)." [This is the amount of global warming we could theoretically avoid with a program of building nukes rather than coal/gas power plants in the future, assuming that 50% of the world's new or replacement capacity were switched from coal/gas to nuclear.]
This is based on a "no regrets" approach.
I've arbitrarily picked "50%", because a) there are some locations (near a gas field or coal mine) where it would not make economic sense to build a nuclear plant and b) because there are some paces with unstable governments, where one would not want to build a nuclear plant as a result of proliferation concerns.
If you arbitrarily pick 80% instead of 50%, you get a slightly higher reduction in global warming by 2100 (still under 0.5°C, so nothing to "write home about"). And the $ damage "avoided" is still indistinguishable from zero.
These estimates were made using the IPCC AR4 model-based estimates of 2xCIO2 ECS, which now appear to be exaggerated by a factor of ~2, based on more recent observation-based estimates.
This would make the "damage in $" averted by the switch "half of essentially zero".
Hope this answers your question.
Let's see if Jim D wants to give us his estimate.
PS As I've said to you before, I have absolutely no objection to "just in case" plans to make this switch as a "feel good" measure, assuming the political will can be mustered up to do it (since it is "no regrets" – and would make a helluva lot more sense than plopping windmills and solar panels with gas-fired backup plants for the 70+% of time they do not work); I just do not believe that it will change our future global climate one iota, and will thus not result in any averted "$ damages".
Looks like Jim D is playing the "ultimate disaster averted" card, rather than making a serious estimate of how much warming could be averted by which specific actionable proposal, resulting in how much damage avoided, expressed in $.
Typical of these doomsday guys – all hot air and no substance.
Sorry I misspelled your first name above (didn't mean to make a cleric out of you).
My whole point was that the ratio of cost per damage-avoided is not the full story. A lot of the cost, probably most, would go into damage repair (adaptation). You have to cost out the adaptation which would include at least flood, forest fire, and coastal damage/insurance, farming subsidies for droughts, which are real costs that increase with climate change. Mitigation likely only saves a fraction of this cost.
phatboy | May 12, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
Jim D, you're coming very close to admitting that mitigation is a waste of money.
phatboy, money is needed whether mitigation works or not. The no-regrets policy is to raise that money.
You stated that warming is damaging. But you measured damage in ppmv and degC. Those are not measures of damage. You are trying to make the point that CO2 emissions is damaging, but you haven't made any point at all. I am asking you how damaging? Its up to you to answer the question, not pose another question to try to imply damage costs but give no figures.
Thank you for your reply. My comment was meant to point out to others (not you because I know you understand this even though it wasn't clear in your comment, so I used your comment as a case in point) that they assume that an increase in temperature means damages exceed benefits. But that is not demonstrated. Until we understand the damage function and the uncertainties, we have next to no understanding the relationship between temperature increase and net benefits-damages.
I wasn't challenging you on your point's about estimating future temps. I was just trying to make the point to readers that temperature increase does not mean net damages. Stating a figure of ppmv or degrees C increase, tells us nothing about damages.
If people want to talk quantitatively (as opposed to emotionally) about net damages they need to use the correct units, such as "$: or "%GDP". For example, see Figure 1 in Lomborg's recent testimony to Congress: http://www.lomborg.com/sites/default/files/Congress_testimony_April_2013_3.pdf
As indicated above, my estimate of the "damage" in $ resulting from "0.25°C added warming is indistinguishable from nil (zero, zilch, nada)."
I suspect 0.25C would be net beneficial. In fact it seems likely up to 2C is likely to be net beneficial. It also seems likely that the limited number of studies done so far to determine the damage function (about 17 according to Tol), may be biased to give a high estimate of net damages. So, perhaps there is net benefit of warming throughout this century. I am not arguing that means we do not need to reduce emissions over the course of the century, just that warming may well be net beneficial for all or most of this century. Those two statements are not inconsistent or contradictory because of the time lag.
We do need to greatly improve our understanding of the damage function. The fact that people don't understand the difference between temperature and damage shows how badly off track the whole CAGW debate has got.
Peter Lang, search for – world bank 4c –
A report commissioned by the World Bank called "Turn Down the Heat – why a 4 C warmer world must be avoided" is worth looking at. I don't know how to estimate damage numbers from it but it certainly lists damage types which should enable someone with time on their hands and an economics background to make an estimate for the example of 4C. Since the damage varies regionally, would you estimate a global damage or just each country for itself? This is a moral issue too.
All this is included in the cost-benefit analyses. Your comments demonstrate you know zilch about the subject. If you are interested, I suggest you begin with Nordhaus "A Question of Balance": http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf
You'd learn a lot by reading this book (as would many others).
This new book by Richard Tol is also good: https://sites.google.com/site/climateconomics/
Nonsense. You are talking through your ass. Apparently you do not understand what "No Regrets" means.
A 'No Regrets' policy is net beneficial irrespective of any climate benefits. It does not raise money. It's cost is nil or less than zero in net benefit terms.
Correction: The last sentence should say:
"It's cost is nil or less than zero."
I don't know how to estimate damage numbers from it but it certainly lists damage types which should enable someone with time on their hands and an economics background to make an estimate for the example of 4C.
Jim D, If you can't find the estimates of net damages per degree of temperature increase and have no idea how to estimate them doesn't it ring alarm bells in your head. Don't you think the many alarmists would have been doing it and estimating the damages if they could make a case for action to cut emissions? The fact that they cannot make a substantive case is pretty obvious by now. If they could have they would have. Instead we get scaremongering alarmism and none of it stands up to scrutiny. Some of the alarmists have gone to the point of saying, in effect, we can't make a case to support our alarmist beliefs about damages at T2XCO2 = 3C, so lets assume it is 12C. Then they create doomsday scenarios to scare the population into action.
Very good point, Peter.
Alarmists like Jim D are unable to point to
a) any specific "$ damages" resulting from the theoretical GH warming projected by their models for the next century, or (even less) to
b) any of these expected "$ damages", which could be averted by any specific actionable mitigation proposals versus the $cost of implementing such actionable proposals including all unintended consequences.
So, instead, they simply come up with ridiculously exaggerated estimates of warming (like Sir Robert Watson's recent "7 degrees C" groaner) to simply frighten everyone.
Pretty transparent to me (and I imagine to many others, as well).
So you want me to come up with a cost number like 1% of the national or global GDP per year for each 100 ppm above 350 ppm for example. I call it a cost because the idea in a moral world is to prevent damage by being proactive in planning. Generally retrospective payment for damage is more expensive and can cost lives in addition.
Ted Carmichael | May 11, 2013 at 7:55 pm |
Hi, everyone. Here's something I'd love some expert weigh-in on.
There's been a lot of news lately about the 400 ppm milestone being reached soon. This is usually reported as being 1/3 higher than the 280/300 ppm assumed over the last 400,000 years. Often this is reported in even stronger terms, as "higher than we've ever seen, over a few million years."
This comparison seems fundamentally flawed to me and it drives me nuts. The record over the last 400k years usually comes from the Vostok ice core, which has an average precision of around 700 years (+/- 200 years). The Mauna Loa record, of course, is measured almost continuously, and is usually smoothed annually. And so the comparison is using two different yardsticks – an annual yardstick compared to a 700 year long one.
This is what I don't get: I've mentioned this a few times over the last couple of years, on blogs and in emails. The analogy I often use is that it's like trying to measure a person's height using your car's odometer. But the response I usually get is … "meh."
Am I really off-base with this criticism? I get that the Vostok resolution is smaller in recent centuries (due to less ice compaction) and longer at the tail-end. And I get that there are other proxies with higher resolution over the last few thousand years (and, of course, much greater concomitant variability). But it still seems a fatally flawed comparison to me.
What's the justification here, for really smart scientists saying, over and again, that the CO2 level is higher now than it's EVER been, whether over 400k years, or 4 million years? What's the smart argument, that says: if it had been there, we really could have seen 400 ppm in the record, say, 10,000 years ago? Or 50,000 years ago? I don't think I've ever seen anyone address this, except in the vaguest, hand-waving terms. (And the arguments get even more silly, IMO, when they talk about the *speed* in which CO2 has increased in the distant past. But that's all part of the same story.)
The answer has to do with how hard it is to get this amount of CO2 out of the surface system once it is there. Even if we stopped now, it would stay high for centuries. Any past events would also have done that. There is no quick way for CO2 levels to go down again.
sunshinehours1 | May 11, 2013 at 10:04 pm |
Thank god. If CO2 started dropping it might resume warming.
Jim D | May 11, 2013 at 8:34 pm said: " There is no quick way for CO2 levels to go down again"
CO2 goes down, get washed into the sea, by every rain, you idiot! Algae collect it -> because short, get covered by sediments – new grow on the top. For that deficit, people will be screaming in the future; when is not going to be enough CO2 for the trees &crops
I can tell when I have made a good point, because the responses are reduced to irrelevant gibberish.
AK | May 11, 2013 at 10:51 pm |
@Jim D…
Even if we stopped now, it would stay high for centuries. Any past events would also have done that. There is no quick way for CO2 levels to go down again.
Typical alarmist nonsense. It would be easy enough for humans to put it back within a few decades, given the right economic and political conditions. No special breakthroughs would be required (IMO), although a good deal of routing R&D would. Anybody really familiar with how our technology is developing would probably agree that, most likely, by the end of the century:
the real issue of atmospheric pCO2 will be keeping all those "free riders" from taking so much out for conversion to fuel, food, and construction material that they draw down the levels to the point where it kicks off another ice age. Assuming there really is a "greenhouse sensitivity". (Which IMO is likely but unproven.)
As for paleo-activity of this type, it's certainly conceivable. I don't know of any candidate events, the closest is the Eocene Azolla event, which took something like a million years to draw down the level from "3500ppm to 650ppm,[4] probably within that small 1.2 million year stretch.[5] " (see the blog post for refs). That's 5 orders of magnitude too slow, but I suppose we can envision something that much faster.
AK, a million years is not fast. There will be a lot of adapting to do in the meantime while we wait for the algae to do its work.
OK, I see that this article says it can be done in a few decades. You want to pin all the world's hopes on that, fine. I'm skeptical.
The algae could do it in 10 years if we help it along.
Apart from needing a large area of fresh water for this algae to grow, it needs harvesting and sequestering somewhere where the gases can't get back to the atmosphere. It would be a labor-intensive effort because nature doesn't do sequestering efficiently by itself, which is the point I was making in response to why CO2 levels couldn't also have been high in the recent past. It looks like you agreed that nature can't do this fast.
'The following proposals are needed global investments whether you believe in climate change or not. These proposals make financial sense, are doable without inventing any new technology and will be net gains for society and biodiversity at large. There are four main themes in this proposal:
I. Reforestation/Afforestation of 5 billion acres worldwide = 150 billion tons of carbon sequestration.
II. Earth repair and improved ecosystem management of existing forests and all other terrestrial ecosystems = 100 billion tons of carbon sequestration. This includes cities, forests, marshes, savannas, grasslands, steppes, and deserts. (I haven't tackled this equation yet, but this is a conservative estimate.)
III. Increasing the soil organic matter content by 1% on arable farmland worldwide = 43.86 billion tons of carbon sequestration (75.62 billions tons of soil organic matter which is 58% carbon). These figures are for the top one foot of the soil. Most farm soils in the world currently have between 1% and 3% organic matter levels.
IV. Mobilizing the people and resources to accomplish these goals.'
http://www.friendsofthetrees.net/articles/carbon2010.pdf
Over a hundred years of concerted human activity extracting hundreds of thousands years worth of gradually buried fossil fuels (i.e. concentrated prehistoric sunlight) and then releasing it as a nearly inert gas — while hoping it can be reversed in 10 years?
Color me skeptical too.
At best it will be a cosmetic or cloaking effect, not being able to remove the CO2 itself.
You say "it (CO2) would stay high for centuries", but that is just a guess on your part.
Table 1 of the IPCC TAR WG1 report says that the CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere before being removed is somewhere between "5 and 200 years" with the footnote: "No single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes."
Narrowing this down a bit, the long-term residence time of CO2 in our climate system has been estimated to equal a half-life of around 100-120 years. (Data presented at the Yale Forum by Zeke Hausfather).
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
(I am not referring to the short-term lifetime in the atmosphere of 5-15 years, as summarized by Tom Segalstad)
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
If we use the standard half-life calculation, this equates to a decay rate of 0.58% of the concentration annually or 2.3 ppmv/year at today's 394 ppmv.
Human activities (fossil fuels, cement, deforestation) add 30 GtCO2/year today. This calculates to an increase of 4.5 ppmv/year.
But Mauna Loa records tell us that we are only seeing an actual increase of 2.2 ppmv/year (roughly 49% of the "human emissions").
So are the "missing" 2.3 ppmv "leaving our climate system" in accordance with Zeke Hausfather's data?
And, if so, where are they going?
I'm not sure anyone really knows the answer to those questions.
AK | May 12, 2013 at 9:29 am |
it needs harvesting and sequestering somewhere where the gases can't get back to the atmosphere. It would be a labor-intensive effort
Actually, it would be a technology-intensive effort. Writing the post, I was primarily concerned with numbers, but actual designs for automated agriculture are so easily envisioned that I didn't think it would be necessary. We're not talking about a natural body of fresh water, but an artificial one. Or rather, smaller areas sub-divided by engineered structures.
Assume a single "field" consists of a strip of water 10 meters wide and a kilometer long (and a few inches deep, with an artificial bottom). As the azolla grows, the plants separate, so all you need to do to harvest it is sweep the appropriate amount away from one end each day. This could be done with simple, easily built and maintained structures. The equivalent of a simple floating boom.
Because your entire structure is floating on the ocean, harvesting machinery can move from one "field" to another either by floating around in the water or by submerging in the ocean and surfacing at the next field. The least expensive design would be a matter of engineering. While the expense of building floating machinery might today be greater than land-based machinery with wheels, that will probably change as floating agriculture matures as a technology.
Of course, my assumption that it would be floating is hardly necessary. (It was based on the notion that ocean real-estate would be so much cheaper than land that the extra technology would be cost-justified.) The technology for creating large areas of subdivided fresh water over hilly terrain is over 8000 years old.. Those were labor intensive, but modern technology could replace labor with automated processes. I would suggest replacing terraces made from clay (packed earth) with something made from fiber reinforced polymers. The latter probably could be made from azolla by chemical means. Or we could use a small fraction of the oil we're currently burning for it. Solar energy could probably be used to create fiber glass, without even converting to electricity and back, although the waste heat could be used for power generation followed by water distillation. (All such technology needn't be dedicated to this or any other function, it will almost certainly be widely used later this century for a variety of structures.)
Actually azolla is already used in rice agriculture, as "green manure", so the details of its cultivation are well known, at least in China. Rice paddies usually are flooded for only a part of the growing season, but intensive azollaculture could involve keeping the paddies flooded year-round. And the economics are impressive. Azolla is already cost-effective as green manure, it makes excellent fodder for sheep (and AFAIK cattle, pigs, and chickens), so introducing sequestration would just involve diverting part of the production. Initial development of the technology could be paid for by more traditional uses, and as the cost comes down, progressively more is diverted for sequestration.
Sequestering is actually pretty easy. Bundle it up and drop it an a deep ocean trench where the water is already anoxic. It might be necessary to wrap your bundles in concrete to prevent sulfer-cycle oxidation from returning the carbon to the biosphere. But they could be big bundles, dozens of meters across, with no more than a few millimeters of some sort of cement-based coating.
@WHUT…
There was a reason I called you a marxbot: your posts are clearly just motivated "thinking", looking for rationalizations why it's necessary to reverse the industrial revolution, or trying to discredit any suggestion that it isn't (and the suggesters). Putting carbon somewhere it won't return to the biosphere is hardly "a cosmetic or cloaking effect". Your knee-jerk rejection of this, and any other reason your ideological agenda isn't necessary demonstrates your real motivations. (If it wasn't knee-jerk, you surely would have seen that it's just as good as sequestering any other agricultural waste.)
willard (@nevaudit)' | May 12, 2013 at 9:52 am |
Have noticed how less stringent our contrarians become when they start to talk tech breakthroughs?
The sudden switch from conservative to progressive brokering is honestly a marvel to contemplate.
AK | May 12, 2013 at 10:07 am |
I guess being called a "contrarian" by a marxbot balances being called a warmist and a "chicken little alarmist" by denialbots. Makes me look even-handed.
I suspect the switch is from one commenter to another.
willard (@nevaudit)' | May 12, 2013 at 10:49 am |
> Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam; also known as [argument from] middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy)[1] is an informal fallacy which asserts that the truth can be found as a compromise between two opposite positions. This fallacy's opposite is the false dilemma.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
an informal fallacy which asserts that the truth can be found as a compromise between two opposite positions. This fallacy's opposite is the false dilemma.
I never said I was even-handed. OTOH I also never said there were only two hands. The constant sniping between marxbots and denialbots just makes finding any rational thought in these threads more difficult. Anyway, reference to "argumentum ad temperantiam" is a red-herring ("look! a squirrel!), just like reference to "contrarians" is false categorization.
manacker, yes, a given CO2 molecule may stay in the atmosphere for a much shorter time. For H2O molecule it is just days. Is it drying, no? The reason is equilibrium. There are massive fluxes in both directions maintaining a tight equilibrium ratio between the air and water surface. This is why half the emitted CO2 gets into the ocean almost immediately.
willard (@nevaudit)' | May 12, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
> The constant sniping between marxbots and denialbots just makes finding any rational thought in these threads more difficult.
By chance AK is here to save the discussion.
Let's all give him a lukewarm applause.
And what about Freeman's CO2 sucking trees?
They sure will be ready when we'll run out of FUNDs.
Well, they'd do just as well if something else doesn't. My point is that, as technology (esp. biotech) advances, more and more ways of extracting CO2 from the biosphere, and making cost-effective use of it, will pop up. The idea that we have to seriously worry about too much CO2 by 2100 is ludicrous. Unless, that is, we crash civilization. Of course, this doesn't mean there isn't a risk from increased pCO2 in the medium term (3-8 decades).
Steven Mosher | May 12, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
yes, hope trumps fear. selling climate change on fear was a mistake,
The roads to futurological arguments are paved with honestly brokered possibilitia.
You say that half of the CO2 emitted by humans "goes into the ocean almost immediately".
That's what the data collected by Tom Segalstad shows.
But does it "stay" there?
We (including you) do not know the answer to that question, as there are no meaningful comprehensive measurements
If we look at the data since Mauna Loa started, we see that the percentage of the CO2 emitted by humans that "remains" in the atmosphere has averaged around half, but that it has diminished over time, by around 1% per decade.
Over the 30 year period 1959-1989 it was around 55%; over the following 20+ years it was just over 50%.
An increasing portion "remaining" in a slightly warmer ocean does not make sense, so it must be going somewhere else.
It is clear from plant studies that plants grow faster and with less moisture requirement at elevated CO2 levels.
So it appears likely to me that plants are absorbing a higher %-age of the emitted CO2 as concentrations go up.
This could explain the "missing CO2".
The "take home" here, Jim, is that we do not know that "half of the CO2 emitted by humans remains in the ocean".
selling climate change on fear was a mistake,
You got that right, Mosh
"Crying wolf" only works once or twice – when people become aware that there is no "wolf", they lose interest.
Climategate, IPCC-gate, etc. took their toll but the "coup de grace" occurred when all those thermometers out there (even the ones next to heated buildings, AC exhausts and asphalt parking lots) started showing that the projected warming had stopped in its tracks despite unabated GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels.
Proving "honest Abe's" old saying about fooling folks.
manacker, yes, the other part is the changing biosphere which is much less predictable. If reforestation or soil management efforts succeed, this could be helped. As the ocean warms, its own CO2 absorbing effect will diminish, so this has to be compensated at least.
willard (@nevaudit)' | May 12, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
Doubt and Uncertainty are better products.
Manacker seems bufuddled when he says:
Well, I cleared up any misconceptions the poor fellow has in this blog post:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/05/airborne-fraction-of-co2-explained-by.html
" Your knee-jerk rejection of this, and any other reason your ideological agenda isn't necessary demonstrates your real motivations. "
I certainly hope that your idea works, but as Woody Allen once said, hope is "not the thing with feathers".
I've heard it in the chillest land –
And on the strangest Sea –
Yet – never – in Extremity,
It asked a crumb – of me.
Emily Dickinson – the Woody Allen book was called Without Feathers
Steven Mosher | May 12, 2013 at 8:52 pm |
It's more than that as a number of savy opinion makes/changers have tried to point out to the climerati. It's not that there is no wolf, because there is a wolf. It's that people get exhausted by a constant message of fear, especially when the fear is decades off, especially when they make sacrifices, higher energy bills, and see no results. That insight has taken hold a little bit in the climerati so they switched up the message to "extremes" happening now and that turn to immediate fears works better, except the solution, adaptation, doesnt fit the mitigation agenda.
Finally, when they do pitch "hope" they pitch hope in the following way.
"if we let the government pick renewable energy winners, then we hope for more green jobs." That message works fine for the already convinced, but fails miserably with conservatives. Every time I consider the hundreds of millions wasted on Solyndra, a certain failure from the start, I can only wonder where we would be if we "wasted" that money on basic research, certainly we'd be no worse off.
On hope (and feathers,) from me 'Book
of Feathers.'
Darkling Thrush.
In bleakest winter
storms, still your full throated
sweet song: ' I am here.'
AK.
"Efforts so far have concentrated on raising the price of energy to the point that non-fossil alternatives can compete. However, given the general unworkability of that approach (IMO), a focus on increased research and development of, and perhaps subsidies for, processes that remove CO2 from the air are likely to be the best approach."
There are several ways this can be done so its not pie in the skyism as some resident hopeless fear mongers presume. In fact, capture is part of IPCC projections at 2050. Depending on the technology you see costs that run less than a couple hundred dollars per ton, an effective cap on any carbon tax. Direct air capture is several hundred dollars per ton. Get that below 100 per ton, and game changed instantly. Lastly, Suggest carbon capture and folks who dont dare cross the thin greenline will flip out. That signals something about their real agenda. Its not about carbon.
AK | May 12, 2013 at 9:43 pm |
@Steven Mosher…
Depending on the technology you see costs that run less than a couple hundred dollars per ton, an effective cap on any carbon tax. Direct air capture is several hundred dollars per ton.
Have costs of recovery from sea-water been considered? There's a lot more in the form of bicarbonate. I did see a paper (linked here, but I don't have it off hand) about using an electrolytic process to separate CO2 from water.
Get that below 100 per ton, and game changed instantly.
I can think of several approaches off the top of my head, but…
Lastly, Suggest carbon capture and folks who dont dare cross the thin greenline will flip out. That signals something about their real agenda. Its not about carbon.
Hello! Preaching the the choir here. That's why I call them marxbots. Not that they're necessarily Marxists, per se, but Marx (AFAIK) pioneered the use of pseudo-scientific bunkum as a cover for an ideological agenda, and anybody even roughly in his camp deserves the name. IMO.
AK,
I dont find the term marxbots to be helpful and for most of the folks here I dont think it applies.
as for other methods of C02 removal… hmm start with wikipedia and then go to primary sources.
Hmm say we put 10 Billion tons of carbon a year in the atmosphere.
at 100 a ton to remove it, thats a Trillion dollars a year. 2% of GDP.
thats on the order of the cost of mitigation. It makes sense to bet
a few billion on driving that cost down. It makes more sense to bet billions on that rather than stupid loans to the likes of Solyndra.
So you look at those two solutions: one that lives on the hope that governments will sign a treaty and abide by a treaty to prevent stupid people from doing a bad thing and the other that lives on the hope that scientists and engineers will figure out a cheap way of cleaning up a mess.
Now of course C02 removed from the air can also be turned into a fuel.. If the cost of removal gets low enough we have an entirely different can of worms.
Practically speaking people need to be experimenting with a wide variety of solutions. BC is experimenting with a tax, that should be looked at.
Ireland is doing a different tax experiment.. The Brits are doing another.
Did Norway give up their tax when their emissions went up? not sure.
The US could do what it does best and fund basic research into carbon removal. you know invent stuff. The chinese, of course, will make it cheaper.
I don't know why you're so set on removal from the air rather than the ocean, which itself can remove it from the air. Most of the processes I've been considering are biotech-based, using hydrogenophiles. Which are all obligatory anaerobes. So I can see very great value in an immediate research investment in membrane materials (presumably polymers) with high diffusivity for bi-carbonate, and a very low one for molecular oxygen.
For air removal, materials with a high diffusivity for CO2 and a low one for O2 would be very nice, but I'm not going to hold my breath. (Biological systems that use CO2, such as Rubisco, tend to be poisoned by O2 due to similarities in the molecules as seen by enzymes.)
However, exposure of very alkaline solutions to air will probably be sufficient to capture CO2, especially if they are well provided with soluble carbonic anhydrase (CA). For instance, there is a CA coded in the genome of the alkalinophile Microcoleus chthonoplastes that appears to work well in alkaline solutions:
The maximum activity of the recombinant CA was detected at alkaline pH (∼9.0) and its minimum – at neutral pH (∼7.0). [Kupriyanova et al. (2011)]
Some fairly routine gene surgery would probably be sufficient to produce a highly soluble version, although that won't be certain until its structure is determined. The native enzyme appears to be located "in cell envelopes of M. chthonoplastes.", which might require removing the part of the enzyme that attaches it.
Work is already under weigh studying the use of CA's in CO2 capture systems [da Costa Ores et al. (2012)], IMO a powerful focus (i.e. research money) on large-scale bio-production of CA's from alkalinophiles would pay for itself in much more rapid decrease in prices of carbon capture systems. Once you have it as bi-carbonate in alkaline solution, you can push it across a membrane with high diffusivity for bi-carbonate, and a very low one for molecular oxygen, by drawing down the carbonate levels using methanogens, as considered in my latest post.
There is a variety of alkalinophile methanogens, such as Methanobacterium alcaliphilum [Worakit et al. (1986)] that could probably be used as the starting point for some biotech work leading to effective conversion to methane. These bacteria (actually archaea) use hydrogen, which could be provided at high pressures compared to what the wild organisms use. Although further research would be required to be certain, I'm pretty sure that systems based on these species could draw down CO2 sufficiently to drive diffusion out of the atmosphere.
If you want something other than methane, a similar process could probably be used to create acetate, which could be hydrolyzed to methane and CO2, or de-hydrolyzed to form aceto-acetate which could be fed into a system based on enzymes from the Krebbs and Calvin cycles. Or feed it directly into the Calvin cycle, to create glucose and other carbohydrates for feedstocks.
All of these processes would combine carbon capture with production of useful materials, starting with hydrogen from electrolysis.
Note that I've read only the abstracts of these references:
da Costa Ores et al. (2012) Purification of carbonic anhydrase from bovine erythrocytes and its application in the enzymic capture of carbon dioxide by Joana J da Costa Ores, Luisa L Sala, Guido Picaluga GP Cerveira, Susana Juliano SJ Kalil Chemosphere Volume 88, Issue 2, June 2012, Pages 255–259 doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.03.059
Kupriyanova et al. (2011) Extracellular β-class carbonic anhydrase of the alkaliphilic cyanobacterium Microcoleus chthonoplastes by Kupriyanova EV, Sinetova MA, Markelova AG, Allakhverdiev SI, Los DA, Pronina NA J Photochem Photobiol B 2011 Apr 4;103(1):78-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2011.01.021
Worakit et al. (1986) Methanobacterium alcaliphilum sp. nov., an H2-Utilizing Methanogen That Grows at High pH Values by SUCHADA WORAKIT, DAVID R. BOONE, ROBERT A. MAH1, MOHIY-ELDIN ABDEL-SAMIE, M. M. EL-HALWAGI IJSEM July 1986 vol. 36 no. 3 380-382 doi: 10.1099/00207713-36-3-380
Steven Mosher | May 13, 2013 at 11:04 am |
"I don't know why you're so set on removal from the air rather than the ocean, which itself can remove it from the air. Most of the processes I've been considering are biotech-based, using hydrogenophiles. "
Err, I'm not set on anything except a vigorous research program into a variety of solutions.
I was responding to this:
Direct air capture is several hundred dollars per ton. Get that below 100 per ton, and game changed instantly.
I don't understand why taking it out of the ocean doesn't have the same effect. I guess I worded it poorly.
I'm interested in "a vigorous research program into a variety of solutions" too, and see my most useful contribution as suggesting lines for research in case they haven't already been considered. Of course, if/when somebody offers a valid potential issue, I'm interested in trying to find a solution, but what I see here is mostly specious rationalizations from "folks who dont dare cross the thin greenline".
Recalling a NOVA episode from about a month ago, on satellites and what they are showing scientists, there was a section that talked about huge micro plankton blooms which scientists were previously unaware of and surprised by the size of. I believe the number was estimated to be in the gigatons annually.
My personal opinion is that discussing how long CO2 would remain with any sort of certainty is likely premature, as our knowledge of the carbon cycle still has huge blank spots.
Ted, you write "Am I really off-base with this criticism? "
What you have to realise, Ted, is that on Climate Etc.there seem to be two completely different meanings to the words "estimate" and "measure". There is one lot of people who maintain that there is no categorical difference between "estimate" and "measure". So this means that the data from Mauna Loa is no different from the paleo records. Hence they can make the claim that we are now at the highest level ever recorded.
I maintain that "estimate" and "measure" mean two completely different processes. So to me, the Mauna Loa data, and the paleo data cannot be compared, and we have no idea whether current levels are the highest in history or not. I suspect this is where a lot of your confusion comes from.
My interpretation would be as follows. Say resolution of the ice cores is 700 years. Assume then that any excursion of [CO2] from the smoothed curve of the ice core data would require persistence of, say four or five points – a duration of, say, 3,000 to 4,000 years. Aside from a period of gigantic, concentrated volcanic activity, for which there would undoubtedly be independent evidence, it is difficult for me to imagine any natural phenomenon of a scale that could generate a detectable global perturbation on atmospheric [CO2] on such a short timescale. Can you think of any phenomenon that could do so? I understand your discomfort with the ice core resolution, but in the absence of a credible hypothesis for which this low resolution would be a problem, it doesn't seem like a fruitful use of time and energy to me.
Ted Carmichael | May 11, 2013 at 7:55 pm said: "There's been a lot of news lately about the 400 ppm milestone being reached soon. This is usually reported as being 1/3 higher than the 280/300 ppm assumed over the last 400,000 years"
WRONG! the biggest CO2 emission happened, after human invented to produce fire artificially. Before that, the planet was covered in mulch and forest. By rubbing two sticks, human released much more CO2 than will ever release by burning coal.
Bringing water in Sahara, can absorb more CO2 than what's in all the coal reserves. BUT, bringing water there, like turning Congo river north, to atract clouds and improve the climate, would costs money; and must be done by engineers and working people – they prefer to squander the money on fear mongering propaganda…
Edim | May 12, 2013 at 1:19 am |
Yes, it's very uncertain how much background atmospheric CO2 was before ~1960.
Pure rubbish, Edim.
Edim's right and you're wrong about the certainty regarding estimates of atmospheric CO2 levels prior to Mauna Loa.
There are studies based on ice cores (Siegenthaler et al. 1986, for example) but there are also conflicting data (Beck).
Edim said it is VERY uncertain how much background atmospheric CO2 was before ~1960. This statement is flat out rubbish. Quite the opposite is true– we have a high degree of certainty what the background CO2 was prior to ~1960, and can reliable go back many tens of thousands of years with a high degree of certainty using multi-proxy techniques from different global sites that all confirm the same ranges. Odd how solid science works, eh?
What we know is that CO2 is at the highest levels for many millions of years, and that the last time it was this high was in the Pliocene and human ancestors were of the Australopithecus variety and there was very little ice anywhere on the planet and the oceans were far higher.
You exude unwarranted overconfidence with your statement:
What we know is that CO2 is at the highest levels for many millions of years…(etc.)
But, even if you were right, so what?
I think the data from Lake E is pretty convincing. Last time CO2 levels were this high, human ancestors were Australopithecus and it was the Pliocene.
As to the "so what?" part. The question arises if humans can feed and provide fresh water to the 7+ billion of us under a Pliocene climate. We are a pretty clever species, so I have faith, but we need tone prepared for what may come.
phatboy | May 12, 2013 at 8:21 am |
Up to little more than one lifespan ago, we were having difficulty feeding a global population a fraction of the size it is now.
willard (@nevaudit) | May 12, 2013 at 11:33 pm |
> I never said I *was* even-handed.
Indeed, only that:
> Makes me look even-handed.
Thus, it only makes AK looks like he's appealing to moderation. Unless, of course, AK considers that being even-handed is worse than being a Marxbot or a denialbot. After all, we never said AK was appealing to moderation.
AK does not look like a logicbot.
sunshinehours1 | May 11, 2013 at 8:08 pm |
CO2 increases of 80ppm to 100ppm are normal
" Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere."
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/co2-increases-of-80ppm-to-100ppm-are-normal/
These are not net increases because the ocean loses what the atmosphere gains in warming events like deglaciations. What is happening now is a net increase not seen since paleo volcanic periods such as in the Eocene.
Since our deglaciation hasn't ended, we don't know how much of a net increase there will be.
However we do know 80 to 100ppm increases without an anthropogenic component occurred because of the warming.
" carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming"
So most of our CO2 increase could be just the lagged value resulting from the MWP.
Yes, I should have mentioned that less than 10% in the last couple of centuries is warming, the rest is anthropogenic emissions.
sunshinehours1 | May 12, 2013 at 12:05 am |
I think the previous deglaciations prove that at least 100ppm could warming and could have nothing to do with humans.
"I should have mentioned that less than 10% in the last couple of centuries is warming, the rest is anthropogenic emissions."
Given a lot of that warming is caused by man's emissions it is even less than that. 5%? 2%?
sunshine, the last deglaciation showed that it took a 6-10 C rise to add 100 ppm (from 190 to 290 ppm). We haven't had that kind of rise since pre-industrial times (yet), but ocean outgassing can be a significant factor in future climate change.
I admit there was a 6-10C rise in temperatures without humans. And the Holocene rise is still less than that.
Beth Cooper | May 12, 2013 at 9:01 am |
Carbon the stuff of life.
Alexander Biggs | May 11, 2013 at 8:19 pm |
Recent changrs in climate theory. Which is right>
The theory used to be that CO2 absorbed vast quantites of heat from the earth's radiation of IR into space, although no one was anle to ecplain exactly how a rare gas could be so powerful.. The new theory is that CO2 traps the heat but the rising temperature of the atmosphere shifts its IR radiation to a longer wavelength were water vapor absorbs more of the heat. The protaganists of the new theory point out that this process results in H20 being amplified in in its absorption powers. It certainy sounds more digestable but which theory is correct?
you are confused. It's the same theory. And how a trace gas like CO2 can absorb vast amounts of IR has been explained ad nauseum.
Alexander Biggs | May 12, 2013 at 10:03 pm |
lolwot – OK, It could only be the vibrational modes of CO2 that could give it the amazing powers to absorb energy, since its kinetic powers are not that different from O2 and N2. Of course, CO2's elements are all isotopic so there are potentially many vibrational modes, alrthogh some may merge if close together. As far as I am aware the IPCC has never explaine which modes are important and how they all add up to give CO2 its amazing powers. By blaming H2O the new theory attemts to pass the blame to water and avoid the difficilt CO2 questions. above.
Of course he's confused. And you're making it worse. On purpose. IIRC the chapter of our hostess' Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans that deals with the greenhouse effect was available for open access, although I couldn't find it with a quick search. Why not point him there, and if he's still confused tell him to learn calculus?
Alexander Biggs | May 12, 2013 at 10:03 pm said: " By blaming H2O the new theory attemts to pass the blame to water and avoid the difficilt CO2 questions. above"
Alex, water vapor is not guilty; same CO2 is not. If you wan't to know why they are blaming water; and why they are completely wrong: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/water-vapor/
Don Aitkin posted an interesting post a few days ago on his web site. It included this:
'In this note we conclude that:
1) Policy-makers have grossly underestimated the difficulties and risks of their drive to decarbonise the power sector.
2) Policy-makers have failed to take into account huge changes in the economic, commodity and financial environments, and adjusted policy accordingly.
3) The economic arguments supporting the current climate-change-dominated energy policy look weak, and public support is uncertain.
4) Given the hostile rhetoric that utility companies face today from across the political spectrum on charges and profits, it takes quite a leap of faith to believe that future governments will steadfastly defend the huge increases in charges and profits that will inevitably result from current policy.
5) Political risk is bound to rise sharply in the energy space in the coming years, as the inherent implausibility and contradictory nature of the policy goals are exposed by events.
6) A crisis in energy policy looks increasingly likely and therefore utility companies, and investors, would be prudent in limiting their future exposure.'
http://donaitkin.com/which-party-has-a-sensible-energy-policy/
He references that to an excellent recent report titled: A Crisis in UK Energy Policy Looks Inevitable http://liberum.eu.bdvision.ipreo.com/NSightWeb_v2.00/Handlers/Document.ashx?i=e7f798d1a60646efb76a03a030054be9
kim | May 11, 2013 at 10:45 pm |
Too bad there are no Republicans in Great Britain to blame.
It wasn't Bush?
I agree with all six points, but the true believers are ridiculous. Check out this Climate Progress piece:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/09/1988391/more-wind-in-pjms-sails-could-save-consumers-69-billion-per-year/
stefanthedenier | May 12, 2013 at 12:02 am |
Jim D commented: "Apart from needing a large area of fresh water for this algae to grow, it needs harvesting and sequestering somewhere where the gases can't get back to the atmosphere"
Jim D, the algae plant themselves, in the sea, forget freshwater! They AND CORAL, get covered by sediments WITH the carbon inside them – new ones grow on the top. people will be crying one day for that carbon deficit; when is not going to be enough for the trees and healthy crops.
b] the amount of sewage washed into the sea from growing population – that sewage is made from carbon – either directly; or after pooped by the fish, is getting cemented on the bottom… essential carbon lost!…Compare the size of the oceans with the remaining fossil fuel deposits; have you got brains and honesty, to compare?
Barry Elledge | May 12, 2013 at 12:19 am |
To WebHubTelescope9(WHUT) at 10:04pm 5/11/2013:
Thank you for so perfectly embodying every malevolent tendency which operates to destroy the possibility of progress in climate science dialogue.
I began my comments by specifying that I did not purport to be a climate expert. I posed a rather narrow set of questions relating to determination of primary climate sensitivity to CO2. I asked for theoretical arguments for calculating climate sensitivity and any experimental evidence which might support it (at 5/11/2013 1:09 pm). As a token of good faith and serious intent I posted my questions under my own name rather than a nom de guerre.
You replied with a supercilious ramble about how I would need to understand bandwidth and quantum mechanics and the Stephan-Boltzmann law and then all would become clear. Well, I do understand these things: my PhD dissertation research concerned inter alia the photophysics of fluorescence emission wavelength shifts in response to environmental polarity. Yet the calculation of CO2 climate sensitivity remains obscure.
What did you offer to explain how absorption bandwidth and quantum mechanics and the Stephan-Boltzmann equation produce a CO2 climate sensitivity value? Nada. Zip. Nothing. No explanation of any sort, merely an attempt to silence the questioner by the suggestion of moral/intellectual authority.
That won't work with me, and it shouldn't work with anyone. Science doesn't work that way.
It's possible you actually know something about the subject matter in question, I am inclined to doubt it, because in my experience the people who know what they are talking about delight in answering questions and do not attempt to suppress them. However, on the off chance that you do know something about the subject matter in question, please provide specific answers to the questions I posed rather than invective.
I thank you in advance for wagging a civil tongue.
You have picked the dweeb – just a load of preening and prattling.
Seriously, Barry Elledge, what part of atmospheric radiation transport physics is obscure to you?
The various questions that you raised earlier are individually covered (quite thoroughly!) in the literature and textbooks that the American Institute of Physics surveys so admirably.
There's no short-cut/royal-road to grasping the mathematical physics of quantum transport, eh?
For sure, close reading of lengthy analyses is required … backed by many worked calculations.
More preening and prattling for God's sake.
'Recent estimates of climate evolution over the coming century still differ by several degrees. This uncertainty motivates the work presented here. There are two basic approaches to apprehend the complexity of climate change: deterministically nonlinear and stochastically linear, i.e. the Lorenz
and the Hasselmann approach. The grand unification of these two approaches relies on the theory of random dynamical systems. We apply this theory to study the random attractors of nonlinear, stochastically perturbed climate models. Doing so allows one to examine the interaction of internal climate variability with the forcing, whether natural or anthropogenic, and to take into account the climate system's non-equilibrium behavior in determining climate sensitivity. This non-equilibrium behavior is due to a combination of nonlinear and random effects. We give here a unified treatment of such effects from the point of view of the theory of dynamical systems and of their bifurcations. Energy balance models are used to illustrate multiple equilibria, while multi-decadal oscillations in the thermohaline circulation illustrate the transition from steady states to periodic behavior. Random effects are introduced in the setting of random dynamical systems, which permit a unified treatment of both nonlinearity and stochasticity. The combined treatment of
nonlinear and random effects is applied to a stochastically perturbed version of the classical Lorenz convection model. Climate sensitivity is then defined mathematically as the derivative of an appropriate functional
or other function of the systems state with respect to the bifurcation parameter. This definition is illustrated by using numerical results for a model of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation…
The global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems | atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere | each
of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.'
Barry Elledge | May 12, 2013 at 1:30 am |
Since it's late, I'll wait til tomorrow to peruse the links you suggest. But this is exactly the sort of response I was hoping for: one with arguments and evidence rather than invective. I'll read them and respond.
Barry Elledge, in addition to the outstanding American Institute of Physics summary The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Demonstrated (1950-1967) linked above, three physics-oriented, reasonably detailed, yet reasonably accessible recent articles are:
• (2013) Benestad Validating a Physics-Based Back-of-the-Envelope Climate Model with State-of-the-Art Satellite Data (arXiv:1301.1146)
• (2011) Hansen et al. Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications (arXiv:1105.1140)
• (2011) Benestad New Evidence of an Enhanced Greenhouse Effect (arXiv:1106.4937)
Best wishes for learning-in-reading. This material is rich and deep!
Peter Davies | May 12, 2013 at 1:05 am |
Barry, it seems to me that despite your background in radiation physics, you are not able to see how the climate orthodoxy have not only calculated CO2 climate sensitivity but have been so confident that AGW is problematic.
My concern is that if someone with your scientific background is not able to understand this from the literature then lay people like myself would be so much further in the dark than it is realised.
The other concern is the general attitude of some posters to the comments of genuine people seeking answers to what seems to be reasonable questions which should have straight forward answers but are never provided.
Wagathon | May 12, 2013 at 1:10 am |
There's not much new to know: GW is a failed hypothesis because the null hypothesis cannot be rejected–i.e., that all global warming is due to natural causes.
And, the last 16 years of weather has not cooperated with the global warming alarmist meme–e.g., Joe Bastardi reported, "Second Coldest Start To Spring In US History" and, "The only year when the spring started colder was 1975." The use of coal is making a comeback in Europe. Perhaps that is why the apple blossoms were late in Washington, DC this year. "There's less and less investment in the green energy sector and governments have even started to tax renewables," according to Dr. Benny Peiser who warns that, "The green energy obsession is self-destructive."
Max_OK | May 12, 2013 at 4:16 am |
Waggy says: "GW is a failed hypothesis because the null hypothesis cannot be rejected–i.e., that all global warming is due to natural causes"
Waggy, I'll reject it right now for you. OK, here goes…
All global warming is due to natural causes. REJECTED !
While I'm at it, I might as well do another one.
All global warming is due to man's activities. REJECTED !
THIS IS FUN. Do you have more for me to reject?
REJECTED! REJECTED! REJECTED!
I love to say REJECTED !
The degree to which reason has lost value in the West is worse than we thought.
Max_OK | May 12, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
Waggy, had I wanted to serious I would have pointed out your hypothesis is a silly and useless hypothesis rather than a scientific hypothesis, one reason being your hypothesis can't be tested. But since being serious with you is silly and useless, I didn't do that.
Understanding the null hypothesis is what separates scientists from hamburger flippers… not that there's anything wrong with that.
Waggy, hasn't it occurred to you many good scientists flip hamburgers?
…and, there's nothing wrong with that.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | May 12, 2013 at 1:24 am |
Yet, what I said was true. You won't get anywhere unless you take into account the spectrum. If you don't, you will go the way of the SkyDragon crowd.
To see how CO2 can modify the emission check out how a CO2 laser works, or check out how a blast furnace temperature is controlled in a CO and CO2 environment.
The temperature rises until the system can create enough photon with the energy (wavelength) necessary to punch through the CO2.
Something out there has to explain the 33 C increase of the earth from what conventional black-body physics would predict. The theory behind GHG's (CO2 + water vapor) is what explains this effect.
Maybe I should have just said to go read PierreHumbert's book or something similar, and left it at that. You looked like you were stuck in some no-man's land, struggling to make sense of anything.
"because in my experience the people who know what they are talking about delight in answering questions and do not attempt to suppress them. "
Not in this land of sockpuppet and pranksters where every other skeptic is a fake trying to game the system. You have to harsh their buzz with some impunity.
What a load of post hoc rationalisation.
The sensitivity is a different matter entirely – it is a range of probabilities that resists simple definition.
'In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.'
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
Harsh their buzz? For God's sake where do people like this come from?
Little baby Chief seems oblivious to the 33C shift as well. That is the essential bottom-line sensitivity from which all subsequent sensitivities derive. You have been commenting here for years without being able to grasp that reality.
'The global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems | atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere | each
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf
Reducing a complex system to a single component is always fantasy physics. The anthropogenic part of change is even more problematic. The distinction is between natural and anthropogenic change and the obvious difficulties of drawing that distinction.
The problem student Chief whines
"The distinction is between natural and anthropogenic change and the obvious difficulties of drawing that distinction."
Natural changes in the human-scale time period oscillate, while anthropogenic changes lead to long-term nearly monotonic underlying trends. That's what we are witnessing.
What absolute nonsense as usual.
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, "These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it." http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
We know that these 'patterns' – they are not cycles but chaotic shifts to different states – added to warming between 19976 and 1998 – and are now 'hiding' warming for another decade to three more at least. In the longer term – centennial to millennial – a shift to yet cooler modes occurs every 1000 years or so. Are we due? Have we crossed the threshold of Bond Event Zero? Perhaps.
This is mainstream science as the link to NASA suggests. The problem here is not me but the dweeb.
Chief Proctologist says
"We know that these 'patterns' – they are not cycles but chaotic shifts to different states – added to warming between 19976 and 1998 – and are now 'hiding' warming for another decade to three more at least."
If they are not cycles then why do they use the word "oscillation" in the name, i.e. PDO, AMO, etc. ???
Is it because you like to play pranks?
WHT – according NOAA, the PDO has gone from positive to negative to positive and back to negative in around a decade, so whatever it is it may not be decadal and it may not be an oscillation.
Dweeb – I have precisely described what they are and have talked about this often enough for even a dimwit like you.
'We construct a network of observed climate indices in the period 1900–2000 and investigate their collective behavior. The results indicate that this network synchronized several times in this period. We find that in those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a state-of-the-art model. This is the first time that this mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of the size and complexity of the climate system.'
A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts – Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, Sergey Kravtsov
The answer of course is that these terms were used and have become ubiquitous if a bit misleading. Science moves on and science now recognises the underlying nature of these climate shifts.
Thanks JCH,
This is characteristic of noise with a reversion to the mean tendency. IOW, described as red noise, which is not very important in the long term.
D. L. Rudnick and R. E. Davis, "Red noise and regime shifts," Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 691–699, 2003.
"It has been suggested that rapid temporal changes of the most energetic empirical orthogonal function of North Pacific sea surface temperature (sometimes called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO) represents a "regime shift" between states with otherwise stable statistics. Using random independent time series generated to have the same frequency content as the PDO, we show that a composite analysis of climatic records recently used to identify regime shifts is likely to find them in Gaussian, red noise with stationary statistics. Detection of a shift by this procedure is not evidence of nonlinear processes leading to bi-stable behavior or any other meaningful regime shift."
The dweeb's red letter day – two peer reviewed articles.
'We do not suggest that rapid climate change has not occurred or that nonlinear processes causing genuine regime shifts are not important. The
climate record is replete with changes not easily explained as the nearly Gaussian behavior of a linear process. Neither do we claim that the rapid
changes in the North Pacific are unimportant or that the physical and biological records are not strongly related. Much evidence exists for the
interdependence of the atmosphere, ocean, and biota on a variety of time scales. We do, however, believe that our results show that the existence of
changes deemed significant by the composite analysis is not evidence for anything more than Gaussian red noise with stationary statistics.' op. cit by the dweeb
It is still perhaps more than Gaussian red noise on a stationary series – although red noise as such has me perplexed as there is nothing random about the climate system. It is the difference between a shift and a jump – with the shift being chaotical and the jump being random?
I might note that the latter paper by Tsonis and colleagues used 4 different indices and the properties of autocorrelation and 'noisy bifurcation' to draw their conclusions.
What we have is clutching at straws by the dregs of the warministas defending disorderly retreat. It is the end game of the climate wars. Rhetorically only – death to warministas.
Chief doesn't understand the reason for the modeling of noise. If you don't know the cause of the underlying behavior and it is not predictable, then characterizing that behavior as noise is the most conservative choice.
So in effect you have no clue as to the origin of the decadal oscillations and you really don't know how many of these oscillation patterns exist and whether they are actually oscillations and not just aperiodic disturbances. About all you know is they may have a Poisson interarrival distribution and that the noise reverts to the mean. That puts it in the Gauss-Markov category of random processes and you can model it as red noise.
You then have a way of modeling the data source and reason about potential behaviors.
Chief will now get upset and lash out because he doesn't understand the fundamentals of modeling natural processes.
'Recent estimates of climate evolution over the coming century still differ by several degrees. This
uncertainty motivates the work presented here. There are two basic approaches to apprehend the
complexity of climate change: deterministically nonlinear and stochastically linear, i.e. the Lorenz
and the Hasselmann approach. The grand unification of these two approaches relies on the theory
of random dynamical systems. We apply this theory to study the random attractors of nonlinear,
stochastically perturbed climate models. Doing so allows one to examine the interaction of internal
climate variability with the forcing, whether natural or anthropogenic, and to take into account the
climate system's non-equilibrium behavior in determining climate sensitivity.
This non-equilibrium behavior is due to a combination of nonlinear and random effects. We give
here a unified treatment of such effects from the point of view of the theory of dynamical systems
and of their bifurcations. Energy balance models are used to illustrate multiple equilibria, while
multi-decadal oscillations in the thermohaline circulation illustrate the transition from steady states
to periodic behavior. Random effects are introduced in the setting of random dynamical systems,
which permit a unified treatment of both nonlinearity and stochasticity. The combined treatment of
nonlinear and random effects is applied to a stochastically perturbed version of the classical Lorenz
convection model.
Climate sensitivity is then defined mathematically as the derivative of an appropriate functional
or other function of the systems state with respect to the bifurcation parameter.
The global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems | atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere | each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.'
I can see the dweebs lips flapping – bit nothing of sense is emerging. There is a system known as Earth's climate composed of a number of subsystems each with their own internal variability. The rule is to continue to observe these subsystems and their interactions to draw conclusions about state shifts. Data trumps simplistic and unrealistic dweeb ideas of modelling. Ideas moreover which are absolutely silly. The idea of modelling climate as a series of random steps is extreme nonsense. Modelling is done as physically realistic models – which have their own chaotical limitations – or as simple energy models. Ghil recommends moving backwards and forwards between the 2 to disentangle natural from anthropogenic.
'We outline here the rudiments of the way in which dynamical systems theory provides an understanding of this vast range of variability.
Such an understanding proceeds through the study of successively more complex patterns of behavior. These spatio-temporal patterns are studied within narrower ranges of time scales, such as intraseasonal, interannual, interdecadal and multi-millennial. The main results of dynamical systems theory that have demonstrated their importance for the study of climate variability involve bifurcation theory and the ergodic theory of dynamical systems.' op. cit.
Barry Elledge
Excellent response for Web.
Like all the alarmists, web does not want clarity, he wants obfuscation.
Very sad.
Pekka Pirilä | May 12, 2013 at 7:54 am |
I have my PhD from physics. I felt I have to understand something about climate change as a person with physics background working with energy economics.
It didn't take long to understand the transmissivity of the atmosphere and it's dependence on the GHG concentrations. For a while I thought that I had understood all the essential, and that the rest follows smoothly. Only gradually I learned about the physics of the atmosphere, how it's temperature profile (lapse rate) gets determined, and that the transmissivity of the atmosphere for the radiation from the surface to space is actually a minor factor in the effect. It's more important to understand the role of the upper troposphere and how the combination of the temperature profile and transmissivity over shorter distances than the whole height of tropossphere.
For a physicist interested in learning on the issue there are two good approaches. One is reading some textbooks or lecture notes, some of which are freely available on the net. The other is going to sites that concentrate on describing the issues that can be fully understood by any person interested enough and with fair understanding of physics. One of those sites, and the only one I really know, is Science of Doom. SoD is not a climate policy oriented site that has a political agenda. It avoids largely overstatements and tries to keep to understanding science. One consequence of that is that it may be impossible to find there much about the full climate sensitivity. Determining it's value seems to be impossible from arguments of the level presented on that site. You can find the explanation for the value 5.35 W/m^2 but probably not for any specific value for full climate sensitivity.
As you have noticed, the it's not possible to discuss these issues on this site without violent disagreement between commentators. This is presently more a policy oriented site than a science site. Here you can find a wide spectrum of views and attitudes, and that's a virtue, but that makes deeper discussion impossible. it's always interrupted by something else.
Pekka said, " It's more important to understand the role of the upper troposphere and how the combination of the temperature profile and transmissivity over shorter distances than the whole height of tropossphere."
Right. Then that understanding should lead to more questions. With a uniform GHG effect and fairly constant lapse rate, there should be a fairly uniform surface temperature if there is a "global" climate sensitivity.
Once you start using absolute temperature instead of anomaly you find there is a 3C temperature difference between the NH and SH and that there is a 9C difference between land and ocean "surface" temperature. That would seem to indicate that meridional and zonal energy flux is significant. In my opinion that requires defining the "surface" that is sensitive to CO2 increase not a hand waving "higher colder" region.
btw, that is the reason I used the moist air "envelope" since the effective radiant area of water vapor is less than the effective radiant layer of wmghg. Once you have the simple basics down, then the real work begins.
DocMartyn | May 12, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
I would have thought that measuring the relationship between wavelength and reflection, absorbtion creating latent heat and absorbtion creating sensible heat would be useful in understanding how photon flux, of different frequencies, alter surface temperature and relative humidity would be a way that physicists could make a contribution to climate science. As it is all photons, reguardless of frequency are believed to be equal. Albedo is expressed as a constant, reguardless of frequency.
I personally think this is quite bollocks, but none of the 'real climate scientists', not the physicists who claim to be interested in the field seem to give a damn.
"With a uniform GHG effect and fairly constant lapse rate, there should be a fairly uniform surface temperature if there is a "global" climate sensitivity."
No, it is colder at the poles, and warmer at the equator.
captdallas 0.8 or less | May 12, 2013 at 4:33 pm |
webster, "No, it is colder at the poles, and warmer at the equator."
Right, one pole is warmer than the other, one hemisphere N-S is warmer than the other, One side of the Pacific is warmer than the other.
So the surface temperature/energy by latitude produces a troposphere profile that is a little lopsided and the meridional energy flux has its seasonal spikes around 45 degrees latitude. If the energy was more uniformly balanced or distributed, the atmospheric response would be different.
That though appears to be beyond your comprehension.
Cappy Dick,
I "listen" to your "words and sentences", because I like to "laugh" at them, as you remind me of the Chris Farley "character" that puts "air quotes" around everything he says.
You do the same. We all know it is intentional because pranking discussions is your idea of a good time.
Hey, Webby, cat got your tongue?
Or are you going to answer Barry's very clear question with a very clear answer?
PS I'd be interested in your answer as well.
Hey Manacker,
Let me put it to you: Can you explain the 33C temperature increase in the earth's temperature from the classic black-body without invoking the GHG theory?
You have been here for several years without being able to answer this question.
It's 33C. That's a huge number. It shouldn't be hard for you to figure it out.
That's not an answer to the question.
In the absence of greenhouse gases – all other things being equal – the Earth would be 33 degrees cooler than it is today. It is in other words an entirely theoretical calculation based on simplistic assumptions – and in no way relates to actual Earth temperature changes. Most of these in glacial to interglacial changes result from changes in ice albedo. Most recent warming was the result of cloud radiative forcing.
See, that's what I mean.
If you ask the question correctly, you get back the double-talk nonsense that is the essence of The Chief. The fake skeptics always want to have things both ways. It feeds the FUD you see.
It is such a stupid question. You get the basics of radiative theory – it is by fat the simplest aspect – and then are incapable of even a glimmer of understanding of the broader system.
of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.' M Ghil op. cit.
All here is of you is prattling, preening and abuse. Again the question is – how do you keep up the façade without any substance at all.
Let's do that again.
It is such a stupid question. You get the basics of radiative theory wrong – it is by fae the simplest aspect – and then are incapable of even a glimmer of understanding of the broader system.
All there is of you is prattling, preening and abuse. Again the question is – how do you keep up the façade without any substance at all.
Nothing to explain, the Earth's surface is not in vacuum and is losing energy by convection and evaporation to the atmosphere.
Let's ASS-U-ME that the theoretically-derived "33C" figure has merit,
Explanation: It's water (vapor, liquid droplets, ice crystals) in the atmosphere what dunnit.
Hey MaxBot, that stuff would all condense out if the CO2 wasn't a catalyst. See this paper:
A. A. Lacis, G. A. Schmidt, D. Rind, and R. A. Ruedy, "Atmospheric CO2: principal control knob governing Earth's temperature," Science, vol. 330, no. 6002, pp. 356–359, 2010.
Bottom-line: No CO2, No nice weather.
I thought ChemE's were supposed to understand how catalysis works. Having problems with comprehension?
Rice is a important food for people, and CO2 is an essential food for rice.
It should come as no surprise that as atmospheric CO2 has soared so has
the world's production of rice.
The following tabulation clearly shows how world-wide production of rice
(shown in millions of metric tons) has soared as a result of the rise in
atmospheric CO2 (shown in parts per million or ppm's). Note in the Ratio
column how a million ppm's of CO2 produced 1.7 million tons of rice in
2010, up from only about 1 ton in 1970. Apparently, C02's productivity
has improved about 75% in 40 years, a remarkable achievement.
Let's take a closer look at CO2's productivity. As you can see in the
column titled Change in Ratio, the productivity rose from 1980 to 1990, as
evidenced by the increase from .201 to .291, and then in the following
decade … what the f**k !
Perhaps nature will only let CO2 do so much, and the natural limit
could be around 2 million tons of rice per million ppm's of CO2.
You can't argue with nature, but you know global warming alarmist
are going to ignore nature as a cause, as they usually do. The
alarmists will suggest warming limits CO2's ability help rice and other
plants, and they will point to the .146 and .115 as evidence because
these numbers are from a period of rising global temperature.
Just tell the alarmist this: CO2 is plant food, and plants like to eat.
Rice* CO2** Ratio Change in Ratio
1970 316.3 325.7 0.971 —
1980 396.9 338.7 1.172 .201
2010 672.0 389.9 1.724 . 115
* World rice production in millions of metric tons http://www.geohive.com/charts/ag_rice.aspx
** CO2 expressed as a mole fraction in dry air, micromol/mol, abbreviated as ppm
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
Well, that's the last time I will try to post a table at Climate ETC.
The spacing the paragraphing and everything else got messed up.
But the research is sound. Substance is more important than appearance.
Max_OK
It's not only rice we are talking about here.
Also wheat, corn, etc.
In fact all major crop plants (primarily C3 plants, except corn, which is C4) benefit from higher atmospheric CO2 levels.
Year-to-year comparisons can be misleading because of several factors, but let's look at CO2 and crop yield.
As a farm boy this is no news to you, but the data out there tell us that increased CO2 levels act to enhance crop yields of both C3 and C4 crops, with a higher impact for C3 crops, which include 95% of all plants and most crop plants. Interestingly, most weeds are of the C4 variety, which show somewhat lower response to increased CO2.
Greenhouse operators have been using enhanced CO2 for increasing plant growth for years.
As a side benefit for regions suffering from chronic water shortage or droughts, both C3 and C4 plants improve their water-use efficiency significantly with increased CO2 levels while reducing evapotranspiration.
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/photosynthesis-and-co2-enrichment/
The study also shows that at higher levels of CO2, the optimal temperatures for photosynthesis increase.
And, at slightly warmer temperatures, arable land surface area in higher latitudes should increase, as should growing seasons.
But how has this worked out in practice?
Over the period 1970-2010 we had the following observed changes:
Population: 3.7 billion
Global temperature (HadCRUT3 anomaly, 10-year average): -0.12 °C
Atmospheric CO2: 324 ppmv
Global yields of major crops (million tons corn/wheat/rice): 788
Population: 7.0 billion (up 1.9x)
Global temperature: +0.42 °C (up 0.54 °C)
Atmospheric CO2: 390 ppmv (up 66 ppmv or 20%)
Global yields of major crops (million tons): 1912 (up 1124 Mt or 2.4x)
In addition, global starvation rates were down significantly and (despite HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa) world average life expectancy increased from ~55 years to ~68 years (up by 13 years).
So over 40 years with a 20% increase in CO2 we've seen a 140% increase in crop yields!
http://bigpictureagriculture.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-does-need-to-double-world-crop.html
Now you might argue that some of this increase can be attributed to better farming techniques and use of fertilizers, etc., but (based on the controlled tests of enhanced CO2 on crop growth) there is also no doubt that a significant part can be attributed to the higher CO2 concentration.
Max_CH
Max_CH, you missed the point of my post, but it's not your fault.
First, I messed up the paragraphing and the table, making it difficult for you to read my post about rice and CO2. I posted the table again.
Second, you obviously have never farmed for a living, so your knowledge is not from practical experience. A further handicap is your ideological commitment to global warming skepticism and your bizarre notion the more CO2 the better.
Even if CO2 were not a warming influence there would be limits to its enhancing effect on plants. But it is a warming influence, and plants do not benefit from weather warmer than they are accustomed to. If you had ever farmed for a living you would know that.
As the study quoted below found, increase both CO2 and temperature and the result is no increase in rice yield.
"By itself, elevated CO2 increased rice yields, as
shown for many other crops grown under conditions of optimum N fertilization and water. However,
elevated temperature tended to decrease rice yields and thus the increase in rice yield with elevated CO2
alone was negated when temperature also elevated. Emissions of methane were increased when rice
plants were exposed to elevated CO2 either with or without elevated temperature, which was associated
with an increase in root biomass; while elevated temperature alone tended to decrease methane
emissions." Source: Olszyk, et al. 1999; Moya et al. 1998; Ziska et al. 1998
The serfs' charcoal burners' association knows about
carbon as plant food. Diid'ja know biochar can
sequester carbon in the soil fer thousands of years,
as well as increasing soil fertility and crop growth and
stoppin' us poor serfs perishin' from starvation? Did'ja
know that?
One – of – them.
Beth, thanks for reminding me of biochar. I intend to read up on it. I'll start with the CRS report. Here's a link in case you are interested:
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40186_20090203.pdf
Beth Cooper | May 12, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
Max_OK thanks fer the link.
Barry may or may not like your answer, but I do not, because it does not answer his question (as I understood it).
How do you get an empirically based value (of around 1C) for the no-feedback 2xCO2 temperature response in our climate system from the IR absorption mechanism as observed experimentally in the lab?
Show the derivation – don't just toss out names like Stefan-Boltzmann and wave your arms.
Answer the question: How do you get a 33C increase from what is expected from the black-body steady state without invoking GHG theory?
That should be so much easier than explaining how a mere 1C increase comes about for CO2 doubling.
I am waiting.
Trivial nonsense – you get the basics of radiative theory wrong and then stupidly insist it is all there is.
More of that rhetorical whiplash from The Chief. He wants to have it both ways. Acting like he can accept a 33C increase due to GHGs but refusing to accept that a doubling in concentration of one of the important non-condensing components will have any kind of effect.
Untrue in both respects. The 33 degrees is entirely based on unrealistic assumptions. Real change has to do mostly with albedo. There is no evidence of any effect from athropogenic CO2 thus far – but that may change.
But in the non-linear climate system I keep talking about there is still a mathematically certain risk of uncertain outcomes – in short order.
And it is still cooling for a decade to three more at least. You see – you are a part of the problem and not part of the solution.
NASA have shown that "when the trace greenhouse gases are removed the planet cools to a near-Snowball Earth, some 35°C cooler than today"
CO2 making up the bulk of trace gases has the biggest effect of course. As CO2 is removed the atmosphere cools and water vapor plummets.
NASA "showed" they can safely land a man on the moon and return him home. In contrast a few scientists inside a division of NASA unrelated to space exploration created a narrative about how greenhouse gases warm the earth. They "showed" no such thing. Unlike the rocket program the greenhouse gas narrative is pure unadulterated conjecture.
As opposed to pure unadulterated denial!
phatboy | May 12, 2013 at 10:58 am |
…which is about the same as 'showing' that when you attach wings to a pig it flies.
okay fair enough I see the problem is my use of the word "shown". I didn't mean that to mean "proof". I meant it as in "have shown evidence that.."
Not even. You can't 'show evidence' of something which never happened. There has never been zero CO2 – not even close.
Exam question: A body with mass 1kg is resting on the Earth's surface. A force of 10N is exerted on the body upwards. SHOW what happens to the body.
Student's answer: Can't SHOW it, couldn't find a 1kg body on my desk.
This is more than just semantics.
The effects of an upward force on a body have been observed, measured and quantified countless times by countless people. In short, we KNOW precisely what the effects are.
So the student can indeed 'show' it.
But we can never be sure of the effects of something which has never happened, nor can ever happen.
the effects of CO2 upon infrared radiation have been observed, measured and quantified countless times by countless people. In short, we KNOW precisely what the effects are.
So lets SHOW what these effects result in when CO2 is dropped to zero.
phatboy | May 12, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
You cannot just massively scale things up and throw in myriad other factors, many unknown or unquantifiable, and expect to 'know' what the behaviour will be.
You can estimate things, sure, just don't be over-confident in your results.
Springer said:
" In contrast a few scientists inside a division of NASA unrelated to space exploration created a narrative about how greenhouse gases warm the earth. "
Sow was Carl Sagan was in on the conspiracy as well? See his PhD thesis
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Carl_Edward_Sagan.aspx
"As for the Venusian part of Sagan's dissertation: In 1940, based on spectroscopic evidence of Abūndant carbon dioxide in the Venusian atmosphere, Rupert Wildt argued that the planet's atmosphere was exceedingly hot because the gas trapped infrared radiation (the greenhouse effect). Wildt calculated a high surface temperature, over 400 Kelvin, for Venus; even so, that number was on the low side if Mayer and his collaborators' subsequent microwave observations were correct. After uncovering Wildt's paper, Sagan modified it to account for the temperature discrepancy. He posited an extra ingredient in the Venusian atmosphere—water vapor, which, he proposed, trapped infrared radiation that would have otherwise leaked past the carbon dioxide. Nowadays Sagan's paper is recalled as a landmark in modern Venus studies. Even so, his model seriously overestimated the Abūndance of water vapor and nitrogen in the Venusian atmosphere, severely underestimated the atmospheric density, and significantly underestimated the surface temperature by about 150 Kelvin; it is nowadays thought to be about 750 Kelvin."
What is insincere about skeptics concerns is that they use this as evidence to point out that scientists like Sagan exaggerated the effects of warming on Venus. True that the very high temperatures of Venus are more likely explained by internal processes but that doesn't take away from the fact that CO2 will add substantial amount of warming to that of the interior. That was what was used to create the physical analogy to that on the earth.
Matthew R Marler | May 12, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
WEbHubTelescope: Answer the question: How do you get a 33C increase from what is expected from the black-body steady state without invoking GHG theory?
There are two perspectives confounded in your response: (1) what has happened up til now and (2) what will happen in the future? There is no reason to think that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is a constant independent of starting conditions. A doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere may increase the rate of cloud formation in conditions that currently cause clouds (by increasing the rate of downwelling long-wave radiation it will cause an increase in surface evaporation rate, etc.) That is a simple negative feedback that can not be ruled out with current science, but only by appeals to authority and to simplified models of little predictive value. And it certainly can not be addressed by laboratory experiments.
I don't think AGW proponents deny that increased downwelling long-wave radiation will increase the rate of surface evaporation. How that can happen without increasing the rate of transfer of energy to the upper atmosphere through the water cycle, or without increased cloud formation (and reduced insolation), requires more attention if the theory is to be adequate.
Nullius in Verba | May 12, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
"So was Carl Sagan was in on the conspiracy as well?"
Isn't this Sagan's paper?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967ApJ…149..731S
Water vapour?
Increase in water vapor is a greenhouse effect. Increasing the temperature will drag along the water vapor, creating a mild positive feedback effect.
There are so many independent physical models that will get to the consensus estimate, including paleo models, but this is the one that I came up with, and the one I will tend to support:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/climate-sensitivity-and-33c-discrepancy.html
All the evidence is tipping in the same direction. We can't do the controlled experiment directly, so barring that, we do the best we can by building up a collection of supporting arguments.
All you need is one iron-clad mechanism to tear down the entire edifice, but no one can seem to find it.
Very few people are denying the simple radiaitive physics of IR in the atmosphere. The 33 or 35 degrees is a fantasy of a greenhouse gas free atmosphere. The real world temperature changes have much different causes.
So changes in greenhouse gas levels have no impact on global temperature at all?
lolwot, you write "So changes in greenhouse gas levels have no impact on global temperature at all?"
Not quite. Changes in CO2 amounts from current levels have a negligible effect on global temperatures.
Yeah lolwot, and that ain't no estimate, that's measured.
In the real world clouds and ice dominate temperature changes.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/tropicalcloud.png.html?sort=3&o=38
The planet is not warming for a decade to three more (at least) as the IPO intensifies.
The anthropogenic component of recent warming has been estimated at 0.08 degrees C/decade. It would not be a problem if climate were linear.
Even 0.08 degrees C/decade would mean CO2 was the dominant driver.
That's 0.8C in a century. Compare to the total warming of the 20th century for example, and the 20th century is probably quite exceptional in terms of how much warming it saw.
lolwot | May 12, 2013 at 4:15 pm SAID: "Even 0.08 degrees C/decade would mean CO2 was the dominant driver"
In Sahara cools down from 45C down to 10C, in 12h — in Brazil cools from 30C down to 20C in 12h. Which means: in Sahara cools down by 35C "MORE" than in Brazil; in 12h, from noon to midnight…! you are saying that 0,8C cannot cool in 10 years?! grow up!
extra heat in the atmosphere is not accumulative – the more it warms up = the more it cools. During the day, above Sahara, the troposphere (O&N) expands as a big dome into the stratosphere – "collects extra coldness" -> at night that extra coldness falls down and makes it colder than in Brazil; because above Brazil that dome doesn't expand much
Stefan – you are still ignoring the real threat of CO2 that I have raised with you many times. Impotence and baldness is spreading like wildfire across the planet. What you really need is some ciallis for the brain because it has gone all floppy and you can't get out a rational thought to save yourself. What the do I care about the Sahara? I care about the world stopping breeding and going bald. Fortunately – I am immune to both and intend to live long enough to take full advantage of the situation. What do you do? You rabbit on about nothing at all in the Sahara. The Sahara got along without you for a long time – it doesn't want a bald and floppy guy interfering. What about winter in the Sahara? You never thought of that did you? All the birds fly upside down in winter I suppose? What about Venusian birds? Trick question – there are no Venusian birds because they all went bald and died from too much CO2.
1) I didn't call anything at NASA a conspiracy. That's a straw man.
2) Sagan was wrong about Venus in his PhD dissertation as he postulated that abundant water vapor was causing a higher than expected greenhouse effect which was later found to be untrue.
3) Sagan was never an employee of NASA.
I'm a long-time fan of Sagan and agree with his views on a great many things including religion and I'm a fan of one of his wives biologist Lynn Margulis of endosymbiosis fame who famously, just a few years before she died, was a keynote speaker at the Woodstock of Evolutionary biology in the Galapogos and caused quite a stir saying neo-Darwinian evolution is wrong.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-06-24/
Michod's talk was the perfect lead-in for the penultimate lecture of the conference by the acknowledged star of the weekend, Lynn Margulis, famous for her pioneering research on symbiogenesis. Margulis began graciously by acknowledging the conference hosts and saying, "This is the most wonderful conference I've ever been to, and I've been to a lot of conferences." She then got to work, pronouncing the death of neo-Darwinism. Echoing Darwin, she said "It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist." But, she quickly added, "I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point." She then outlined the basis of her theory of the origin of the cell nucleus as a fusion between archaebacteria (thermoplasma) and Eubacteria (Spirochaeta). "We live on a bacterial planet," she reflected.
WebHubTelescope: There are so many independent physical models that will get to the consensus estimate, including paleo models, but this is the one that I came up with, and the one I will tend to support:
As I wrote, those are the models that ignore the non-radiative transport of energy from the lower troposphere to the upper troposphere. Of course they agree, because they all ignore the same science. Do you really claim to know that increased CO2 can not increase the rate of cloud formation in conditions that favor cloud formation?
Is it impossible for you to recognize that something important is not known?
Its still a convex function. The GHG of water vapor will be greater than the mixed effects of clouds. This is a perturbation and the physics and chemistry don't turn on a dime, no matter what the skeptics want to believe.
Pekka Pirilä | May 13, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
Models that ignore non-radiative transfer of energy within the troposphere would predict a surface temperature that's far too low (like 30 C lower that the actual one). I don't think that a single model makes that error.
It is given here:
Girma
Shaviv's analysis of the 2xCO2 ECS quandary is excellent. It will obviously give people like Steven Mosher and others a bit of a headache.
Shaviv mentions the dilemma posed by clouds, which IPCC have conceded are "the largest source of uncertainty" as follows:
The problem with clouds is really an Achilles heel for GCMs. The reason is that cloud physics takes place on relatively small spatial and temporal scales (km's and mins), and thus cannot be resolved by GCMs. This implies that clouds in GCMs are parameterized and dealt with empirically, that is, with recipes for how their average characteristics depend on the local temperature and water vapor content. Different recipes give different cloud cover feedbacks and consequently different overall climate sensitivities.
The bottom line, GCMs cannot be used to predict future global warming, and this will remain the case unless we better understand the different effects of clouds and learn how to quantify them.
The problem of parameterization of clouds in the conventional GCMs was also the topic of a study by Wynant et al. 2006, which used superparameterization in order to better capture the behavior of clouds
ftp://eos.atmos.washington.edu/pub/breth/papers/2006/SPGRL.pdf
The study uses a cloud-resolving model with much finer resolution. This model finds weaker climate sensitivity than the conventional models, with overall cloud feedbacks that are negative with warming, rather than positive.
[From the Abstract]
[1] The climate sensitivity of an atmospheric GCM that uses a cloud-resolving model as a convective superparameterization is analyzed by comparing simulations with specified climatological sea surface temperature (SST) and with the SST increased by 2 K. The model has weaker climate sensitivity than most GCMs, but comparable climate sensitivity to recent aqua-planet simulations of a global cloud-resolving model. The weak sensitivity is primarily due to an increase in low cloud fraction and liquid water in tropical regions of moderate subsidence as well as substantial increases in high-latitude cloud fraction.
[11] The global annual mean changes in shortwave cloud forcing (SWCF) and longwave cloud forcing (LWCF) and net cloud forcing for SP-CAM are -1.94 W m-2, 0.17 W m-2, and -1.77 W m-2, respectively.
Shortwave cloud forcing becomes more negative at all latitudes, except for narrow bands near 40N and 40S, indicating more cloud cover and/or thicker clouds at most latitudes. The change in zonal-mean longwave cloud forcing is relatively small and negative in the tropics and stronger and positive poleward of 40N and 40S, where it partly offsets the shortwave cloud forcing change. Thus the net cloud forcing change is negative at most latitudes, and it is of comparable size in the tropics and the extra-tropics.
The net cloud feedback (per °K warming) was found to be negative, at -0.88Wm-2°K-1, as compared to the IPCC model prediction in AR4 of a net positive feedback of +0.69Wm-2°K-1. IPCC attributes 1.3°C out of the total mean estimate of 3.2°C to this cloud feedback (AR4 WG1, Ch.8, p.633), so it is clear to see by removing the IPCC estimated positive cloud feedback and replacing it with a more than equivalent negative feedback, would reduce 2xCO2 from 3.2°C to around 1°C or even less
And it shows that Shaviv's analysis is spot on.
Steven Mosher | May 13, 2013 at 1:49 am |
he's got .3 K/Wm^2
for a no feedback sensitivity from first principles no less. Dont tell cripwell or others like him.. you know that a skeptic calculated sensitivity from first principles..
Matthew R Marler | May 15, 2013 at 11:00 am |
WebHubTelescope: I said that adding water vapor won't cause the GHG to turn from net positive feedback to net negative feedback on a dime.
I missed your metaphorical "dime." Whatever it is you mean by "dime", I have asserted that the increased transport of heat to the upper atmosphere by wet (causing clouds and rainfall — transport of latent heat) and dry thermals (convection only) is potentially greater than you allow for. You assert that the increased non-radiative transport is a "perturbation" without evidence that the size is actually small compared to the increase in down-welling radiation, and you assert for no reason that there can not possibly be an increase in cloud cover. A small increase in cloud cover, a few percent on the hot summer days, could completely nullify the effect of a small increase in downwelling long wave radiation.
Really, can you not tell the difference between a well-tested proposition shown to be sufficiently accurate, and a bald untested assertion?
Start here. Nothing to do with C02.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/a-simple-analysis-of-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/
Steven Mosher: Start here. Nothing to do with C02.
There you go again: a simple climate without Midwestern thunderstorms or daily tropical rainfall. A uniform surface with uniform insolation, no seasons, and no non-radiative heat transfer.
When will you guys stop ignoring most of the science?
"Nothing to do with CO2…"
Of course, remove CO2 from the atmosphere and besides all the plants going away, within a few decades we return to Ice Planet Earth. Other than that, CO2 is not important at all. The noncondensing nature of CO2 at the temperatures and pressures found on Earth is critical but seldom discussed by certain people.
Reality gates – reality – not simplistic and misleading thought experiments.
I should have explained. I meant the derivation had nothing to do with C02. I find discussions that talk about sensitivity to c02 doubling to be counter productive. Folks should discuss sensitivity to changes in forcing ( regardless of the source of the extra watts ) first,
I see no evidence that discussing these local transient event shed any light whatsoever on the boundary conditions. The question is this:
Increase the input by 1 watt.
Estimate, calculate, predict, the total system response in C.
You dont need to know anything about rain or the midwest to provide a good first order estimate of the total system response.
SteveF has done that. First order estimates for sensitivity usually
fall in the range 0.4ish C per watt/meter sq
You could also go at it by bounding from above or bounding from below.
But if you want to stick with first principles.. .04ish is where you land.
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | May 12, 2013 at 3:35 pm said: ""Nothing to do with CO2… Of course, remove CO2 from the atmosphere and besides all the plants going away, within a few decades we return to Ice Planet Earth"
When you seat on the sunlight – the sun warms you up, you idiot, not CO2! Sunlight warms the surface and the water; oxygen & nitrogen as perfect insulators are slowing cooling, not CO2, a trace gas.
At night that CO2 must be giving you insomnia – you are trying to impose it to others. Where is your education, to know that O&N are insulators for the unlimited coldness in the stratosphere not to get close to the ground, where the heat is created? + water retains heat for longer than 12h. Can you compare how much water is in the sea, PLUS the amount of O&N, against the amount of CO2?!
The 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity has "Nothing to do with CO2"?
The paper you cited refers to:
a doubling of CO2 (which is ~3.71 watts/M2 forcing)
as the basis.
If we now ASS-U-ME that "a doubling of CO2 is ~1 watt/M2 forcing", we get a different 2xCO2 ECS.
So it has everything to do with CO2, Mosh.
no manaker. you need to look at the .46
max it goes like this
FIRST you calculate the climate sensitivity. It has nothing to do with C02
Then you multiply by the extra forcing for C02.
The sensitivity to ANY change in forcing.. in fact you pointed to one way of calculating this.. which gives you around .3K/wm^2
Aw. C'mon Gates. Cut the BS.
The Ordovician Iceball Earth occurred with CO2 at 4,000 ppmv.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
CO2 is obviously not the "climate control knob".
You're pulling my leg now.
Sure, that's the calculation sequence of establishing what a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would do to global temperature at equilibrium (i.e. the 2xCO2 ECS).
But you have to ASS-U-ME the CO2 forcing first.
And if you ASS-U-ME that this is 1.0 instead of 3.71 W/m2 you get a different figure for 2xCO2 ECS.
So the 2xCO2 ECS estimate is directly proportional to the ASS-U-MEd CO2 forcing.
Steven Mosher: You dont need to know anything about rain or the midwest to provide a good first order estimate of the total system response.
My claim is that these first-order calculations are not accurate enough. Your assumption is that the "boundary conditions" are known from an analysis that ignores almost all of the non-radiative heat transport processes. And you assume that the aggregates of all the local and transient effects are ignorable. My assertion is that without more accurate knowledge of the total system even the sign of future temp mean change in response to CO2 can't be estimated reliably.
'But you have to ASS-U-ME the CO2 forcing first."
The sensitivity to doubling is this
Forcing for doubling C02 * lambda
Where lambda is the change in temp per change in watts.
Lets just take your no feedback number of .3K per watt, calculated
as described in the link you provide.
Now comes the forcing for doubling C02. Lucky for you and me
this is Engineering not physics. To calculate the increased watts
from doubling C02 we use a engineering tool called RTE, radiation transfer equations. These are the equations you use if you are a sensor engineer. You use these if you are Roy spencer trying to process a radiation return from the earth. Lets say you are measuring LST thats
Land Surface Temperature. You have a radiation emitted from the surface, when it reaches the sensor in space it had to go through the atmosphere. How do you figure out or "back out" what the atmosphere
did to the original signal? Well, you apply RTE. RTE where developed in part to help us build better defenses or even stuff like star wars.
RTE are tested, validated, used every day.
So, if you want to know how radiation will propagate through a different atmosphere — say a planet you want to visit or say in antarctica which has a lot less water in the air, or in the tropics.. you can simply run the RTE code and get your answer. The effect of doubling c02 from 280 to 560
is about 3.7 Watts. You can get this by running a LBL code or it
can be approximated by the relation 5.35ln(c02i/c02j)
So, if you want to know how radiation will propagate through a different atmosphere — say a planet you want to visit or say in antarctica which has a lot less water in the air, or in the tropics.. you can simply run the RTE code and get your answer. The effect of doubling c02 from 280 to 560 is about 3.7 Watts. You can get this by running a LBL code or it
Yet Antarctica is getting colder. Non sequitur.
SM: "I find discussions that talk about sensitivity to c02 doubling to be counter productive. Folks should discuss sensitivity to changes in forcing ( regardless of the source of the extra watts ) first"
good luck with that given people here are being deliberately obstructive in their denial. They want to be counter productive, to throw up barriers so they don't have to accept what the science shows.
Mosher: "I find discussions that talk about sensitivity to c02 doubling to be counter productive. Folks should discuss sensitivity to changes in forcing ( regardless of the source of the extra watts ) first"
Of course you only want to discuss power. But the fact of the matter is that matter which isn't an ideal black body responds to differently to different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. The reaction of a surface to 3.5 Watts of power depends on what the surface is and what the frequency of the radiation is. For instance you can shine 3.5 Watts of sunshine on a snow field and little changes because it reflects almost all of it but shine it on the ocean or a savannah and it's almost all absorbed. You just get absurd answers by pretending the earth is an ideal black body.
For instance you can shine 3.5 Watts of sunshine on a snow field and little changes because it reflects almost all of it but shine it on the ocean or a savannah and it's almost all absorbed.
you can shine 3.5 Watts of sunshine on a snow field and little changes because it reflects almost all of it but shine 3.5 Watts of LW IR on the same snow field and it absorbs (almost all of) it. 3.5 Watts of IR from GHG's isn't the same as 3.5 Watts of sunshine.
Duh. I wasnt referring to the blackbody complications and none of your points has anything to do with what I'm referring to.
blueice2hotsea | May 13, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
SM –
The effect of doubling c02 from 280 to 560
is about 3.7 Watts.
yes, late 90ish. contrail cirrus reduce to 3.6 Watts or less.
Desert gets hotter. Savannah transpiration and photochemical energy storage = not as much hotter. Please do not piss-on non-radiative and biologic effects which are greater than radiative effects. thanks!
The effect of doubling c02 from 280 to 560 as estimated based on laboratory data on CO2 absorption characteristics is about 3.7 watts
The effect of doubling c02 from 280 to 560 in our climate system is NOT necessarily about 3.7 watts
You have to ASS-U-ME that the mechanism, which has been validated in the laboratory, results in the same net overall forcing in our climate system as was estimated based on the laboratory measurements.
And that's a major leap of faith, Mosh.
A second major leap of faith is the impact of posited "feedbacks" on this figure, in order to arrive at the "2xCO2 ECS". This is not only a "leap of faith", but also a "can of worms", as latest studies based on observed data, rather than simply "first principles theory" and models, are showing.
Fuggidaboudit, Mosh. The AR4 2xCO2 ECS estimates are under fire and are very likely to come down significantly as new observation-based data are incorporated.
I only said the ocean and savannah both absorb instead of reflect. In point of fact however percentage given up as latent of heat vaporization is similar for both. I'd have used basalt if I wanted an example of a natural surface that absorbs as well and but rises in temperature similar to a black body.
Double CO2 causes 3.7wm-2 more infrared radiation to be absorbed by the atmosphere. 3.7wm-2 less IR into space.
For this to be wrong by any significant amount stretches credibility. The absorption properties of the CO2 molecule at various temperatures and pressures is more than good enough to know how much extra radiation would be absorbed if there was twice as much of it in the air.
What are you hoping for? that the figure is SO wrong that the number is an order of magnitude less than 3.7wm-2? How would that even work?
But more worryingly why aren't you sounding the alarm that the CO2 forcing might be much higher than 3.7wm-2. Could it be 10wm-2 per doubling for example? The science says no, but you reject the science so you have to accept that possibility.
In which case where is your alarming warning that CO2 forcing may be much higher than climate scientists think? I only see you appealing to one side of uncertainty. Why is that?
"as latest studies based on observed data, rather than simply "first principles theory" and models, are showing."
Studies such as??????
(be careful not to pick one that is based on 3.7wm-2 forcing per doubling of CO2, that would be an embarassing thing to do having rejected that figure)
Steven Mosher –
I think you meant that when ocean and savanna absorb heat, air temp is lower. Sorry if I misunderstood you initially.
Steven Mosher: I see no evidence that discussing these local transient event shed any light whatsoever on the boundary conditions.
Are you assuming that the boundary conditions are known? I don't think they are known. What we have are the conjectural "equilibrium" conditions, which do not refer to anything in particular on Earth.
The energy flow diagrams of Graeme Stephan (presented here a few months ago) and Trenberth and Fasullo (in science) show that these "local transient" events transport a non-negligible amount of energy from the surface and lower troposphere to the upper troposphere. How those processes will respond to a future doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is not known. WebHubTelescope has asserted, and perhaps you agree, that an increase in lower troposphere hot, wet air (both hotter and with higher absolute humidity) can't possibly produce an increase in cloudiness or the rate of transport of energy to the upper troposphere. As far as I can tell, that is an untested hypothesis. You would have us believe that, as the surface heats up, the thermals are unchanged?
Marler said:
"WebHubTelescope has asserted, and perhaps you agree, that an increase in lower troposphere hot, wet air (both hotter and with higher absolute humidity) can't possibly produce an increase in cloudiness or the rate of transport of energy to the upper troposphere. "
You are either a liar, or misinterpreted what I said, or have reading comprehension problems. I said that adding water vapor won't cause the GHG to turn from net positive feedback to net negative feedback on a dime. Yet you are implying that I won't allow any change to go from net positive to net positive minus a delta, which in fact is perfectly acceptable. That is the definition of a convex function.
Why don't you chew on this as remedial study:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-homework-problem-to-end-all.html
WebHubTelescope: You are either a liar, or misinterpreted what I said, or have reading comprehension problems.
I put my response higher up in the wrong place.
You have to get beyond the remedial to propositions that describe the energy transport processes that account for at least 99% of all the heat transferred. Then you have to account for the differences caused by a 1% increase in downwelling radiation, bearing in mind that it is all specific to time and place. That is because the hypothesized increase in the downwelling longwave IR is about that order of magnitude, as is the hypothesized increase in temp from a future doubling of CO2. An increase in cloud cover (and absolute humidity) does not have the same effects in winter as in summer, at night as in daytime, at the poles as near the equator.
Either that, or you have to show by many model to data comparisons that such variations are truly ignorable. At present the Earth is not warming as fast as predicted, so there has been no showing that the models are sufficiently accurate. The mean Earth temperature is outside the confidence limits of the model mean, in the lower tail of the model distribution. Whether that yet constitutes a model rejection at one of the conventional levels of statistical significance can be debated, but clearly the requisite accuracy has not yet been shown either.
You don't even begin to understand the significance of that link I pointed out to you. The standard atmosphere of a planet such as Earth is largely fixed. By standard, I mean a standard lapse rate, a standard barometric profile, and standard Poisson's equation relationships. I don't believe that anyone has solved the standard from first principles, or at least I haven't uncovered it yet. The closest we have come is deriving the "dry"adiabatic profile , which is off by 50% in lapse rate.
You really have to understand how the standard atmosphere is characterized before you start shooting off your mouth. I said that increasing CO2 will cause a perturbation, but you have to understand what the baseline is.
Pekka ought to look at the link, as he has the intuition and physics chops to infer some deeper meaning.
Vaughan Pratt could also digest it and he would get a huge kick out of it.
Steven Mosher and lolwot
We are going around in circles here.
Let's go back to the topic under discussion.
It is NOT the IR absorption properties of CO2, H2O or any other GHG, as observed in the laboratory. It is also NOT "first principles", black body radiation theory, etc.
It IS the actual anticipated long-term 2xCO2 temperature response in our climate system, also known as the "2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity".
In its AR4 WG1 report, IPCC cited several model predictions of this value, with a mean estimate of 3.2C.
Several more recent studies, many of them based (at least partly) on actual physical observations, rather than simply model simulations based on "first principles", are showing us that these earlier estimates are likely exaggerated by a factor of 2:1, and that 2xCO2 ECS is more likely to be around 1.6C.
That's the discussion here. Any attempt to derail it to more theoretical or esoteric topics is simply side-stepping the issue at hand.
If either of you wish to discuss the topic at hand, by all means do so. I'd be glad to engage with you. But waffling around on the rest of these side issues is frankly a waste of time.
WHUT,
Looking only superficially at your derivation, I'm left wondering, how you can can derive any other polytropic process than adiabatic. I can believe that some other polytrope gives a better agreement with the average lapse rate, but I cannot see any fundamental justification for any particular value. It's known that the dry adiabatic lapse rate is close to the real one in some limited parts of the atmosphere, while a moist adiabat applies to some other parts and no adiabat in yet other cases.
It seems to me extremely unlikely that formal justification can be found for the validity of any other polytrope.
Pekka, It has the isentropic or adiabatic constraint of dS=0, but also includes the constraints for radial mass conservation and radial hydrostatic equilibrium.
I don't know if you remember the paper by Verkeley who tried to derive the standard atmosphere by MaxEnt variational principals, but this is in the same spirit.
We have an underspecified path process and we try to constrain and simultaneously minimize the free energy of the final state
The ideal gas law PV=nRT appears deceptively simple but there is a nonlinear equation with 3 degrees of freedom buried inside the formulation.
If you wish to use the latest argument you must state that the standard derivation of the adiabatic lapse rate is wrong.
One point you mention is the radial mass conservation, but the Earth radius is very large in comparison with the height of the troposphere and all reasonably dense atmosphere. Therefore the radial effects are negligible.
I don't understand at all what you are saying about the ideal gas law or, how you could get any support from that. Maxent type ideas may give reasonable approximations, but as always they lack rigor, and have more the nature of a rule of thumb.
The standard deviation argument does not work on Venus. The lapse rate profile is highly repeatable and off by 50% from the classical adiabatic formulation.
As of now, no one has yet to derive the observed average lapse rate or the polytropic exponent from first principles.
I will try to reformulated without the radial spherical baggage. The derivation will become cleaner and an underlying error more obvious.
I titled the post as a homework problem because that is what it comes down to, explaining first-order atmospheric physics to a science major.
WebHubTelescope: I said that increasing CO2 will cause a perturbation, but you have to understand what the baseline is.
I think that you said more than that. Re-reading these posts in order, I think that you have asserted that the increased non-radiative heat flow is negligible in calculating the effects of increased CO2. If you assert that even the dry adiabatic lapse rate is off by 50%, why then assert that you know that the increase in surface temp and downwelling radiation can not produce a cloud/water cycle effect sufficient to damp the subsequent increase in surface temp.
It seems to me that, faced with a question whose answer is not known on present evidence, you provide links to all sorts of stuff with all sorts of information that hides the fact that the answer to the question is not known. It is known that non-radiative processes transfer heat from the surface and lower troposphere to the upper troposphere. It is not known how much those heat transfer processes will change in response to an increase in downwelling longwave IR. Calculations with the mathematical approximations (equilibrium assumptions) to the dry and wet adiabatic lapse rates hardly gets to the question. The lack of knowledge is more explicit if in the relevant cases (what you cited) those are off by 50%.
The reality is that you will only get interested amateurs to discuss deep climate science topics on this blog. The pros and experts are fortunate to be able to talk amongst themselves.
Not being a credentialed climatologist myself, I can only try to work my way up from the foundational principles. I in fact May be missing pieces in my understanding. But I don't do that intentionally, otherwise why would I waste all that time trying to derive the lapse rate for myself?
As someone familiar with stats, I would love to see a distribution of lapse rate values, and see if it does center around a mean
How would this distribution change with changes in atmospheric constituents? It will likely weight one side of the distribution than the other and will either sharpen or broaden. The first guess is that you won't be able to tell with the amount of CO2 we have added.
Keep it coming with the ideas as I am trying to build on a foundation.. Until then we are relying on gut checks, and whoever is doing the heavy lifting will have the most insight.
The problem with your whole thesis is that it's essentially circular. You're looking for a way to derive the average lapse rate based on atmospheric composition (along with such things as insolation). But that starts with the tacit assumption that the average lapse rate is determined by those things. That assumption is totally unwarranted, and IMO probably wrong. Here's why:
There's a phenomenon called the Tropical Easterly Jet (TEJ), a very high easterly (blowing east-to-west) jet stream that forms south of the Himalayas during the NH summer. Elements of it can sometimes be found over Africa as well [Koteswaram (1958)]. It is associated with a very powerful high pressure cell at 200mb over the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau during the summer [Koteswaram (1958) fig. 2b]. I would confidently associate it with the effect of solar heating on air already adiabatically cooled by upslope flow onto the Tibetan Plateau. (Note the pronounced low at 700mb in fig. 2a). Whatever the cause, this is the only phenomenon like it on the planet (at this latitude), and almost certainly associated with the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau.
Now, 10 million years or so ago, the Himalayas didn't exist, nor the Tibetan plateau. There was probably an Andean-style coastal subduction zone and associated mountains, but it wasn't till around then that the Indian plate collided with the Asian, undercutting it to produce the Tibetan Plateau and raise the Himalayas to their modern height. Absent these two geological phenomena, can we suppose something like the TEJ existed? There has been substantial overall (average) cooling over those 10 million years, and I see the raising of the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau as the most probable cause. How much was a result of influence on the climate, and how much increased erosion leading to reduced atmospheric CO2 is an open question, no matter how many scientists make unfounded assertions.
The TEJ certainly seems to be associated with decade-scale climate change in some complex way: it appears to have weakened in the last decade(s) of the 20th century, and "a decrease in easterly shear is favorable for the formation of more severe tropical storms." [Rao et al. (2008)]. Very recent reports suggest that this trend has reversed [Ratnam et al. (2013)]:
TEJ is observed in general between 100 and 150 hPa during June-September over the Indian region and its strength is directly related to the monsoon rainfall. In the context of changing climate, large reduction in its extent and weakening of its strength were reported. Using high resolution measurements, we report here the observation of a sharp strengthening of the TEJ during the recent warmest decade (2001–2010), reaching its 1970's value. We also show that this change is reflected in the tropical cyclone systems and finally on the precipitation patterns over the Indian region as they are interlinked. We attribute this unusual change partly to the change in the circulation due to the tropospheric warming and lower stratospheric ozone recovery.
Note that changes to the TEJ appear to be almost orthogonal to "global average temperature"(GAT), returning to something like their 1970's value while GAT pretty much stood still.
The role of the TEJ in climate is complex, but given the cooling associated with the raising of the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau, I would guess a large role for geography relative to greenhouse gases in determining the current climate state, including average lapse rate, height of the tropopause, and even thickness and other characteristics of the tropopause. This would, of course, invalidate your assumption that average lapse rate is somehow determined by atmospheric composition. Certainly that assumption is not warranted: you need to account for the role of geography, which can't be done without a much better understanding of how the TEJ, and other geography-unique phenomena, operate.
BTW, Wiki has almost nothing to say at this time about the TEJ, just a stub not linked to by any other article on climate. Interesting, isn't it?
Koteswaram (1958) The Easterly Jet Stream in the tropics by P Koteswaram Tellus Volume 10, Issue 1, pages 43–57, February 1958 doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1958.tb01984.x
Ratnam et al. (2013) Is the trend in TEJ reversing over the Indian subcontinent? by M. Venkat Ratnam, B.V. Krishna Murthy, A. Jayaraman Geophysical Research Letters DOI: 10.1002/grl.50519
Rao et al. (2008) In a changing climate weakening tropical easterly jet induces more violent tropical storms over the north Indian ocean by V. Brahmananda Rao, Camila C. Ferreira, S. H. Franchito, and S. S. V. S. Ramakrishna INPE(?) ePrint: sid.inpe.br/mtc-m18@80/2008/08.22.14.07 v1 2008-08-23(?)
Wow, that's pretty impressive counter-theory AK.
It might map out some extremes nicely.
I'm talking about averages. You're dodging!
Yes, Explaining several planets with a macro theory trumps explaining one planet with an idiosyncratic heuristic.
Where is the equivalent of the Eastern Jet Stream on Venus?
What you did might explain certain spatio-temporal aspects of the Earth.
As I've pointed out before, you can't generalize Venus and Earth together, because Venus lacks any significant planetary spin. Therefore no geostrophic wind.
Superrotation? Since Venus lacks any significant spin, there's no reason to expect any close coupling of "geologic" features to the atmosphere. But the fact that the upper atmosphere is "spinning" with a 4-(earth)day rotation is interesting. And basically unexplained.
It isn't intended to explain anything! I'm simply pointing out that you've made an unwarranted assumption: that geological features have no role in determining the average lapse rate. Relative to GHG's, we can say with virtual certainty that their effect ranges somewhere from 0-100%. You're assuming it's zero, I'm just saying that assumption is unwarranted.
I am trying to explain the mean 6.5 C/km lapse rate on earth.
And the equivalent on Venus.
Each one is 50% below what the adiabatic derivation predicts. Venus has no water vapor in contrast to Earth.
Somebody must have a first-order derivation for this actual value. That's all I am seeking.
I see many references to the derivation of the adiabatic derivation on Earth of a 9.8 C/km lapse rate, where it concludes that this is "close" to the 6.5 C/km mean lapse rate observed.
Close?
How could 50% off be considered close?
It just kind of bothers me, because that accuracy would not be tolerated in other situations.
Let's see if this crude attempt at a table works any better.
Year…… Rice*…… CO2**…… Ratio. ….. Ratio Change
1970 …. 316.3….. 325.7……… 0.971……. _ _ _
1980 …. 396.9….. 338.7…….. 1.172………… 0.201
1990 …. 518.6 …. 354.4……. 1.463…………. 0.291
2000…. 599.4……369.5…….. 1.609………… 0.146
2010…. 672.0 …..389.9…….. 1.724………… 0.115
* World rice production in millions of metric tons.
** CO2 expressed as a mole fraction in dry air, micromol/mol, abbreviated as ppm.
Links to data sources were given in previous messed up table.
Your de-bugged chart confirms what I have been saying.
As CO2 increased over the 1970-2010 period (by around 20%) so did rice production: from 316 to 672 tons (or 2.1X).
I showed similar data for all three major grain crops (corn, wheat, rice): over the same period all three increased 2.4X.
Of course, the demand also increased: population increased 1.7X over this period.
Starvation rates decreased and life expectancy increased.
All good news, Okie.
Max_OK | May 13, 2013 at 12:22 am |
Max_CH, you again missed my point. Over the twenty-year period 1970-1990 you get almost one-half ton more rice per ppm unit of CO2 (1.463 – 0.971 = 0.492). But over the the following twenty-year period, 1990-2010, you get only one-quarter ton more rice per ppm unit of CO2 (1.724 – 1.463 = 0.261).
What was different about the two twenty year periods, 1970-1990 and 1990-2010? Well, the later was warmer, suggesting if gains in rice production were caused by rising CO2, the improvement wasn't as great when temperature rose.
Obviously, this is a simplistic analysis, as was yours.
No doubt rice production increased for a number of reasons besides the rise in atmospheric CO2, and we don't how much, if any, the additional CO2 contributed to production.
Over the twenty-year period 1970-1990 you get almost one-half ton more rice per ppm unit of CO2 (1.463 – 0.971 = 0.492). But over the the following twenty-year period, 1990-2010, you get only one-quarter ton more rice per ppm unit of CO2 (1.724 – 1.463 = 0.261).
What was different about the two twenty year periods, 1970-1990 and 1990-2010?
Well, the later was warmer, suggesting if gains in rice production were caused by rising CO2, the improvement wasn't as great when temperature rose.
There were undoubtedly many factors (including higher CO2 concentrations) which resulted in higher rice production over the years.
The smidgen of higher temperature probably helped increase the production very slightly over both periods (the increase was about the same for the two periods = around 0.3°C)
But I'd guess that the principal other factor was the demand.
Let's assume that most of the world rice is consumed in Asia
Asia population:
1970: 2.1 billion
So population increased by 52% (1970-1990) and only 31% (1990-2010). This accounts for almost all of your difference by itself.
Then there was the increased use of modern farming technology, fertilization, etc., which arguably occurred to a much greater extent in the 1970s and 1980s than in later years, when many of the improvements were already in place.
So I'd say that increased CO2 concentration probably played the largest factor, demand (population growth) the second largest with farming techniques a third (and the teeny bit of temperature difference essentially neutral to slightly positive).
Main point being that temperature had nothing to do with a slowdown in the increase, as you suggest.
But that's just my guess.
I don't quite understand why you are focusing on the Ratio Change. Exactly what is the concern? One would expect that at some point you hit a diminishing return. We could go another 40 years before doing so.
Besides, I would be surprised if increased CO2 concentration was the primary driver in in increased rice production.
timg56, I would be flabbergasted if the rise in C02 was the primary driver of rising rice production.
I only presented the table to counter Max_CH's attempt to attribute some of the rise in rice production to the rise in CO2.
…refusing to accept that a doubling in concentration of one of the important non-condensing components will have any kind of effect.
The increase in CO2 is a result of the warming. The relationship between GMST and and the logarithm of CO2 is not a one way equation that applies only during the warming. As a result, if the GMST falls by 1.2 deg C, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere halves. It goes into the oceans were it came from during the warming.
As a result, trying to control the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is like trying to control gravity. It is a fools errand. Any money spent on it is a total waste in a world where millions going hungry everyday NOW.
"The increase in CO2 is a result of the warming"
If CO2 is a proxy of warming then it looks like the Hockey Stick is correct:
No CO2 rise during medieval times = No medieval warm period.
Methinks I detect a bit of circular logic in your last comment.
(But, then again, it may have been intended.)
Assuming you were trying to be funny with that comment, I'll counter with an old saw that uses the same logic:
It is a take-off on an old "Radio Yerevan" type joke in the old Soviet Union.
This one has to do with archeological finds of old settlers in rivaling communities, Minsk and Pinsk.
Minsk Announcer: Radio Minsk reports of important discovery just made of old pre-historic ancestors in Minsk region. Remains of copper wire were discovered in the archeological finds, proving that ancient ancestors here already had telephone communication.
Pinsk Announcer: Radio Minsk reported yesterday that ancient ancestors there already had telephone communication. Radio Pinsk reports today of important discovery just made of old pre-historic ancestors in Pinsk region. No remains of copper wire were discovered in the archeological finds, proving that ancient ancestors here already had wireless communication.
Unless ocean CO2 is saturated a rise in partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause the ocean to dissolve more at the same water temperature and/or not outgas at a higher water temperature.
The scenario you describe doesn't an external source raising atmospheric partial pressure. You are describing an equilibrium relationship where only temperature changes while combined ocean/atmosphere CO2 is constant. This not the case here as there's an external source (humans) driving the combined total higher.
I'm as willing as the next guy to find faults in the greenhouse narrative from the usual suspects but atmospheric CO2 rising due to anthropogenic injection of same into the atmosphere is not one the narrative's failings.
Girma | May 12, 2013 at 10:14 pm |
If that is the case, where does the CO2 goes during cooling as seen in the vostok ice cores?
http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/icecores.html
The CO2 goes into the ocean. I'm not disputing the ocean dissolving more CO2 as it cools or outgassing as it warms. If you'd paid attention you would have noted I said that humans have changed the situation by injecting more CO2 into the atmosphere increasing the partial pressure at the ocean/atmosphere interface. I went on to say this forces more CO2 into the ocean which counteracts outgassing as it warms. In this scenario the ocean can warm and simultaneously dissolve more CO2. I believe this is made evident by the atmospheric increase in CO2 being only half the amount that humans inject into it. The ocean is absorbing the other half in response to the increase in partial pressure at the interface. I'm not certain that's the entire explanation as the increased CO2 is also driving a greening of the earth so some of the CO2 is being taken up as carbon into a growing total weight of living things. I'm also not certain the ocean's average temperature top to bottom has grown warmer since the industrial revolution began so I'm leery of that being a factor in the first place.
Arguing that humans aren't responsible for the increase in CO2 is a losing position will only get you labeled as a crank. We inject gigatons of it into the atmosphere and the total in the atmosphere increases by half that amount. I can find no other satisfactory explanation for the correlation.
However, it makes sense to me that if the global mean temperature drops by 1.2 deg C (the climate sensitivity) , the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will drop by half to about 200 ppm.
Girma, where does the anthropogenic CO2 go?
http://limnology.wisc.edu/courses/zoo535/classprojects/harte1_138-149.pdf
thanks steven
Derivation of climate sensitivity for zero-feed back is given by Shaviv:
Panel (f) is five kinds of modeled forcings combined. One of the other panels is the modeled response to CO2, "the anthropogenic fingerprint", which is described as a hotspot the mid-upper tropical troposphere and cooling in the tropical statosphere. Can you pick out which panel that is? It proves to be too great a challenge for LOLWOT. Is this a common failing of warmists or is lolwot "special" in that regard? :-)
Nowhere in the IPCC report will you find the hotspot referred to as a fingerprint of CO2. That is as far as I can tell a concept that only climate skeptics have decided on.
The climate models show a hotspot in response to solar warming too.
FIgure (a) in the link you post even shows a tropical hotspot. Look closely you can see the tropical troposphere in brighter yellow has a greater rate of warming than the surface.
Be careful springer, lolwot feels quite confident with what lolwot is writing.
You're right. They don't call it a fingerprint. They call it "spatial and temporal pattern of response". A fingerprint in the context I intended is defined as:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fingerprint
2: something that identifies: as
a: a trait, trace, or characteristic revealing origin or responsibility
9.2.2.1	Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Response
The ability to distinguish between climate responses to different external forcing factors in observations depends on the extent to which those responses are distinct (see, e.g., Section 9.4.1.4 and Appendix 9.A). Figure 9.1 illustrates the zonal average temperature response in the PCM model (see Table 8.1 for model details) to several different forcing agents over the last 100 years, while Figure 9.2 illustrates the zonal average temperature response in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) atmospheric model (when coupled to a simple mixed layer ocean model) to fossil fuel black carbon and organic matter, and to the combined effect of these forcings together with biomass burning aerosols (Penner et al., 2007). These figures indicate that the modelled vertical and zonal average signature of the temperature response should depend on the forcings. The major features shown in Figure 9.1 are robust to using different climate models. On the other hand, the response to black carbon forcing has not been widely examined and therefore the features in Figure 9.2 may be model dependent. Nevertheless, the response to black carbon forcings appears to be small.
Exactly how much of a fool do wish to make of yourself today, little buddy? Going for broke?
" As you see, according to the AR4– a consensus document written for the UN's IPCC and published in 2007 — models predict the effect of GHG's as distinctly different from that of solar or volcanic forcings. In particular: The tropical tropospheric hotspots appears in the plate discussing heating by GHG's and does not appear when the warming results from other causes."
"Who thinks the tropical tropospheric hot spot is a fingerprint of GHGs? People who read and believe section 9.2.2 of WG1′s contribution to the IPCC AR4."
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/who-expects-a-tropical-tropospheric-hot-spot-from-any-and-all-sources-of-warming/
They also refer to it as a signature:
These figures indicate that the modelled vertical and zonal average signature of the temperature response should depend on the forcings.
You really go me good there, little buddy. A devastating point made that the IPCC doesn't use the term fingerprint but instead uses the term "signature" and "temporal and spatial response pattern".
I should call it quits right now, huh?
ROFLMAO – I kill me sometimes.
Nowhere is it claimed that a tropical tropospheric hotspot is a signature, fingerprint, or any other synonym for unique, of CO2.
Climate models show a hotspot for increased solar output too. If the models showed solar activity had caused 90% of the 20th century warming, it would be figure (a) that had all the red in the tropical troposphere.
Look at the ratios. The ratio between surface warming and tropical troposphere warming is about the same in both figures (a) and (c)
Wow. Another big score. The "signature'"or "temporal and spatial response pattern" refers not to CO2 but rather to "well mixed greenhouse gases".
So what do they mean by well-mixed greenhouse gases you might ask.
Let us look.
6.3 Well-mixed Greenhouse Gases
The well-mixed greenhouse gases have lifetimes long enough to be relatively homogeneously mixed in the troposphere.
the most important of the greenhouse gases: CO2, CH4, N2O, CFC-11 and CFC-12.
For the chemical-formula challenged those are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and a couple kinds of chloroflourocarbons used as working fluids (refrigerants) in air conditioners and whatnot.
So, to wrap up the corrections loltwat has made so far the IPCC gives us modeled signatures of various forcing agents including well-mixed greenhouse gases. Those signatures are shown and labeled here:
Anyone with a lick of sense can see the well-mixed greenhouse gas signature is unque among forcings and is characterized by a mid-upper troposphere warm area (orange-red) and a cooler area in the stratosphere (blue-violet) in the atmosphere above the tropics.
Except for failing to us the exact same words as the IPCC my original point still stands unblemished by loltwat's semantic nitpicking.
Ron C. | May 12, 2013 at 10:40 am |
We keep hearing that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas. This is a common misconception that needs correcting.
CO2 is a radiative gas that immediately emits the energy that it absorbs and is not able to capture heat. At any altitude, CO2 radiates in all directions, but it can only add energy to colder molecules (mostly above); CO2 does not add energy, or raise the temperature of colder molecules (mostly below) or add heat to the earth's surface, which is already radiating at a higher temperature on average. While there are many re-emissions by CO2 from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, radiative transfers occur practically instantaneously, adding no measurable delay to the cooling process.
In short, CO2 does not store heat, it passes heat upwards, and it can only slow the cooling of the surface by a few milliseconds.
On the other hand, O2 and N2 make up 99% of the atmosphere, and these gases do trap heat, due to their low emissivity. O2 and N2 are heated by contact with the surface, by contact with radiatively-heated gases like CO2, and by contact with H2O vapor, which both radiates and releases latent heat as it condenses. O2 and N2 convect the heat upwards against the pressure of the atmosphere, until at the top heat is radiated into space. This delay of cooling results in a higher surface temperature, and raises the effective radiating altitude to many kilometers above sea level.
In summary, diatomic gases emit poorly and retain heat. Triatomic gases emit strongly and radiate heat away. O2 and N2 deserve the credit for a warm global habitat, not CO2.
If what you said was true every model, from the simple to complex, would show it. But they don't. They show the warming of the earth (above and beyond that caused by the sun) to be caused by greenhouse gases like CO2.
Lolwat, you are confusing cause and effect. The sun heats the surface, surface heats CO2, CO2 radiates to space. As the oceans are warmed by the sun, more CO2 is released. CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.
Without CO2 in the atmosphere the planet would be far cooler.
The Earth absorbs about 120,000 terawatts of energy from the Sun.
The Earth's surface emits about 200,000 terawatts of infrared.
Think about what would happen if the atmosphere was completely transparent to IR. It would mean all that 200,000 terawatts would go straight into space.
It would mean the Earth was losing almost twice as much energy as it gained from the Sun. The situation couldn't last.
The Earth would have to cool down until it's surface emitted only as much in IR, as it gained from the Sun, 120,000TW. It's average surface temperature would be about -18C. Which is about 33C cooler than present. Which is where the 33C figure for the greenhouse effect comes from.
But it's totally because of gases in the atmosphere which can absorb IR from the warmer surface before it escapes into space.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | May 12, 2013 at 11:42 am |
Amazing that we mention this bit of knee-jerk contrarianism in a subthread above
and we start to see the practitioners appear on command.
Some of this is just a blindspot to deeper physics but much of this is due to displays of pure delusion, category politics, and mindless pranking.
That's demonstrably wrong. A million electronic CO2 sensors operate by shining a 5um light source through both a hermetically sealed sample of atmosphere where the CO2 concentration is calibrated to a known amount and a sample of ambient air. The energy coming out the other end of the sample reveals how much more or less CO2 is in the ambient air sample compared to the calibrated reference.
http://www.raesystems.com/sites/default/files/downloads/FeedsEnclosure-TN-169_NDIR_CO2_Theory.pdf
The distinction is obviously eluding you, so I'll try again:
The calculated blackbody emission is ~200,000 Tw.
Yet, it cannot be LOSING 200,000 Tw, otherwise it would have become a frozen wasteland billions of years ago.
So the question should be: why is it only losing ~120,000 Tw?
lolwat, in your hypothetical world, you totally ignore conduction, convection and latent heat transfer, all of which move more heat upwards through the atmosphere than do radiative gases. Those gases are necessary to release heat into space at the TOA, where radiation is the only means of heat transfer.
You have a shortfall to explain.
The surface is losing 200,000 terawatts of energy from emitted IR
But the Earth only absorbs 120,000 terawatt of sunlight.
Convection and conduction don't help explain the short-fall at all. In fact they make the situation worse! They take even more energy from the surface!
Moving heat upwards doesn't explain why the surface is so hot.
The surface cannot be losing 200,000 terawatts, by definition.
So what you actually need to explain is why it's only losing 120,000 terawatts.
lolwot | May 12, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
Why not? It's hot enough.
Because, dear boy, if it were actually losing 80,000 Tw more than it was absorbing, it's very safe to say that none of us would be around to discuss this.
So, given that it's actually only losing ~120,000 Tw, the task is to explain why so little.
Where did I say it was losing 80,000 Tw more than it was absorbing?
just to be clear: the surface IS emitting about 200,000 terawatts IR. That's just the observed world we live in.
So any solution has to include this fact.
lowlot, don't get tedious now.
200,000 – 120,000 = 80,000.
And the surface IS losing about 120,000 Tw, NOT 200,000 Tw, so why the shortfall?
no the surface is losing about 200,000TW.
390wm-2 x surface area of earth = 200,000 TW
This ended up in the wrong place, so here it is again:
The surface is emitting 200,000TW. That's lost gone.
The reason why it isn't a frozen wasteland is that it can make up this loss through absorbed sunlight and downwelling IR radiation from the greenhouse gas atmosphere above it.
It may be EMITTING 200,000 Tw, and I'm not saying it isn't, but it's not LOSING 200,000 Tw.
As soon as you say it's LOSING 200,000 Tw then you can only explain the shortfall in terms of back-radiation – which starts creating more questions than it answers.
that's the point though,
you can only explain the shortfall in terms of back-radiation
If the atmosphere was transparent to IR then all the surface emission would go straight into space. That's 200,000 TW lost. Only 120,000 TW gained from the Sun, so you are right there is a shortfall, and what other than backradiation can cover it?
We all know the atmosphere is not transparent to IR, but that's not the point.
If you say the shortfall is x, and that shortfall must be fully compensated by back-radiation, then you start having to answer a lot of other questions besides, including:
1) how do you reconcile the fact that a change in CO2 concentration at the surface will make much less difference to the IR opacity than the same change at TOA, with the theory that the surface must warm at least as much as TOA in order to obtain equilibrium?
2) where does the energy come from for the increase in convection and evaporation which must accompany any temperature increase, if it's all accounted for by the increase in blackbody radiation?
If there is no alternative but backradiation to plug the shortfall ithen the answer must be backradiation.
Any questions that follow from the existence of backradiation are secondary to that fact and cannot themselves alter it.
Yes, that could indeed be the case, but that means you have to answer a lot of other questions – including the two I mentioned above.
Alternatively, there could be some other explanation.
For example, as has been suggested by various people, the surface is not a blackbody, and so emits considerably less than a blackbody of the same temperature would.
The shortfall is too large for that suggestion to be reasonable.
Plus backradiation is known to exist in the quantities required to explain the shortfall.
If something else could explain the shortfall that would beg the question where the backradiation energy goes.
Why argue the picture of the puzzle when all the pieces fit?
Why do you assume an 'either-or' scenario?
I did not suggest that there's no role for back-radiation, simply that it's possibly not the whole story.
And if you think all the pieces do in fact fit, how about answering the two questions I posed?
willb | May 12, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
"If there is no alternative but backradiation to plug the shortfall then the answer must be backradiation."
What about IR reflection from clouds? What about IR reflection from aerosols? What about rainfall? What about the wind, blowing across the land and the sea? All of these transfer heat to the surface. None of these are GHG effects.
This sort of crud just wastes everybody's time.
it can be fun. It's like chess. Argument, counter-argument, counter-counter-argument follow like moves. There are common move patterns.
In my response above I am trying a different opening. Rather than put surface emission and sunlight absorption in wm-2, I have put them in terawatts. I've done that to prevent a certain type of move i've seen opponents make in the past which results in stalemate: where they complain that you can't average sunlight over the whole globe. So I haven't, I've used the absolute amounts.
Seems to be a good move because my opponent has moved straight onto the convection and conduction argument.
We shouldn't have to resort to playing intellectual mind-games over this, yet it does occasionally lead to interesting angles to pursue. So I like lolwot's idea of using spatially integrated power because it does help to quell certain classes of counterarguments. As substantiating reasoning, scientists can figure out characteristics of distant stellar and planetary bodies without having to know the detailed spatial makeup of the body.
Jim D | May 12, 2013 at 11:57 am |
Ron C, if you are saying O2 and N2 have a heat capacity, that is of course correct. The term 'trapping heat' is not scientific and causes a lot of confusion when used in the context of storing heat. They can store heat, but don't interact with IR.
Ron C. | May 12, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
Jim D.
O2 and N2 are heated by conduction, convection and latent heat transfers, which rule in the troposphere. They don't need IR to get warm.
Exactly. The IR is only important for the GHGs.
JimD, N2 and O2 don't interact much with IR but they do interact with CO2, CH4 etc. etc. While the collisional or conductive transfer is small, it exists and grows more significant as the "sensitivity" of climate to CO2 forcing decreases.
That is the real problem. With a huge linear climate sensitivity, CO2 forcing would be easy to estimate, probably too easy since most atmospheric responses have a similar ln(2) curve. The half life of ocean heat uptake for example has a tau*ln(2) curve, radioactive decay also, the whole universe is in love with ln(2), so CO2 forcing can fit nearly everything. Enter the Sky Dragons.
The key is finding the Tau. Let's call it Tau-ism, Ohm
captd, the temperature of the O2 and N2 relies on thermal equilibrium, and the convection and radiative processes affect the air as a whole, but the direct IR effect on the air only exists because of GHGs, and this direct effect makes a major difference in how the temperatures end up both in the atmosphere and at the surface.
JimD, "captd, the temperature of the O2 and N2 relies on thermal equilibrium, and the convection and radiative processes affect the air as a whole, but the direct IR effect on the air only exists because of GHGs, and this direct effect makes a major difference in how the temperatures end up both in the atmosphere and at the surface."
Oh, so we can neglect conductive heat transfer forever and ever and ever because it only contributes a percent or two to the overall energy transfer budget, even though for there to be convection or latent heat flux, the initial energy transfer has to be due to either radiant or conductive transfer. I keep forgetting how simple the problem is.
captd, convection starts at the surface with the surface heat and latent heat fluxes which are conduction. I don't know what you want to ignore, but you can't ignore that.
lolwat, Oh I see what you are doing. You are equating downward IR radiation from cold CO2 with solar insolation at 5000K. Do you think this makes any sense?
no you are right, your comment doesn't make any sense
gymnosperm | May 12, 2013 at 10:49 am |
Pillars? Actually one hypothesis evident above, and one current evidence is leaning heavily against. Structural engineering required.
And the incredible arrogance to believe that knowledge of the optical properties of a trace gas measured in a jar is all one needs to understand the energy budget of the planet.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/12/how-to-spot-a-murderers-brain
"in Britain, the causes of crime were allowed to be exclusively social and environmental, the result of disturbed or impoverished nurture, rather than fated and genetic nature. To suggest otherwise, as Raine felt compelled to, having studied under Richard Dawkins and been persuaded of the "all-embracing influence of evolution on behaviour", was to doom yourself to an absence of funding. In America, there seemed more open-mindedness on the question and, as a result, more money to explore it. There was also another good reason why Raine headed initially to California: there were more murderers to study than there were at home."
"Even two decades ago, these were difficult findings to publish, however. When Raine presented a far less controversial paper in 1994 to a peer group, one that showed a combination of birth complications and early maternal rejection in babies had significant correlation with individuals becoming violent offenders 18 years later, it was denounced as "racist and ideologically motivated" and, according to Nature magazine, was simply further strong evidence that "the uproar surrounding attempts to find biological causes for social problems will continue". Similarly, when, 15 years ago, at the urging of his friend Jonathan Kellerman, the child psychologist and crime writer, Raine put together a proposal for a book on some of his scientific findings, no publisher would touch it. That book, The Anatomy of Violence, a clear-headed, evidence-based and carefully provocative account of Raine's 35 years of study, has only now appeared."
If this subject interests you, you might find Kevin Mitchell's blog worth following. If you don't already, that is.
What they are spotting with the PET is what used to be called a psychopath's brain. This can also be spotted with DNA and psychological measurements. There has been quite a bit of renewed interest. It was more of a big deal from the late 1800's until mid-20th century .
Some thirty years ago I borrowed a book from an M.D. friend's library on war medicine. In WWII, psychopaths were routinely screened out of combat units and routed to military intelligence. The reason was that although most heroics in battle came from psychopaths, the most unreliable behavior (including desertion during combat and criminal behavior) also came from psychopaths. Psychopaths are relatively fearless and could even pass the lie detector tests of the era – perfect for covert work.
Unfortunately, a big problem with psychopaths is that they are moral cretins. The only part of their brain which functions in experiencing emotional intelligence is the reptilian complex. Higher functions such as love, compassion, empathy, etc are handled as abstract concepts. They can be brilliant, talented people, but they consider honesty to be a mental illness. FYI, Karl Marx was a schizoidal psychopath.
PMHinSC | May 12, 2013 at 11:16 am |
Let me see if I understand correctly:
Historic data show increases in atmosphere CO2 to lag increases in temperature
Manmade CO2 is believed to be in the vicinity of 5% of all CO2 injected into the atmosphere
There is considerable dispute about how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere
The is considerable lack of knowledge of where and how CO2 is cycled out of the atmosphere
Although the (known) physics is clear, there is no empirical data to support a link between manmade CO2 and global temperatures
Water vapor accounts for about 95% of earth's greenhouse gases
Due to lack of knowledge, water vapor as a greenhouse gas is not (or inadequately) included in the models
The dominate greenhouse gas, water vapor, is not blamed or discussed in global warming blogs such as this.
"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
As Dr. Curry said " If all other things remain equal, it is clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet. However the real difficulty is that nothing remains equal, and reliable prediction of the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate requires that we better understand natural climate variability."
Please remind me again (I keep forgetting) why we are so sure that manmade CO2 is destroying the planet that we must destroy the world's economy, impoverish people, take food off of peoples plates and use it for car fuel, deprive people of the energy they need to cook, heat their homes during winter, or afford transportation to get to work or medical care.
PMHinSC take a look at this graph, it shows that CO2 has uncharacteristically jumped up recently, coinciding with the jump in manmade CO2 emissions.
It's too much of a coincidence really.
michael hart | May 12, 2013 at 11:51 am |
Just as Hansen comments that the Anthropogenic fraction is not doing what it is supposed to:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/011006/pdf/1748-9326_8_1_011006.pdf
"Remarkably, and we will argue importantly, the airborne fraction has declined since 2000"
I'm not saying he's right, but you people really love your coincidences don't you? lol wot :)
PMHinSC | May 12, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
Coincidence? That is your argument? Forget all that irrelevant stuff about water vapor, inadequate knowledge about the carbon cycle, no empirical data showing temperature lagging CO2, the need to "better understand natural climate variability", and 15-17 years of no significant temperature increase despite a continuous increase in CO2. Since this is a science blog I think you need to come up with something more than "coincidence".
Look at the graph. It's plain as day the sharp recent CO2 rise is due to man. Even a child can see the jump in Co2 at the end of the graph aint natural.
Not all that clear cut.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/wwwgeocraftcom-WVFossils-stomatahtml_zpsc1882d79.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
CH, did you know that CO2 levels can stay around 500 ppm in unventilated forested areas? Local stomata mean nothing unless they are controlled for their locations by using widely separated points.
Please read again the quote from Dr. Curry:
" If all other things remain equal, it is clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet. However the real difficulty is that nothing remains equal, and reliable prediction of the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate requires that we better understand natural climate variability."
There is no empirical data showing that increasing CO2 in and of itself will significantly increase global temperature. Historical data shows CO2 lags temperatures. There must be something else going on. You have enough of an argument to warrant further investigation but that is all. And while you are at it, include water vapor in your investigation along with influences of the sun. Your sole scientific argument appears to be "coincidence", which is not a scientific argument. Your fall back position is the Precautionary Principle which is an admission that you cannot prevail with scientific arguments.
No Jim – what we have is variable by height, seasonally, daily.
You realise that diffusion of CO2 in ice is likely to lead to smoothing of the record?
PMHinSC, if you can't accept the fact the CO2 rise is due to human activity, then you are impervious to scientific evidence.
The data are very clear despite attempts by "Skeptical Science" and a few other blog sites to muddy the waters: enhanced CO2 concentrations result in increased plant growth and improved water-use efficiency. This improvement is most striking up to around 1000 ppm, above which the rate of improvement appears to slow down. It is more pronounced for C3 plants (most plants and most crop plants, except corn) than for C4 plants (most grasses and weeds, plus corn).
Somebody said:
"Historical data shows CO2 lags temperatures.
J. B. Pedro, S. O. Rasmussen, and T. D. van Ommen, "Tightened constraints on the time-lag between Antarctic temperature and CO2 during the last deglaciation," Climate of the Past, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1213–1221, Jul. 2012.
"Utilising a recently developed proxy for regional Antarctic temperature, derived from five near-coastal ice cores and two ice core CO2 records with high dating precision, we show that the increase in CO2 likely lagged the increase in regional Antarctic temperature by less than 400 yr and that even a short lead of CO2 over temperature cannot be excluded. This result, consistent for both CO2 records, implies a faster coupling between temperature and CO2 than previous estimates, which had permitted up to millennial-scale lags.
The times they are a changing.
F. Parrenin, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Köhler, D. Raynaud, D. Paillard, J. Schwander, C. Barbante, A. Landais, A. Wegner, and J. Jouzel, "Synchronous change of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature during the last deglacial warming," Science, vol. 339, no. 6123, pp. 1060–1063, 2013.
" Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies. "
CH, so what are you saying? Volcanic eruptions? Certainly the Eocene and Permian-Triassic rises were volcanic. I don't think the recent rise is, however. Do you think it is, or where is this leading?
manacker, a climate good for plants is not so good for warm-blooded mammals. Large areas of the tropics would be unlivable with dewpoints reaching too close to blood temperature for comfort.
So some science from the dweeb at long last. One saying that…'we show that the increase in CO2 likely lagged the increase in regional Antarctic temperature by less than 400 yr and that even a short lead of CO2 over temperature cannot be excluded..'
The other…we 'infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.'
There is no mechanism for CO2 leading temperature – although a large lag between warmer temps and CO2 rises may be pushing the point a little. The big changes in temperature between glacials and interglacials is due to ice albedo. Again – the reduction of a complex system to simple memes – by either side – is unwarranted.
But it seems all we have left is the dregs of the warministas arguing a rear guard action against reality. I'm feeling a bit ungenerous this morning – time to take out the garbage.
Whether it is or not is irrelevant unless you can show that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature. And you can't since there is no data to support that claim. Your argument that CO2 causes temperature to increase is a non-sequitor (Wikipedia: Non sequitur in formal logic is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.) You can make a scientific argument that it should, but there is no data to support that argument. There is enough science to support further study but not to draw a conclusion. Such a non-sequitur argument may work with the general public but not on blogs such as this. I intreat you to reread Dr. Curry's words when she wrote "However the real difficulty is that nothing remains equal, and reliable prediction of the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate requires that we better understand natural climate variability."
Jim D | May 12, 2013 at 6:38 pm said: "climate good for plants is not so good for warm-blooded mammals. Large areas of the tropics…"
WRONG!! I'm warmblooded animal, in the tropical paradise; and enjoy the perfect climate. not many of them are enjoying the coldness in Switzerland, or Antarctic.
jimmy boy, are you always wrong on purpose; or are you born back to front, via the wrong hole? . Because, everything you say is offensives to the nose. Imagine if your mom went to the toilet, instead of going to maternity word – The world would have being more honest place
"There is no mechanism for CO2 leading temperature"
There is a modest positive feedback mechanism for a CO2 perturbation followed by a GHG-driven temperature rise. This will not be runaway feedback but it is there.
You can deny this all you want, but the physical mechanism exists.
So what caused the perturbation in the first place? And what drives most temperature change in transitions between glacials and intergalcials?
Jim D | May 13, 2013 at 1:04 am |
stefantheidiot, I can now see how you chose your name. In the hothouse earth, your tropical paradise was 10 C warmer and human-sized mammals could not survive there year-round.
CH, when you say there is no mechanism for CO2 leading temperature, do you mean except for when it is produced by volcanic periods such as the Permian-Triassic or Eocene episodes, that were followed by warming, or are you saying these didn't exist, or that the warming caused the volcanoes? Your thoughts on this matter need some clearing up or correcting.
PMHinSC,
Dr Judith Curry accepts that rising CO2 causes warming.
Also your continued denial that the CO2 rise is caused by man shows you are effectively a science denying creationist.
I have not one time opined on whether "the CO2 rise is caused by man". By accusing me of "denial" you are making a straw man argument (Wikipedia:A type of argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position). By refusing to have an honest discussion you have effectively conceded that your position on the subject is based on faith not fact. Suggest you start commenting in People Magazine since that audience is susceptible to non sequitur arguments, straw man arguments, and red herrings.
By denying that the CO2 rise is caused by man you've effectively conceded that you are a pseudo-science believing loon.
Plans to export U.S. Natural Gas stirs debate. Should we, or shouldn't we?
http://news.yahoo.com/lightbox/plans-export-us-natural-gas-photo-114802113.html
We shouldn't export any fossil fuels. Not a drop, dram, mole, or smidgeon.
I think we have a duty to supply the world with cheap energy. The billions who have no electricity, Americans need to pony up and pay ExxonMobil a few gobzillions to give that natural gas to them poor folks over there.
JCH due to Poe's Law I'm unsure of how to respond to that.
Most of the US natural gas will be used locally, in many cases offsetting costly imports of oil, but If there is a US supply of natural gas, which can in part be economically exported, why not? (Switzerland wouldn't mind buying US gas at all.)
It's a global economy.
The impact on the US balance of payments would be a side benefit, but the economics should govern this, just as they have in the past.
No need for anyone to push for export restrictions.
Market has never been free or global in the US for anything flagged vital national interest. Energy exports are already flagged which is precisely why this requires gov't permission.
David Springer
I can accept your premise, but US exports of refined petroleum products have risen to 2.6 million bbl/day.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mtpexus2&f=a
Why should excess natural gas, not required in the USA, be any different?
(Save it for the grandkids?)
Exports of refined petroleum products are only a small fraction of the imported unrefined petroleum. There's no limit placed on importing petroleum, refining it, and exporting the refined product as this does not draw down national reserves.
The US imports natural gas via pipeline from Canada and Mexico. I presume exports of liquified NG are limited such that national reserves aren't drawn down to produce the exports. Fossil fuel reserves are considered strategic national resources and as such are subject to strict regulation. The only good thing about importing petroleum as far as I'm concerned is it's preferable to consume someone else's oil and conserve our own reserves as an investment. It's a judgement call. One big breakthrough in alternative energy could make fossil fuels worthless so there's an argument to be made about selling them now while there's still a market for them.
It is a step in the right direction if it is going to replace coal or dirtier oil, so a conditional yes depending on that. Additionally, then the US supply will run out quicker forcing the US towards alternatives faster.
From a purely economic standpoint, why shouldn't the US export a product or resource that is apparently abundant? Improving the balance of trade is a good thing.
From a geo-political standpoint, there are several potential benefits. Being dependant on someone else for your energy needs is more acceptable when the supplier is someone unlikely to threaten that supplier to support their own agenda or due to instability. Ask the Ukrainians who they'd prefer to get their gas from, us or the Russians.
timg56, exporting American natural gas is OK with me, but I also understand the objections to exporting it.
Facts have nothing to do with it. It's all political: Left vs. Right / secular-socialism vs. individual liberty. And, it matters not one with how many millions will suffer and die for lack of energy.
What I am doing here is giving you the 'why' before the 'what'. What I'm amazed at is how people can keep seeing things that are opposite of what they claimed would happen 5 years ago, simply change the terminology, and then say the things they say. That kind of mentality is one that does not accept any answer except the one they think it should be. So the fight is not on a level of a normal argument. The arguing is with people who believe they possess the "truth" and that anything short of their "truth" cannot be tolerated. ~Joe Bastardi
There is science and pseudo-science. Science comes up with an idea like the oceans are causing warming, and when they cool, the air cools. Pseudo-science says: well CO2 is adding to this, but how much? IT'S A QUESTION THAT CAN NEVER BE ANSWERED. Does the question then become: Would we already be heading into a mini ice age were it not for CO2 saving us? How do you answer that? Untold amounts of money are being thrown at a question that isn't even something of consideration. ~Joe Bastardi
Of course Joe Bastardi is also another example of a weatherman named Joe who should stick to weather forecasting. He's been predicting a recovery of Arctic sea ice for years…and then when a new low is hit, he says "ya, but…"
If this reveals what Joe Bastardi thinks about the U.S. exporting natural gas, I missed it.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.
~William Gray
Waggy, stop picking on William Gray. You will be a geezer yourself some day.
So will you, Okie (if you're lucky and live past puberty).
Now let me ask you this question, in terms of the climate system, which is far more important: the tropical oceans and the air masses around them, or what is going on in the Arctic? ~Joe Bastardi
bladeshearer | May 12, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
I'm surprised that no mention has yet been made on this blog of the Pulkovo Observatory's recent prediction of global cooling for the next 200-250 years. If, in fact, Pulkovo is a respectable and well-established scientific institution, their prediction should be of interest to everyone in the field climate science. I would appreciate learning Dr. Curry's reaction.
No one is expert in accurately forecasting which way the wind will blow. There is a possibility of a coming "Mini Ice Age" that Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov says may be headed our way based on a 200-year solar cycle.
GET OUT Of HERE ! It's easy to forecast which way the wind will blow. I forecast where I live the wind will blow mostly from the South in summer and from the North in winter. I am confident about my forecast.
Maybe you are causing it. Metaphorically, you could be the wind god. Oh my!
pokerguy | May 12, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
The notion that we're on the cusp of a cool down is gaining currency. Of course you won't read anything about it in the NYT's, but even mainstream outlets in europe are beginning to talk about it.
That one has gained currency before, usually in winter I suspect.
there isn't even a statistically significant pause in global warming.
Let alone any sign of global cooling!
Just like "global warming" hysteria usually starts around July.
Estimates put the solar delta in forcing associated with a Maunder Minimum around -0.5 W/m2, while doubling CO2 is +3.7 W/m2, and actual amounts by 2100 may add up to more than 5 W/m2, so with a Maunder Minimum we get more 4.5 W/m2. CO2 still dominant.
"Estimates put…"
Whose estimates?
And how do these "estimates" explain the MWP and LIA, for example?
The one that I saw was one from Lean et al. (1995) in climate4you's reconstruction of solar irradiance. It has been criticized for having too much variation, if anything, so 0.5 W/m2 is an upper limit.
MW who and LI what?
I think the LIA was also a period of reduced sunspots, but we don't know sunspots for the various MWPs. There is a Be-10 proxy indicating that the sun was last as strong as the late 1900's around 1100-1200 AD, but others say it wasn't so strong then.
"Solar irradiance"?
Yep. The measurable tip of the iceberg.
That sure does not explain the MWP and LIA, Jim.
Sorry, NO SALE!
Jimd
That period was certainly as warm as today, probably warmer. The temperature took a down turn around 1215
Pure coincidence that ENSO took a turn to La Nina about the same time.
manacker, a lot of people have associated low sunspot counts with lower irradiance like is happening today and at the Maunder Minimum. You choose not to believe a solar cause for the LIA or various MWPs, and you have just removed the other main factor in climate variability, so the whole climate change and paleo thing is indeed an impenetrable cloud of mystery to you.
Tonyb, that date corresponds to when at least one proxy shows a solar decline. Tell manacker this. A half W/m2 change in solar forcing, corresponding to about 3 W/m2 solar irradiance (out of 1370), can explain a few tenths of C cooling, with reasonable climate sensitivities, as the record shows.
Jim D | May 12, 2013 at 6:49 pm said: "manacker, a lot of people have associated low sunspot counts with lower irradiance like is happening today and at the Maunder Minimum. You choose not to believe a solar cause for the LIA or various MWPs…"
Jimmy boy, "sunspots,LIA. Maunder Minimum"; as GLOBAL TEMP FLUCTUATION, is Fake Skeptic's crap, now you are gorging yourself on it… must be suffering from too much empty space in your head; same as they do.
Nobody knows what was last year's GLOBAL temp; but you started to suffer from Tony Brown's sickness… If you want me to start feeling sorry for you, let me know
NATURAL GAS VEHICLE TREND GAINS TRACTION
Long-haul trucks are a natural for clean-burning natural gas.
I think locomotives would be too.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/05/12/512-837am-pub-this-natural-gas-vehicle-trend-is-ga.aspx
Locomotive Builder GE Eyes Natural Gas
BNSF and other railroads are clamoring for diesel locomotives fueled by natural gas.
http://www.goerie.com/article/20130311/NEWS02/303109874/GE-Transportation-eyes-natural-gas-locomotives
Ships are also looking at converting.
Here's the problem Maxie. The US has enormous reserves of coal and natural gas. We can turn those into liquid transporation fuels @ $80/bbl equivalent. The infrastructure to produce it isn't cheap and OPEC can shut it down on a whim by selling oil under $80/bbl for as long as it takes to make the liquifaction plants shut down due to bleeding red ink. So no one has ponied up the big bucks for significant liquifaction infrastructure and no one will so long as it remains vulnerable to price fixing and dumping which are supposed to be violations of international trade laws.
Doesn't happen a whole helluva lot, but this time I agree with you (and with your fellow ex-Okie, T. Boone Pickens): natural gas makes sense for long-haul trucks, buses, locomotives, etc., and to a lesser extent even passenger cars.
Side benefit: gets rid of that particulate carbon pollution from Diesel motors
Do I get the roughly 10 gallons of diesel that comes out of barrel of oil? If yes, goody goody. I've always wanted diesel-powered lawn tools.
Max_Ch, Waggy may not hate Americans but he puts the market first. He's in love with the market and dreams of performing unmentionable acts of affection on her. He would stab America in the back to gain her favor.
Max_Ch, I'm beginning to think you have romantic feeling about the market. You better be careful. Look what's happened to Waggy.
Let the market dictate. The federal government is incompetent.
Waggy, the market would dictate exporting our natural gas, and foreign demand would drive up the price American's pay for of natural gas as well as depleting this valuable resource faster. Waggy, unless you stand to gain from the higher prices, you motivation has to be a hatred of Americans.
We agree on this point. Strategic national interests trump private profits.
There is no shortage of ideologues indifferent to truth.
MaxOK
Has nothing to do with "hating Americans", Okie.
It's a global energy market, which has been hijacked by a price-fixing cartel, which controlled the supply, for the past 40 years.
It appears that shale gas and oil may bust that monopoly.
Max_CH, I'm sorry for first putting this post in the wrong place. I just hope you will read it.
Waggy may not hate Americans but he puts the market first. I'm afraid he's head-over-heels in love with the market. I don't doubt Waggy would stab America in the back to gain her favor. She is in total control of the poor lad.
Max_Ch, I'm beginning to think you too have romantic feeling about the market. You better be careful. The market can be a cruel mistress. Just look what's happened to Waggy.
manacker | May 12, 2013 at 11:45 pm |
Thanks for tip about market.
Like Mother Nature the market has both good and not so good surprises, but generally has not treated me too badly.
As far as how gas producers in the USA handle their new found wealth, I don't have any hard and fast ideas as an outsider. (Been sitting on some Chesapeake stock that isn't doing much, but I'm confident it will start growing again.)
I'm sure that regulators will make sure that whatever is done will not be against US national interests, as they have been defined for them by lawmakers.
So, if the system works like it does here, lean on your representatives in congress if you want to influence US energy policy (you may have to stand in line on this one, though).
I personally think US gas makers will install liquefaction plants (they already are), and the next logical step is to sell LNG to the highest bidder, keeping in mind that it will always be less costly (and more profitable) to sell the gas locally via pipeline.
Keeping in "in the ground for future generations" is most likely the least attractive alternate.
Just my thoughts on it as an outsider.
GaryM | May 12, 2013 at 11:52 pm |
Max_Ok,
You really should at least try to understand what is meant by a "free market" by those who use the term properly. I never tried to understand progressive economics by reading those who disagree with it, I read those who articulated the theory, and those who tried to adapt it as it failed again and again.
Same with climate science. When I want to know what the consensus thinks, I don't read WUWT (although I go there regularly for other reasons) or any other skeptic blog, I read Real Climate and other consensus science sites or the papers themselves.
You really have no clue of what a "free market" is, or how it works. Which is why you have to rely on straw men and hyperbole to criticize it. Same with skeptic positions on "global warming."
If you can't state your opponent's position fairly and accurately, then you don't understand it. If you don't understand it, you can't argue coherently against it (which this site shows on a regular basis). The problem is you have been taught to value polemics over critical analysis. But you might want to give the alternative a try.
There are arguments against and inefficiencies in the free market, but neither you nor your political fellow travelers here have a clue what they are, because you don't understand the concept.
Just as knowledge is power, ignorance is weakness.
Gary M,
Excellent comment
Re manacker post of May 12, 2013 at 11:45 pm
Max_CH, because I have mineral rights in a natural gas producing area I believe rising prices for natural gas would be in my best interest regardless of what is driving prices higher, be it constraints on new supply or increases in demand. But I know what's in my best interest is not always in the best interest of my country, so if lawmakers want to restrict exports of American natural gas, I'm not going to complain.
My investment in energy stocks is limited to what my mutual funds hold. I don't follow the performance of energy stocks, so I can't offer an opinion on your Chesapeake stock, not that my opinion would be worth anything if I had one. However, I am optimistic about the future of natural gas. I am amazed at how rapidly the value of my mineral rights have increased in the last two years.
'Kevin Book, an analyst for ClearView Energy Partners, a research and consulting firm, predicted that the administration will approve some new exports, but nowhere near the 20 projects that are pending before the Energy Department.
"Everything we see from the administration suggests they embrace the idea of a small first-allocation" of LNG export permits, Book said. "They are looking for some subset to test the market."
U.S. officials also must consider competition from countries such as Canada and Australia, where new LNG export terminals also are being proposed. The facilities cost billions of dollars and take years to complete.
Only one U.S. license has been granted so far, to Houston-based Cheniere Energy Inc. for an export terminal in Louisiana's Cameron Parish. Proposals to build plants from Maryland to Texas and Oregon are pending from energy giants such as Exxon Mobil and Conoco Phillips, as well as Virginia-based Dominion Resources Inc. and Canadian-based Veresen Inc.
The Energy Department has promised to decide on a case-by-case basis, but must finish wading through nearly 200,000 comments filed on a study last year that concluded more exports would translate to net economic benefits for the U.S.'
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/167765/Plans-To-Export-US-Natural-Gas-Stir-Debate.html
High paying jobs in gas exports are worth a lot more to the economy.
PMHinSC commented on Open thread weekend said: "" If all other things remain equal, it is clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet"
PMHinSC, that trick is used by other "prudent" people – as a "backdoor exit"
I.e. if warming doesn't happen / CO2 is increasing = blame other things!…
You should get the opposite approach and say: if sunspots or other excuse prevented GLOBAL warming / they did the cooling, to balance – then the biggest carbon emitters should be rewarded for preventing global cooling…? It's called "reverse psychology"
THE TRUTH: sunspots will keep changing / CO2 will keep increasing, BUT, temp OVERALL global temp will stay the same. Because oxygen &nitrogen are regulating the overall temp, nothing to do with CO2
PMHinSC | May 12, 2013 at 10:12 pm |
Stefanthedenier | May 12, 2013 at 7:23 pm | Reply
Just to clarify; I was quoting Dr. Curry.
Chief Hydrologist commented on Open thread: "Stefan – you are still ignoring the real threat of CO2 that I have raised with you many times. Impotence and baldness is spreading like wildfire across the planet"
Chief, you are scaring me, don't forget to say: "BOOO!!! I'm a man with plenty of white hair; regarding impotency from CO2; I'm past my menopause. . I enjoy my CO2 in the beer and champagne; the more of it = the better. have you tried flat beer without CO2 in? CARBON TAX ON BEER!
Just don't take any to the Sahara Stefan – they have enough problems with domes of nitrogen and oxygen and birds flying upside down in winter. Bubbles in beer and wine is a modern invention – and look where it has got us. Coca-Cola would have us believe that they get CO2 from industrial processes that would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere. Not true – they get it from squeezing upside down ducks in the Sahara. Millions and millions of ducks. Oh the ducks! The ducks! It makes me weep to think of it.
Chief Hydrologist commented on Open thread weekend said: " I care about the world stopping breeding and going bald. Fortunately – I am immune to both and intend to live long enough to take full advantage of the situation. What do you do? You rabbit on about nothing at all in the Sahara. The Sahara got along without you for a long time"
Chief, there are too many people on the planet; the mongrels should stop breeding!
2] When I say Sahara; I'm referring to the Australian desert also; only Sahara is unavoidable and better known.
3] all the birds are on Venus; reason there isn't any birds on Mars; because mars suppose to represents men
next time when you decide to throw up a tantrum – you must seat on your ass, kick with your feet, scream and lick your snot; all at the same time!
I have never seen birds flying upside down in Australian desert. Lots of them walking – cause that's what emu do. Ever seen an impotent emu? No? That's cause they stopped breeding and all died out. That's why there are no roosters on Mars.
Next time you have a mad theory – don't expect anyone to take it seriously.
Chief Hydrologist | May 12, 2013 at 9:40 pm said: "Next time you have a mad theory – don't expect anyone to take it seriously"
I have no mad theories! 2] if you don't understand that: cold air when warms up a lot during the day in Sahara – EXPANDS! -> That extra volume. of air goes up into the stratosphere…. it tells about your closed parashoot brains — useless to you…
The only difference in Australian desert is: because is red clay instead of sand – stays hot most of the night also -> that gives time for that hot / dry "DOME" to flow west into the Indian ocean; reason west of Australia over the sea all the clouds are destroyed and is almost permanently cloudless.
That moisture belongs to the Indonesian archipelago and for renewal of the ice around antarctic. Chief, you need to learn about hydrology a bit, stop putting yourself down, by ridiculing the truth…!
Chief Hydrologist | May 12, 2013 at 9:40 pm said: "I have never seen birds flying upside down in Australian desert. Lots of them walking – cause that's what emu do"
Chief, do you know that: originally European money were decided to be called "EMU"? Decision was made for "European Monetary Unit" EMU for short – until some Danish representative protested: "we can't call it EMU; that's the name of some stupid Australian bird; doesn't even know how to fly, it runs in the bush like sheep. So because that they had to to change it to Euro.
P.s. the emus are not getting castrated by CO2, but birds &animals inland Australia are dying in million every dry season. Because Bob Brown has the climatologist' and hydrologist' brains inside his ass. Reason I proposed castration for shonks like you to be reintroduced.
Stefan – you are a shonk – a carpetbagger – an emu oil salesman – a down and dirty dingo with roos loose in the top paddock and maybe a few emus too.
Don't you know that the birds have more water then they can ever use? Brought to the surface from hundreds of metres below ground by pastoralists? These are not clays but true sandy deserts below which oceans flow in the sandstone of the Great Artesian Basin and in the karst of the ancients seabed of the central deserts. How mad is your dream to keep open water in such landscapes. Sometimes the rivers freshen and the great inland sea fills with a immense abundance of life only to bake hard again in the harsh sunlight. How mad is your ambition to turn such a harsh, dangerous but beautiful mistress.
Besides emu tastes better'n turkey – and the drumsticks are bigger.
cjshaker | May 12, 2013 at 10:04 pm |
Any Updates on the 'Miskolczi theory of our atmosphere'? Here are my notes and links I found to download his papers, and articles about his work.
THE STABLE STATIONARY VALUE OF THE EARTH'S
GLOBAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC PLANCK-WEIGHTED
GREENHOUSE-GAS OPTICAL THICKNESS
Ferenc M. Miskolczi, page 243
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf
NOTE ON THE MISKOLCZI THEORY, by Dr (hc) Noor van Andel start on page 277 in the same document
Published before he resigned from NASA. His boss at NASA is listed as coauthor
The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/envirophilo/Clear.pdf
Story about what happened at NASA to cause him to resign
http://climatephysics.com/nasa-silenced-ferenc-miskolczi-on-his-ghg-research/
His Open letter to UN
http://climatephysics.com/open-letter-to-un-secretary-general-no-reason-to-restrict-co2-climate-models-are-wrong/
Articles about his research
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/physicist-proves-co2-emissions-irrelevant-in-earth%E2%80%99s-climate
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/epa-ignores-scientific-breakthrough
Excerpts from: "In Science, Ignorance Is Not Bliss", By Physicist / Astronaut: Walter Cunningham, Launch Magazine, August 2008
"It is the true believers who, when they have no facts on their side, try to silence their critics. When former NASA mathematician Ferenc Miskolczi pointed out that "greenhouse warming" may be mathematically impossible, NASA would not allow him to publish his work. Miskolczi dared to question the simplifying assumption in the warming model that the atmosphere is infinitely thick. He pointed out that when you use the correct thickness—about 65 miles—the greenhouse effect disappears! Ergo: no AGW. Miskolczi resigned in disgust and published his proof in the peer reviewed Hungarian journal Weather."
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/LaunchMag_WalterCunningham.htm
Example 4,793 of why centralized control is a bad idea. And of the abyss between theory (the world as it exists in progressives' imaginations), and reality (where the rest of us really live).
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347973/two-moms-vs-common-core
"Instead of many arithmetic problems, the homework would contain only three or four questions, and two of those would be 'explain your answer,'" Heather told me. "Like, 'One bridge is 412 feet long and the other bridge is 206 feet long. Which bridge is longer? How do you know?'"
Professor Milgram was the only math content expert on the Validation Committee reviewing the standards, and he concluded that the Common Core standards are, as he told the Texas state legislature, "in large measure a political document that . . . is written at a very low level and does not adequately reflect our current understanding of why the math programs in the high-achieving countries give dramatically better results."
Politics masquerading as education/science. Where have we heard that before?
This is nothing new. This is just the "whole language" idiocy redux. You know, where the "education" school elitists decided to dump phonics and sh*tcan actually learning vocabulary in favor of a brand new, super duper (albeit untested and ultimately worthless) new product of the imaginations of the perfessers.
My son's entire class was having trouble learning to read, so I taught him phonics, and told some of the other parents to just assume the school wasn't going to teach them to read. Problem solved.
The EU-UN global warming hypothesis was founded on and maintained ever since by data that's been 'fixed.'
Even alarmists' data is no long alarming while their GCMs have become little more than briefcase bombs in crowded cafes–e.g.,
'The geometric (Arnol'd, 1983; Guckenheimer and Holmes, 1983) and the ergodic (Eckmann and Ruelle, 1985) theory of dynamical systems represent significant achievements of the 20th century. The foundations of the stochastic calculus in its second half (Doob, 1953) also led to the birth of a rigorous theory of time-dependent random phenomena. Historically, theoretical developments in climate dynamics have been largely motivated by these two complementary approaches, based on the work of E. N. Lorenz
and that of K. Hasselmann (Lorenz, 1963; Hasselmann,1976), respectively.
It now seems clear that these two approaches complement, rather than exclude each other. Incomplete knowledge of small-, subgrid-scale processes, as well as computational limitations will always require one to account for these processes in a stochastic way. As a result of sensitive dependence on initial data and on parameters, numerical weather forecasts, as well as climate projections are both expressed these days in probabilistic terms. In addition to the intrinsic challenge of addressing the nonlinearity
along with the stochasticity of climatic processes, it is thus more convenient | and becoming more and more necessary | to rely on a model's (or set of models') probability density function (PDF) rather than on its individual,
point-wise simulations or predictions…
A complete theory of climate variability, across the entire range of time scales of interest, is still in the future. We have shown, though, that
powerful conceptual and numerical tools exist in order to organize the emerging knowledge so far. The approach described herein relies on applying systematically dynamical systems theory, both deterministic and stochastic, across a hierarchy of models, from the simplest toy models
to the most detailed, coupled GCMs. This approach has progressed from its first modest steps, taken half-a-century ago, to the analysis of the behavior of atmospheric, oceanic and coupled GCMs over the last two decades. Particularly interesting strides have been taken over the last decade in studying the interaction of the faster time scales with the slower ones, within a genuinely nonlinear framework.' http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf
What is the sensible thing to do after realizing the Left fed us made-up data, bitch about it or defund the bastards and watch the real melt-down? Fixing climate change requires fixing government and that begins with eliminating half of the federal government before it eliminates all of you.
Sounds like Waggy got turned down again for a government job. Maybe cutting your hair differently, wearing a clean shirt, and putting sox on would help.
Is the ultimate goal of the Left that no one should feel inconvenienced in the slightest by their lack of desire to provide anything of value to society? Is the safety valve on secular, socialism to simply abort all the new entrants into the civilization when the government finally runs out of other people's money?
Waggy, if whining added value, you would be worth as much as Warren Buffet.
GaryM said in his post of May 12, 2013 at 11:52 pm
You really have no clue of what a "free market" is, or how it works.
Gary, I know very well how a free market works from participating in free markets. I know very well how a regulated market works from participating in regulated markets.
When a free market or a regulated market benefits me, I like it. When one or the other doesn't benefit me, I don't like it. That's because I'm a capitalist. If I liked it when a market didn't benefit me, I wouldn't be a capitalist. I would be an idiot.
Some people are very idealistic about the free market, They seem to think there's something sacred about it. They are purist about the free market, put it first, and object to anything they see as a violation of its principles. I tend to view idealist as impractical and sappy.
GaryM | May 13, 2013 at 2:57 am |
"Gary, I know very well how a free market works from participating in free markets."
Uh huh. Since you buy and sell services and goods on a somewhat free market, you know how it works. Great logic. That means the 5 year old who buys bubble gum and sells kool aid has the same basis for comprehending the market that you do. And frankly that is a conclusion I would not argue with.
GaryM, of course the 5-year old merchant would have the "same basis" for understanding the market as Sam Walton or any other retailer, and since he would have to know how to count, the same basis for understanding math as a Nobel Prize winner.
I didn't start participating in the market at age 5. I started at about age 10. By the time I was 14, I may have had a better grasp of how the free market works than you now have. My experience with regulated markets came later.
But perhaps I underestimate you. Do you have any market experience other than buying stuff?
The only unregulated markets are for drugs and guns. There are all sorts of regulations on labour, consumer safety, monopolies, consumer protection. As I said before – the distinction of free markets is not the lack of regulation but the ability of people to freely decide what to produce and consume. When I said that you said 'goody – I will make aeroplanes'. My response was to suggest you start small – 1 to 200 scale.
You're understanding of either science or markets is at the level of a smart arse 15 year old. I have yet to see anything from you to suggest that the preening and prattling has any substance at all. You are a very uninformed 15 year old with zilch book learnin', nil life experience and an overly active adolescent fantasy world.
A young boy decided to make money by buying cold drinks and candies at the store and selling them door to door to nearby homeowners. He kept track of how many of each flavor and type people were buying, and adjusted his purchases accordingly. He was Warren Buffett. He's done okay. Probably about as well as Max Ok. After all, they're both pixxant progressives.
steven | May 13, 2013 at 7:04 am |
JCH, how well would he do if he started today?
http://www.cityofomaha.org/planning/permits/images/stories/bldg_development/Peddler%20Permit%20Municode.pdf
It's been a long time since I read the book, but I think he did it at his parent's lake house. But your point is a good one. I would suspect a form of that ordinance was in place when Buffett was a boy. When I was a kid almost all towns in the midwest had a sign at the city limits:
Green River Ordinance
Those would have been early versions. They were rarely enforced against neighborhood children.
" steven | May 13, 2013 at 7:04 am
recommendation : don't be such a dick
What's next? Otis lecturing me on drinking?
steven, "Otis lecturing on drinking."
Nice Perhaps Webster should join Climate Anonymous :)
Floyd the Barber and Aunt Bea are deeply offended.
Ooh, ooh, I'm scared Andy.
Chief Hydrologist said on May 13, 2013 at 4:41 am
"As I said before – the distinction of free markets is not the lack of regulation but the ability of people to freely decide what to produce and consume."
Chief, that's one of the silliest statements you have ever written. You are saying in a free market people can produce and consume whatever they choose, as long as what they choose isn't prohibited, which is the same as saying a market is free except when it isn't free.
I am reminded of what Henry Ford said about the choice of Model-T colors he offered buyers . He is reported to have said "You can have any color you like as long as it's black."
Chief was not arguing for a totally "laissez faire" market where anything goes.
That's the "Wild West".
The choices are not between no government rules at all and complete government control.
In democratic societies (such as those, in which you, the Chief and I live) the voting electorate have a choice, via their elected representatives, to influence how much regulation is needed or desirable.
It appears from the comments here, that you want "more regulation" and that Chief wants "less regulation".
I'd agree with Chief that we are getting to the point that we have more than enough regulations out there, many of which simply protect special interest groups of one sort or another and do not reflect what the voting population would really want if they were asked.
Max_CH, I don't want "more regulations." I want the government to keep regulations that benefit me, and make some new ones that will benefit me even more. Then I want the government to do away with regulations that don't benefit me. I figure when that's all done, we will have fewer regulations than we have today.
I have made a terrible mistake. Your comment:
shows that I was terribly wrong and even insulting in comparing your grasp of the free market to that of a five year old. My apologies to the year old.
Should be "My apologies to the 5 year old."
Sucks when you screw up the punchline with a typo.
I wish you'd stop loafing around and get my damn car fixed, Goober.
Three tenets of Hayek in The Road to Serfdom.
*Within society's rule of law for all, limit government
intervention which leads ter increased debt and ter
inflation, especially when government spends money
it doesn't have.
*Avoid monetary control by a central authority
which is government encroachment on the
overall freedom of individuals.
*Recognise that individual freedom is a precondition
for prosperity. People neesd ter be able ter choose
freely what ter buy and at what price. And what ter
produce.Through trial and error, failures and success
of risk takers at no cost ter the public, public gain
without public cost.
So, we benefit from better technology and other products.
and maintain our political freedoms. That's why serfs
like open society.
One-of-them.
Beth Cooper said on May 13, 2013 at 10:24 pm |
Beth, Hayek is for right-wing ideologues who aren't offended by his admiration of Augusto Pinochet.
That's not me.
Using one liners w/out context doesn't make an argument.
Fer instance I can say of Corey Robins re Hayek / Pinnochet
'This contorted argument serves Robin's career-long attempt
to shoehorn every non-leftist into a single group of people
who hate equality.'
Beth-against-closed-society-political-movements. )
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/corey-robins-dubious-nietzsche-hayek-connection/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=corey-robins-dubious-nietzsche-hayek-connection
One of the functions of government is to create the conditions for a fair market. Without fairness in markets – there can be no true freedom.
Seriously – don't ignore the point – you are 15 years old.
Oh, I see. You want a level playing field.
I want an advantage.
So who is smarter?
Ha Ha !
The true advantage comes with creativity, productivity, risk taking and innovation in a properly functioning – fair – market in a stable economy and a democratic and free society. How to achieve all that is the essence of liberal, enlightenment philosophy evolved in society over hundreds of years.
These are the important aspects of our western heritage – and will not be trashed by one ignorant adolescent.
What we see here is the difference between
a free-market idealist (Chief Hydrologist)
a capitalist (Max_OK)
The idealist doesn't understand why the capitalist's goal is making money rather than upholding free-market principles, and the capitalist doesn't understand why the idealist puts the sanctity of the market ahead of making money.
The idealists may see the capitalist as an amoral opportunist, while the capitalist may think the idealist is a sap.
Oh please – you are a 15 year old geek boy living an adolescent fantasy. The only capital you have is tied up in pimple cream.
Rob Starkey | May 13, 2013 at 9:02 am |
I would like some help in understanding what the largest fears are today that would lead a person to want to drastically reduce CO2 emissions in the US? Could someone explain what they believe is going to happen that is so negative and what data leads them to that conclusion?
Will reducing US emissions measurably reduce the rate of sea level rise?
Will there be fewer severe storms?
Will rainfall patterns be more favorable?
Will the rate of the oceans becoming more acidic change and result in a change that impacts the US?
In all seriousness, this is where those who fear more CO2 are losing the argument to take potentially expensive actions. It you can't describe the positive benefits of taking the actions you advocate, there is a low probability that those paying the bill will support your plan.
Rob Starkey | May 13, 2013 at 11:14 am |
Thanks Peter- I was hoping someone like Mosher who frequently posts that more CO2 is "obviously bad" comes to that conclusion.
Simple Ringo,
We move toward alternative energies to join the rest of the world as they see their liquid fossil fuels depleting.
Don't be left behind. Solar is plummeting in cost. Resurgence in electric vehicles. Wind is picking up speed. Lots of little advances are scaring the power utilities. Rejoice and we can make some strides with a little help from our friends.
Electric cars, like solar and wind, wouldn't exist except for government subsidies taken from tax payer at the point of a gun.
"I've said electric cars get subsidized too much. Turns out I was wrong.
In California, they are subsidized ridiculously too much.
Tesla gets $45,000 for each car it sells in state and federal subsidies. The Tesla S starts at $69,000, so about 40% of its total cost is subsidies (Tesla isn't making any big profits).
This is because the California Air Resources Board has mandated that zero emission vehicles should comprise 15% of new-car sales by 2025 — up from less than 1% now. This forces other car companies that can't comply to pay for credits from Tesla.
"At the end of the day, other carmakers are subsidizing Tesla," says one analyst."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/12/lomborg-californians-are-paying-ridiculous-subsidies-for-electric-cars/
Rob Starkey | May 13, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
Webby– Try to actually read and respond to the actual questions.
Not as long as you live in a fantasy land of infinite resources and no constraints.
Engineering is about creativity in the face of constraints.
Show us what you got.
We live in a fantasy world of human creativity and innovation. Government is not the way to bring about low cost and abundant energy.
WEB,
Where are you seeing a resurgance in electric vehicles?
We have a couple in our vehicle fleet downstairs. They rarely get used. And the news for manufacturers is not so good. I certainly wouldn't buy stock in Tesla or Fisker.
New horizontal drilling technology combined with older fracking technologies, in order to gain access to oil and gas resources previously constrained by tight shale formations is an excellent example of what you are talking about, Webby.
That's the spirit. Going down while scraping from the sides of the peanut butter jar and squeezing the last bit of toothpaste from the tube.
'I would like some help in understanding what the largest fears are today that would lead a person to want to drastically reduce CO2 emissions in the US? Could someone explain what they believe is going to happen that is so negative and what data leads them to that conclusion?"
Pretty simple. More c02 leads to more warming.
plug in any number you like, 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C just to get a sense of the sensitivity
next calculate the rise in sea level considering only steric effects– we will keep this simple.
Next, get an elevation map and a population map.
Calculate the people under water given your scenarios.
Of course if you dont live near a coast… meh.. so check how many people
live in areas that would be flooded with a 1 foot, 2 foot, 3foot rise in sea level.
http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/new-york.shtml
Your answer seems to beg the question.
It seems a fair question to ask those who favor certain policy choices whether even they think the policies will solve the perceived problem.
I tend to agree with your assessment that sea level rise is the key to the overall issue. What you didn't address is what impact all the "climate mitigation actions" would have on changing the rate of sea level rise.
I think you tend to agree that the 3 billion people living worldwide currently without access to electricity or powered transportation will gain both over the next few decades. There is virtually zero likelihood of massive subsidization of their drive to obtain electricity by currently developed nations, therefore; the power is most likely to be powered by fossil fuel.
Is there likely to be any slowing in the rate of sea level rise due to human actions?
Mosher in his usual arrogant and nasty way, answers this perfectly reasonable and rational question with:
Of course if you dont live near a coast… meh.. so check how many people live in areas that would be flooded with a 1 foot, 2 foot, 3foot rise in sea level.
So, at last, Mosher has had a go at making a comment revealing his understanding of impacts of GHG emissions.
But he makes no estimate of the costs or the times involved. So it is totally meaningless. Damages have to be measured in units of damages, like "$" or "%GDP" or some other appropriate units for comparing damages over time.
Nordhaus (2008) (http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf Figure 7.1, p145 'The fraction of the world's population and output lying below a given elevation.'). Just 0.1% of the worlds population lives, and global output occurs, below 1 m elevation. What is the adaptation cost and damage cost to adapt to a 0.5 to 1 m sea level rise over a period of a century?. And what might the cost of such adaptation be? Negligible?
Anthoff et. al. (2010) The economic imp;act of substantial sea level rise http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11027-010-9220-7.pdf , "Fig. 10 Total damage costs due to sea-level rise for 0.5 m, 1 m and 2 m sea-level rise in 2100". Using the central assumptions, the estimated costs is $200 billion for 0.5 m sea level rise and $1 trillion for 1 m sea level rise in 2100. Again – its trivial over 100 years compared with cumulative discounted global GDP over that period.
And Bjorn Lomborg (2013), quoting from Richard Tol's analysis, estimates the total damage cost of projected warming to 2200 at just 1.5% of GDP, (see figure 2: "Figure 2 Global, total, discounted GDP through 2200, and climate loss." http://www.lomborg.com/sites/default/files/Congress_testimony_April_2013_3.pdf ). That is after net benefits of projected warming being positive for most of this century.
So, rising sea levels don't seem to be catastrophic
Next?.
The current situation is easy to describe. The Earth warms and cools over time and currently it is politically attractive for the Left to claim a bigger government with greater control over the economy will save the world from being too hot. Similarly, it is inconvenient for the Left to concede that if the mean global surface temperature of the Earth continues to drop at the same rate as over the last 25 years — i.e., 1 °C — the Earth will be "in an ice age" by 2100.
I would like some help in understanding what the largest fears are today that would lead a person to want to drastically reduce CO2 emissions in the US?
"The world is going to get so hot the oceans boil and everybody's going to die!"
"The oceans are going to turn to battery acid and everybody's going to die!"
AFAIK those are the "largest fears are today that would lead a person to want to drastically reduce CO2 emissions in the US". At least the scariest. They are pushed by scaremongers some of whom may believe them.
Could someone explain what they believe is going to happen that is so negative and what data leads them to that conclusion?
If you're talking about me, what I think might happen over the next 20-70 years is that increasing greenhouse gas concentration might lead to a major readjustment in the climate that results in a year or 2 of global famine. I'd rate the chance smaller than another "year without a summer" from a volcanic explosion. Another thing that might happen is some sort of catastrophic ecological restructuring due to increasing pCO2 or decreasing ocean pH (or increasing temperature, although that's really wild). Again, I'd rate the chance of that pretty small, and the chance that it would have a major impact on the world's economy even smaller. Not worth impacting the cost of energy for industry, transport, or consumers, which has a larger chance of major economic disruption.
What the risk does justify, IMO, is a much larger focus on certain types of research. That has little chance of negative impact on the economy, and will almost certainly pay for itself in spin-off technology, even if it doesn't provide any benefit from reduced pCO2. The most important type of research is carbon capture, preferably for conversion to fuel, feedstocks, or construction material.
By 2100, IMO, CO2 drawdown for those purposes will have reached the point that people will be more worried about taking too much CO2 out, and causing another ice age. Even without special research focus. With the research, that point will be reached much earlier, and the risk reduced.
Snowing this morning in western New York State.
Been a while, to say the least, since that's happened in the middle of May.
Herman Alexander Pope's prediction right on the money.
mwgrant | May 13, 2013 at 10:30 am |
My memory is 10-15 years ago for Orchard Park, just south of Buffalo.
Yeah but that was caused by George Bush.
Take Route 219 south until it ends (~50 miles from Orchard Park) and you'll be less than 100 feet from the front door of the house where I grew up. That's where it was snowing when I talked to my mom this morning who still lives in the same house. She said it was common enough 50-60 years ago that my father complained just about every spring when the snow fell and the robins couldn't feed themselves. Of course there aren't many robins there anymore. When I was growing up you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a few robins. I raised a robin that fell out of the nest before it had feathers when I was about 5 years old. His name was "Wormbucket". I fed him with night crawlers I kept in a small plastic pail full of dirt. His favorite place in the world was perched on the edge of the pail hence the name. He hung around being fed by hand all summer long until it was time to migrate south. Good times.
SXUS71 KBUF 131018
RERBUF
RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE BUFFALO NY
0305 AM EDT MON MAY 13 2013
…RECORD DAILY MAXIMUM SNOWFALL TIED AT BUFFALO NY…
A RECORD SNOWFALL OF TRACE WAS TIED AT BUFFALO NY YESTERDAY. THIS
TIES THE OLD RECORD OF TRACE SET IN 1938.
Springer is doing a good impression of Mayor Tommy Shanks.
Fits in nicely with HAP's Chauncey Gardner.
Willard needs some new characters to fill in the skeptic diorama.
I always thought western NY should secede from the rest of the state. It is a really great place to live if you have a job. Good people.
Q: What do you get if you cross Chicken Little with The Boy Who Cried Wolf?
A: WebHubTelescope
I don't know about how Orchard Park feels but Buffalo doesn't get much respect anywhere in Cattaraugus county. I'm sure New York City is a common enemy through most of the state though.
[repost–I put it in the wrong place below…]
The dividing line in my mind lies in the Southtowns which are a transition-zone. I moved there initially in the '80s to work at WV. It did not take long to loathe Erie County politics in general though ironically in some ways it seems more like Cincinnati than the east–politics are a little different in the two 'Queen Cities'. At later I worked at the Bethlehem site and in downtown Buffalo and grew to like parts the city itself–a lot of character. (Buffalo knows some things about using food as an viable accelerent for heart disease!)
BTW I sometimes describe living in OP as like living in a Norman Rockwell painting…a mix of picturesque and wildly disconnected. It was very different from both Buffalo and rural WNY. I grew up in East Tennessee and found the latter most familiar–terrain, lifesyles–in many ways. I agree on NYC or more precisely, downstate. It just does not have much in common with WNY. (The Adirondacks seem to be another thing altogether)
I wonder… will that show up in the tree rings a 1,000 years from now?
Oh now that was just plain mean spirited. But funny as hell. Thanks.
Also predicted last fall by Tom Wysmuller and Judah Cohen
And by Maurice Ewing and William Donn, and their prediction was made in the 1950's and 1960's. They all have said that when the oceans get warm and the Arctic opens, it will snow more and longer. Mother Nature does agree.
R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist, etc. | May 13, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
Here's the deal. We've had warmer winters and warmer summers when summed over the whole NH than we had 50 years ago or 100 years ago.
More snow cover in winter (as evidenced by the actual data showing higher snowcover for the NH in winter) but lower snowcover in summer (as evidence by the actual data showing lower snowcover in summer). Now, before the advent of the massive release of CO2 by humans, the natural rock-carbon cycle combined with the astronomical cycles of solar insolation would balance things out, namely: as snow cover increased as CO2 levles rose, the run off and melt in summer from this larger snowcover would wear down rocks and erode soils, absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, therby reducing CO2, and along with the change in astronomical solar forcing, the Earth would grow cooler. This was a natural rock-carbon feedback process that has been in force for millions of years and has worked quite nicely. But, along came an intelligent species who could deliver far more carbon to the atmosphere than natural feedback processes could remove. As the feedback processes have been overwhelmed, the carbon can't be removed from the atmosphere as fast the homo sapiens can pump it up there.
With continued increases in GH gases and the overwhelming of natural rock-carbon feedback processes, homo sapiens will unwittingly return to Pliocene-like climate condtions, much like their Australopithecus ancestors experienced several million years ago. Hopefully homo sapiens will use their rather large brains to figure out a way to either bioengineer a method to substitute as a natural rock-carbon feeback, or figure out a way to continue to feed the 7+ billion of us with a climate that may not be suited to the techniques and crops of mass agriculture we enjoy the fruits of today.
climatereason | May 13, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
Looking at the longer game, whilst undoubtedly winters have become warmer than in the LIA, changes in other seasons are much less noticeable. Many summers in the past were equally as warm as today as such as Brian Fagan, Jean Groves and Hubert Lamb confirm
Had trace snow here in Minnesota a couple of days ago. Interesting that last fall, the Old Farmer's Almanac predicted snow in this region for between May 10-12. Last year went snowless at least a couple of months earlier, if memory serves. wtf.
Perhaps with our large brains some among us will notice what is happening as the Sun progresses through a long solar slump — as has happened before (e.g., 350 years ago during the LIA) — and, stop listing to climate scientists long enough to trap and skin enough fur-bearing animals to get through the next 300 winters.
Warmer winters are the principal constituent of the CET rise ('long thaw'), Summers had no uptrend for 350 years.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
Herman Alexander Pope | May 13, 2013 at 9:30 pm |
an increase of a fraction of at trace gas has made a large change!
A fraction of a trace gas has made a fraction of a trace of difference.
CO2-SST relationship
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-CO2.htm
Again, as long as late spring and early summer NH snow cover continues to show a very negative down trend, we've got no glacial advance even remotely possible. It is the warmer winters that have made more snow possible, but all that is quickly melted in late spring and summer.
The dividing line in my mind lies in the Southtowns which are a transition-zone. I move there initially in the '80s to work at WV. It did not take long to loathe Erie County politics in general though ironically in some ways it seems more like Cincinnati than the east–politics are a little different in the two 'Queen Cities'. Later I worked in downtown Buffalo and grew to like parts the city itself.
BTW I sometimes describe living in OP as like living in a Norman Rockwell painting…
Humanity cannot cause an asteroid nor a volcano nor an iceberg but humanity can make seas rise? How awesome! Too awesome. Humanity's contribution in the grand scheme of things is but the single beat of a butterfly's wing — just a thought of a thing in a world we can imagine but not hear nor see nor effect in the slightest except perhaps in a part of the soul in a corner of the mind of an old man in a lounge chair nursing a Manhattan.
I 'll ask Peter D ter award yer a plus one fer this)
I'm jealous. Is Peter D paying you royalties for use of your patented "+1"?
I am pleased to advise that the 'Thought for the day' franchise' formerly held by Beth Cooper who has forfeited it because of her severe dereliction of the franchise in recent months for which she will incur an awful lot of penalties (as per clause 196a) is up for grabs.
As an expression of good faith I am asking for a non refundable bond of £1000 which, if you are unsuccessful in your bid, will be sent to the leading charitable climate related cause known as KTTFOS.
Faustino | May 14, 2013 at 7:15 am |
Keep The Treasure For OurSelves?
You would have needed to have followed the weekly progress reports last year, but it stands for;
"Keeping Tony's tomatoes free of slugs.'
It is a very worthy cause but I suspect a hopeless one…
Tony, tsk …
Money, money, money, that's all yer think of!
Thx Peter fer the plus one. I'll accept it with pleasure.
Beth.
I need the money to fend off the slugs. This morning I caught them attaching their kayaks to the uprights on my greenhouse. Its not a good sign. Last year they only needed life jackets.
I told yer the Serf Association of Charcoal Burners
are gonna assist with yer Tomato Project. Jest
hang in there! :)
Mine's a good drop of red.
Two Peters from Oz,
whatevah it takes …Everyone knows
we liber – tarians are no better than
them ree – publicans of little conscience
in the Yew – nighted – States of America..
Jest ask Max_OK :)
B- t – c – g.
…sounds wickedly zinful
mosomoso | May 14, 2013 at 4:27 am |
If humanity can make the seas rise, then it was very busy at the task from the late 1700s to the 1860s. Much less so since… but everyone needs a break from incessant sea-hoisting.
At the ocean's edge, glittering crustaceans and
shelly treasures mesh, like a Chanel garment
that's beaded at the hem.
Today she wears her palest satin robe
that dips and dimples as she moves,
like a Venetian princess who glides
across the marble floor of her palazza
to the deep accompaniment of a muted cello.
Don't be fooled. Beneath that civilized exterior
lie Freudian depths, fathoms ot instincts blind,
kelp coiling, slithering serpent entwined.
And like Medusa she rises up,
naked save for a necklace of whale bones
and the smashed hulks of ships,
to glory in … recoil from …and glory in,
the savagery unleashed.
+1 for the pomes Beth, especially the last.
Great imagery!
When it comes to fearsome sea-related tragedy the whimsy of the gods has been on full display since ancient times. We need look no further than to the Mediterranean where the wreckage of ancient Roman merchant ships lie at the bottom of the sea still laden with with their cargo of amphorae full of goods like garum.* From intrepid seafaring Romans and Greeks before that — facing fears with heady hearts and brawny hands and fate in gods' hands — we are now laden with phenomenal stat-pricks of Western academia that are handy only in masturbating their fears in public classrooms and pontificating from their heated and air conditioned ivory towers high above the rest of us about a future rise in sea levels being something we should all blame on modernity and worry about now even though it happens over centuries at less than a snails pace.
*Recipe available upon request
Wagathon
I am just reading an old document at the moment which continues the theme of ancient civilisations and climate.
"I would go too far if I were to analyse here the merits and demerits
of Aristotle's meteorology. It may he sufficient to say that his most
distinguished successors, such as Theophrastus and Posidonius, have added but little to the perfection of his system, which, on the contrary, gave rise to innumerable commentaries and paraphrases.
All text-books of meteorology issued on the Continent till the end of the seventeenth century are exclusively based on Aristotle, whereas, curiously enough,in England his influence was much less. If I except Duns Scotus, I do not know any British scholar who has written a commentary on the Meteorology of Aristotle, and even this one has quite recently been disputed.
It is true, the number of treatises on meteorology published in Great Britain before 1700 is unusually small compared with that issued contemporaneously in Germany, Italy, and France, in Latin or the vernacular language.' Englishmen seem always to have been more inclined to make actual observations of the weather than to theorise upon it and to write systematic treatises on meteorology.
Among the Romans meteorology made but little progress, like all other
sciences of no immediate practical value. Pliny, Seneca, and Lucretius
do not add any remarkable fact or theory to the knowledge of the
Greeks, and probably the same can be said of the lost writings of Nigidius Figulris and Suetonius Tranquillus. From Virgil we learn some new weather-proverbs originating in Italy, and a writer on agriculture,
Columella, who owned a large estate near Cadiz in Andalusia, has left
behind a Calendnrium Busticum, or rural calendar, with many interesting
weather-observations made in that district.
The extensive colonial possessions of the Romans were, of course,
suitable for advancing the conceptions of climatological differences of
the countries. As the great military expedition of Alexander the Great
to Inner Asia and India had brought to the Greeks the first knowledge
of the monsoon winds, So the Romans were the first to point out the
difference between the continental and maritime climate. Minucins
Felix, a Christian writer from Africa, living in the second century A.D.,
says, concerning the climate of Great Britain, " Britannia sole deficitiir,
sed circumfluentis maris tepore recreatur," that is, freely translated,
'' Britain has little sunshine, but a mild climate on account of the warm
sea-water flowing round it."
This last sentence demonstrates that nothing whatsoever has changed about our climate in 2000 years.
'A complete theory of climate variability, across the entire range of time scales of interest, is still in the future. We have shown, though, that
powerful conceptual and numerical tools exist in order to organize the emerging knowledge so far. The approach described herein relies on applying systematically dynamical systems theory, both deterministic and stochastic, across a hierarchy of models, from the simplest toy models to the most detailed, coupled GCMs. This approach has progressed from its first modest steps, taken half-a-century ago, to the analysis of the behavior of atmospheric, oceanic and coupled GCMs over the last two decades. Particularly interesting strides have been taken over the last decade in studying the interaction of the faster time scales with the slower. ' A Mathematical Theory of Climate Sensitivity or, How to Deal With Both Anthropogenic Forcing and Natural Variability? Michael Ghil = 2013
We lack both the theory and maths to calculate climate sensitivity.
Interesting— I see continued neglect of time-honored principles and a violation of good faith in matters entrusted to academia. I see a reliance on unsound scientific methods for gathering and interpreting raw data and the wholesale abandonment of the scientific method. I see a failure to recognize the insufficiency of climate scientists and ineffectiveness of academia to face and deal with a systemic breach of fiduciary duty and fraud in the field of climatology.
I guess now adaptation is called resiliency
http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2013a%2Fpr159-13.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1
curryja | May 13, 2013 at 8:41 pm |
post on resiliency and anti-fragility coming soon
Hmm maybe I can do a synopsis of our work on heat waves..
Your tax dollars at work in the UN, and reason 4,784 why it would be insanity to give them control over the energy economy.
Fox News has learned that Iran will chair the UN Conference on Disarmament at the end of the month.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/13/iran-to-lead-un-linked-forum-on-disarmament-at-end-month/?test=latestnews
In further news, the UN is going to appoint North Korea as chair on the Panel for the Promotion of Free Speech. Right after appointing Lichtenstein as chair of Security Counsel.
GaryM "In further news, the UN is going to appoint North Korea as chair on the Panel for the Promotion of Free Speech. Right after appointing Lichtenstein as chair of Security Counsel."
They must be pranking!
Feedom of speech, in North Korea???
Lichtenstein on the Security Council let alone chairing it???? How big is this country and what is their sphere of influence???
See Peter Sellers' "The Mouse that Roared" for an answer.
Damn. My irony detector let that one pass to the keeper!
Harold | May 13, 2013 at 11:52 pm |
If it makes anybody feel any better, it's not just climate science that has a transparency problem:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/13/most-transparent-administration-in-histo
"What's my line? I'm a working man in my prime; cleaning windows."
Perhaps Van Morrison would find more value in that role now than he did in the '60s.
stefanthedenier | May 14, 2013 at 1:03 am |
Chief Hydrologist commented on Open thread weekend : "Stefan – you are a shonk – a carpetbagger – an emu oil salesman – a down and dirty dingo with roos loose in the top paddock and maybe a few emus too.
Don't you know that the birds have more water then they can ever use?"
Chief, the red soil inland during the day warms up to water boiling point; I had to go under the car on a dirt road / red soil… WOW, can fry eggs on it. Skippy& emu have to walk on that soil – you should be made to walk on it without shoes… and birds need moisture inland for their food also, not just to drink farmer's water; or to dig for subterranean water…
As an obsessive snake oil salesman, you are solving the global problems; instead of saving the storm-water on the driest continent!
Fitzroy river on Kimberleys has tremendous amount of water in wet – in dry only few bilabongs; some day they will be dry also – will not be water in area as wide as Germany – turning Fitzroy river floodwater into the sandy desert will create buffer zone from dry heat -> Kimberley will become rainforest and permanent water creeks = new carbon sink
another Fitzroy river floods Rockhampton regularly – building few small dams upstream will eliminate floods and water used in dry, instead of desalinating that same water, after is drained into the sea. Extra dams and few hundred hectares rice paddies upstream will improve the climate. If you give 3 wishes to the trees – they will say: please, please establish rice paddies in the area.
3] Burdekin river should be turned into Thompson – lake Ayers will be full permanently – will make the bush-fires and desalination, and sprinkler restriction in S/E corner, history. Every gallon of water saved on creeks and rivers inland – improves the vegetation = the best new carbon sink. old timers were building dams in S/E corner, where the vote is; climate improved because of that, for the last 100years.
BUT, the rivers that are filling Amazon with water; on same latitude in OZ, those rivers are dry for 5-6-7 months in the year. Inland dry heat to be minimized, soil is same as in Brazil – trees will be growing out of your ears! Mitchel river west of Cairns is 2km wide in flood, all that water wasted
forget stupid carbon, water regulates the climate – you must learn some correct hydrology – instead off from Brown &Flannery's lunacy and anti-Australian attitude. The Skippy and emu are cursing idiots like you, in dry seasons – people &animals are getting scorched, because of dry heat created inland, that is vacuuming the moisture from the mulch + vegetation close to the coast.
If the clouds are tricked with moisture inland – to spread far inland – wouldn't be any floods east of the divide:
http://www.myfoxny.com/story/22233951/un-says-why-not-eat-more-insects
Does this mean they're going to start serving grasshopper tartar in the UN Delegates Dining Room?
Jim D commented on Open thread weekend : "stefantheidiot, I can now see how you chose your name. In the hothouse earth, your tropical paradise was 10 C warmer and human-sized mammals could not survive there year-round'
Why going up by only 10C; go up by 24,5C; would be even more scary?!. Somebody needs to be an idiot, to believe that your wish will became reality
Jim, ice melts constantly; on Arctic by the salty seawater, from below / on Antarctic & Greenland by the geothermal heat, also from below. Warmer oceans produce more row material for ice on those places = more ice; that makes you twice as wrong.
Eocene, Crapocene, LIA used to be Fake Skeptic's crap' now you started gorging on it also; get out off their septic tank; your lies will be more convincing – the less lies, the more convincing they are. Let the Fakes drowning in crappy mythology! only then, with your "less" lies; you can clime high moral ground. Being shifty; even your mom and Bob Brown will disown you. 10C warmer…? you forgot to say: BOOO!!!
10 C was in the past, but 5 C could be in the next 100 years. Climate changes.
Jim D | May 14, 2013 at 2:28 am said: "10 C was in the past, but 5 C could be in the next 100 years. Climate changes.
".could be"…… grandpa "could become a grandma" but will never be. Jim, you started to sound as Wagaton – nobody knows what was last year's GLOBAL temp; but you hallucinate to know what was thousands and millions of years ago.
Pacific is as large as ALL the dry land on the planet. no imprint there of warmer planet. if it was warmer on some spot in England, or Colorado by 10C – it's enough to be cooler during that time by 0,1C in Pacific, to balance
'Jack Hughes' added Emily Shuck on climate and the public:
From the report;
Focus group participants were looking for definitive statements and were very sensitive to the use of words such as 'could', 'may' and 'suggest'.
The report itself contains…
33 'coulds'
79 'mays'
4 'suggests'
4 'perhapses'
18 'likelies'
23 'indicates'
highlights the difference between the herd mentality and the independent thinkers.
0°C is the new 4°C… because, it's been -1 for the last 25 years.
Here's more independent evidence that the data showing ocean heat content increasing over the past 4 decades in probably fairly accurate:
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-fish-thermometer-reveals-long-standing-global.html
"Pilchard the dominant fish in warmer years…"
http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/int_hotfish_ma.pdf
Here is a nice picture of the ancient Pilchard inn in South Devon England with its establishment date of 1336 clearly visible . Around the area are such places as pilchard point where fishermen from the 12th century used to search the seas for pilchard. Nearby Plymouth has records of fish catches back to the 1100's demonstrating the constant movement of fish types according to climate change-herring in cooler years and pilchard in warmer ones.
4 decades? So what?
"4 Decades. So what?"
Ocean heat content data prior to ARGO has been questioned (and rightfully so). This study is one that would seem to support the notion that at least the long-term upward trend in ocean heat content displayed priort to ARGO is likely accurate.
Long term in this instance meaning 4 decades or so?
We have a thousand years of fish records as I pointed out to WWF when I first saw their report. Warming waters and cooling waters are nothing new.
I once wrote an article entitled 'fish a a temperature proxy' but it's lost somewhere on the web.
The paper reports temperature trends of 0.19 C/decade globally and 0.23 C/decade for non-tropical areas. These values are in fair agreement with the SST changes over the same period, but have very little to do with the temperature changes that correspond to the OHC data to any significant depth.
http://books.google.com/books?id=oY2ZPn5EOTQC&printsec=frontcover
I think I know the author but wish I didn't. ;-)
Another 97% consensus report based on crowd-sourcing thousands of climate science papers. There is what they call a consensus gap between what the public think the percentage is and what it really is (97%). If this perception gap was closed, they suggest policies would be much easier to enact.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-zeller-jr/climate-change-study_b_3285245.html
The work by John Cook is also presented at Skeptical Science
http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html
and the ERL paper with a video abstract by John Cook is here
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
This multi-decadal oscillation of the GMST has been described by Swanson et al:
"Temperatures reached a relative maximum around 1940, cooled until the mid 1970s, and have warmed from that point to the present. Radiative forcings due to solar variations, volcanoes, and aerosols have often been invoked as explanations for this non-monotonic variation (4). However, it is possible that long-term natural variability, rooted in changes in the ocean circulation, underlies much of this variability over multiple decades (8–12)."
After removing the multi-decadal oscillation, Wu et al have reported their result for the long-term warming rate:
"…the rapidity of the warming in the late twentieth century was a result of concurrence of a secular warming trend and the warming phase of a multidecadal (~65-year period) oscillatory variation and we estimated the contribution of the former to be about 0.08 deg C per decade since ~1980."
This long-term warming rate result of 0.08 deg C/decade by Wu et al has been confirmed by Tung and Zhou [3]:
"The underlying net anthropogenic warming rate in the industrial era is found to have been steady since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related ups and downs that included the early 20th century warming, the cooling of the 1960s and 1970s, the accelerated warming of the 1980s and 1990s, and the recent slowing of the warming rates."
Swanson et al. (2009)
Long-term natural variability and 20th century climate change
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full.pdf+html
Wu et al. (2011)
On the time-varying trend in global-mean surface temperature
http://bit.ly/10ry70o
Tung and Zhou (2012)
Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058
True Climate Sensitivity = IPCC Climate Sensitivity * True Secular Trend/ IPCC Trend
True Climate Sensitivity =3 * 0.08/ 0.2
True Climate Sensitivity = 1.2 deg C for doubling of CO2.
IPCC's trend of 0.2 deg C/decade is not the climate signal. It includes a cyclic warming due to the warming phase of the multidecadal oscillation.
The actual climate signal is the long-term warming of 0.08 deg C/decade.
AGW is scientifically baseless. It is the most successful pseudoscientific propaganda of our lifetime. It will be dead soon as it deserved.
iphone spy | November 24, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
I do believe all of the ideas you have offered for your post.
Nonetheless, the posts are very short for newbies. Could
you please extend them a little from next time?
google | March 7, 2014 at 4:06 am |
You understand therefore significantly in the case of this matter, made me personally believe it from a lot of numerous angles. Its like men and women aren't fascinated except it's one thing to accomplish with Woman gaga! Your own stuffs nice. At all times maintain it up!