As a layman reading the literature and arguments in support of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) three defining characteristics of those arguments have become apparent.
The first is the idea that the science is settled and that there is a consensus in favor of this science. This is wrong and the Oreskes thesis has been repudiated.
Secondly, the pro-AGW literature uses terms of apocalyptic consequence; we read about tipping points, rapid sea rises and extreme weather. Because of this, pro-AGW statements often take on a ghoulish, vulture-like quality with every bad climate event being hailed as proof of AGW. But again, there is no compelling evidence that the climate is becoming more extreme or worse than it has been.
The third and most striking characteristic are the computers, the General Circulation Models (GCMs), which are the basis of AGW science. They have informed the msm to the extent that nearly every report confirming AGW (are there any other kind?) begins with ‘computer modeling has shown’…etc.
The result of the dominance of GCM’s has seen a growth in what Aynsley Kellow, Professor and Head, School of Government, University of Tasmania, calls climate virtual reality where there is a persistent conflict between GCM evidence and empirical data.
What stands out for me in this debate is the clash between real data and AGW data and the repeated examples where data has been manipulated, adjusted, discarded or subject to arcane statistical methodology so it conforms with the GCM simulations.
All of the 10 papers, statements and articles I have selected as the worst of the pro-AGW support literature exhibit the above 3 qualities. Some of them have iconic status and others, while more obscure, present such glaring examples of this matrix science, or climate virtual reality, that they cannot be ignored.
1.Dr James Hansen’s 1988 Statement to the US Senate.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf
Hansen is the public face of AGW science. This statement establishes all 3 of the defining characteristics. He says “the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements.” Why then does GISS adjust their US data to stop the ‘30’s being the warmest decade? He says the greenhouse effect is proven; why then does IPCC have to invent the enhanced greenhouse? He takes pride in his “computer climate simulations”. Money for jam for Koutsoyiannis.
2. Dr James Hansen’s 2008 Anniversary speech before the US Congress.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5798
After 20 years of climate zilch Hansen ups the apocalypse ante; tipping points are now “ominous”, AGW is a “time bomb”, and there is a need to “preserve our planet, and creation.” The public face of AGW is now Moses. Amidst the blatant untruths there is a resonant irony; “The fossil fuel industry maintains its stranglehold…via demagoguery.” Is Hansen the copper or the kettle?
3. Michael Mann et al (MBH): Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations. AGU GRL 1999
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html
The Hockey stick is the figurehead of the good ship AGW. If anyone says that it is not essential for AGW to prove that 20thC temperatures are higher than any other time in recent history they are dreaming. MBH do so using tree-rings and esoteric statistical analysis (Principle Component Analysis); they ignore discrepancies with instrument data and obfuscate about their sources. McIntyre eats them for breakfast.
4. Eugene R. Wahl and Caspar M. Ammann: Robustness of Mann, Bradley, Hughes; Reconstruction of Northern hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence.
http://www.cgd.vcar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange.2007.pdf
Before the Hockey stick could be used in AR4 it needed to be rehabilitated after McIntyre’s, and others’, demolition. Wahl et al said they had a new standard for Reduction of Error verification, i.e. zero=skill. McIntyre wanted proof. Wahl procrastinated until AR4 was published and then said the proof was that the new verification had been referred to in their paper. Fidus Achates writ large.
5. Mann et al (part 2): Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf
Rehabilitated, Mann threw out the tree-rings and used an even more esoteric form of statistical analysis (PCA) to produce data so robust it could withstand minimal correlation with instrument records and 2 confirming dates over a millennium in some of the proxy series. McIntyre couldn’t believe it, but Tamino, in praising Mann’s use of whatever form of PCA he used, is taken to task by Ian Jolliffe, the world’s leading expert on the method, whatever it is. Jolliffe is nonplussed and declares, “This is just plain wrong.”
6. Spencer Weart: A Saturated Gassy Argument.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
This is the user friendly version of AGW’s semi-infinite atmospheric model; this model ‘shows’ that vertical layers of CO2 trap and delay the rise of surface emitted IR. If it was right there would be a troposphere hotspot/fingerprint as unequivocally predicted in AR4 by FIG 9.1(c). The satellite and other data collectors show there is none.
7. Robert J. Allen, Steven C. Sherwood: Warming maximum in the tropical upper atmosphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geoscience 25 May 2008
http://lubos.mtol.gogglepages.com/sherwood-allen-ngeo-2008.pdf
Concerned that the instruments showed no troposphere hotspot, Allen & Sherwood repudiated the instrument data and developed a windshear model which showed if there was windshear there would be warming. Matrix science. Resonant irony; the instruments which were not good enough for temperature were used to establish windshear and model predicted temperature.
8. Rolf Philipona et al: Radiative forcing-measured at Earth’s surface- corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 31 2004
Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase in Europe. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 32 2005
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023624.shtml
2 papers from Philipona who deals with increasing downward longwave (DLR). If the semi-infinite model is correct, as well as a troposphere hotspot, there will be increased clear-sky LDR. This is a crucial point but Philipona’s studies are flawed by statistical method, inadequate study period, selective use of insolation and temperature data and extrapolation from regionalized Stefan-Boltzman.
9. AR4, Chapter 2; Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing; Executive Summary; pp131-132.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report?Ar4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
The science is settled. The standard of scientific understanding in the Executive Summary ranges from “very high” to “very low”; the great majority of climate indices have “medium-low” to “very low” levels of scientific understanding; yet the Summary concludes that “humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate.” Diagnosis: scientific schizophrenia.
10. Keenlyside N S, Latif M, Jungclaus J, Kornblueh L, Roeckner E: Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector. Nature 453, 84-88 May 2008
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
Both sides of the debate claimed this paper as proving/disproving AGW. The paper asserts that natural, contrary climate patterns can “temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.” To this layman that has a Claytons feel about it, but the kicker is Lucia’s 2001 and onwards temperature analysis; Lucia removed the ENSO and found a decline in post-2001 temperature trend. If there was an underlying warming it would have shown. How can anthropogenic warming be “temporarily offset” when it isn’t there?
These papers and articles and statements are the worst because they exhibit all three defining characteristics of AGW science. Some are indefensible, others don’t make sense.
*******
To read the ten best climate research papers according to Cohenite, click here .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Since computer models consist of nothing more than human conclusions and assumptions, it makes sense to treat them as no more, and no less, than that.
The abuse of computer models in climatology wouldn’t seem automatically to justify dismissing the value of all models.
Are there examples of useful, predictive, non-climatological computer models?
If there aren’t, computer modeling could merely be a self-perpetuating fad, one that employs surplus Ph.Ds who race each other for the latest record in gigaflops.
cohenite
It might be better named 10 worst “articles” some of those don’t qualify as “papers” i.e. “peer reviewed” as most will understand the term.
Nevertheless an interesting list.
A genuine analysis of the 10 best and 10 worst papers on global warming would have covered papers on both sides of the argument not just those opposed to your particular viewpoint. This would be objective and consistent with scientific standards.
And in agreement with Jan – yes several of these cannot be classed as papers and ‘articles’ is a better term.
Another pointless top ten by Cohenite…
Have you worked out what evidence would convince you of AGW?
Andrew, when you think, you use a model.
“Have you worked out what evidence would convince you of AGW?”
A halfway decent correlation between CO2 levels and temperature that does not have an 800 year lag for DO2 would be a good start, but not more than a start only.
The point, NT, was to demonstrate that there are genuine papers against AGW, and that there are papers, obstensibly seminal in nature, supporting AGW, which are essentially worthless, dross.
Jan, why what is wrong with the lag?
Cohenite, your analysis is trivial in the extreme. For example, MBH 99 – I assume your problem is with the ‘dodgy’ statistics? This is a problem, yes. Does this make it worthless? No way. This was the first paper to make a genuine attempt at creating a historical temperture record using actual data (proxy data). It was groundbreaking. No one had attempted to take proxy data from around the world to attempt to recreate a global average temperature. This paper has led to a plethora of papers that attempt the same thing, using different statistics and different methods. It has opened a new branch of climatology. It is not ‘worthless’ many people have found worth in it.
Again your claim that they are worthless is simply your own personal bias over-riding your objectivity. It’s a political game.
as to your demonstration that there are “papers against AGW” – so what? There are papers against Relativity Theory too.
If the science is good, it will persist, if it’s nonsense or irrelevant it will be ignored.
Sorry, I can’t see why there is a problem with a ‘lag’ either. Something has to trigger the release of CO2; it doesn’t trigger itself. So something has to warm the atmosphere before CO2 can kick in and (it has been hypothesised) contribute further to the warming. Perhaps volcanic eruptions might show a close correlation between CO2 and temperature rise (if CO2 drove temperature rises significantly) but otherwise the effects would have to be indirect.
NT: “Jan, why what is wrong with the lag?”
Absolutely nothing. It just does not support a CO2 -> temperature causation.
cohenite has got his headlines out of sync. This was surely meant to be the title of last one.
Will: “So something has to warm the atmosphere before CO2 can kick in and (it has been hypothesised) contribute further to the warming.”
Indeed and that is why temperatures have kept on rising and rising and rising since the very first time the earth started warming (after it first cooled from the heat of collision 4.5 billions years ago.
Ooops!!!!
Will please don’t try to teach a control engineer about feedback you tend to look silly when you do that.
Jan, well that may be so in your head.
Maybe go and read Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre doesn’t seem to have a problem with the ‘lag’ – and nor does his little friend ‘Bender’. They give a good outline that you would trust more than one from me.
Strange, this list appears to only present information supporting the author’s position. Is the author a polemicist? It would appear so. In which case the said author is too lazy or lacks the ability to construct an argument that inlcudes facts, unlike the authors he includes in his list.
Jan, I’m not sure what you think I’m asserting in addition to what I wrote, but please comment on what I wrote, not what you think I may be thinking.
Bottom line is, the criticism that ‘causation is not shown’ makes no sense logically or scientifically. At best it can be used as a counter-argument to Gore’s movie, that is, if Gore implied there is a causal link. But from my recollection I don’t believe he necessarily did that either. Feedbacks is another issue, and I never mentioned them in my post. You look silly if you criticise people for things they don’t mention 😉
NT; the lag kills it; even Skeptical Science concedes that there is a lag and that CO released by the temperature increase kicks things along; but this kicking along after the event role for CO2 is also dodgy because IPCC has had to resort to the enhanced greenhouse; and Spencer’s work, Steve Short’s work and a host of other -ve feedbacks a la Miskolczi (ie Minschwaner) defeat EG; I don’t see where AGW can go; luke no doubt will regale us with papers like Vecchi’s which seek to combine natural and anthropogenic causes for, and if you’re honest you will concede this point, ambiguous evidence about current climate being worse, but I can’t see justification for the sort of scandalous bloviations of people like Hansen. Why don’t you comment on that? I guess you won’t if you can salvage something from the Mann debacle.
Perhaps they don’t have a problem with it but neither are physicists and I’m sure they haven’t given a great deal of thought to to causation issues.
Effect always follows cause. Positive feedback is thermodynamically impossible in a passive system (a system with no internal energy source).
Will Except in black holes where casue and effect may be blurred effect always follows cause. If you had spent a little time and actually looked at ice core records and seen that temperatures start dropping 800 years before CO2 levels start dropping you would perhaps not have made this silly remark:
” Something has to trigger the release of CO2; it doesn’t trigger itself. So something has to warm the atmosphere before CO2 can kick in and (it has been hypothesised) contribute further to the warming.”
In short I addressed your remark and only your remark I did not reflect at all on what you might have been thinking. If you understood the underlying physics you would have realised that.
Perhaps the confusion here is that some ‘alarmists’ assumed that the correlation between temperature and CO2 was direct proof of AGW. (This was possibly the disingenuous motivation of raising the issue in the Gore movie.) But it never did.
Consequently, when ‘deniers’ show that the cause/effect is apparently reversed, this ‘disproves’ nothing about AGW either.
Jan: “ice core records and seen that temperatures start dropping 800 years before CO2 levels start dropping”
OK, granted that’s true. But so what?
How can CO2 be causal in the first place? Solar radiation can be causal (cause = sun). Orbital path can be causal (cause = gravitation). Ocean currents can be causal (cause = plate tectonics).
If you’re objecting that AGW is not true *because* CO2 does not cause temperature rise, please explain how CO2 increase can be the cause of itself?
Perhaps I am missing something very obvious here…?
Will: Stop being silly
The assumption was that lack of CO2 caused the ice age and that the converse i.e. increased CO2 levels caused increased temperatures and that further increased levels would or could cause even further increased temperatures. In 1999 it was discovered that it was NOT the case this was confirmed in 2003 yet they continue to hang on to the myth by creating another one in an attempt to account for it. What is that myth? This:
“Something has to trigger the release of CO2; it doesn’t trigger itself. So something has to warm the atmosphere before CO2 can kick in and (it has been hypothesised) contribute further to the warming.”
So say “hello” to thermodynamically impossible positive feedback in a passive system.
G = A/(1-fA) where A<1 looks fine mathematically it is fine mathematically but physically it means a signal is being pushed up a potential gradient. The very definition of a perpetuum mobile of the second kind.
Will: “Perhaps I am missing something very obvious here…?”
You are. See above.
Jan: “The assumption was that lack of CO2 caused the ice age…”
I see you ignored my point… The AGW argument is that CO2 is an amplifier and therefore a secondary cause. It is not argued that it is the primary cause. And as I explained in my previous post, logically it can never be the primary or first cause.
I am not asserting this AGW is ‘true’. But it does seem to me that it’s important that if you are going to be critical of AGW you should at least address the actual theory and not some distorted and simplified version of it, that no AGW theorist actually holds. Be sceptical, by all means, but be sceptical of the actual theory and not a straw man version of it…
Cohenite, yes there is a lag. But that in no way “kills it”. You do know that the people who did the cores found the lag, yes? Didn’t seem to bother them. Or are they part of some conspiracy to hide the truth? That’s where we are going? Yes?
“salvage something from Mann”? I didn’t salvage anything. Other scientists did, they seemed to find worth. That makes it not worthless, yes?
This post is just dumb, it’s trivial and superficial. You have just stated your own personal bias, nothing else. If you don’t like these papers then fine, but to say that they are worthless when other people have obviously found worth is… Silly.
You have set yourself up as some kind of authority on what is a ‘good’ scientific paper, when you have no authority. All you’re doing is stating your own personal opinion.
And again you seem to think that because people have published opposing views to AGW that it has been ‘debunked’ or disproved.
“and if you’re honest you will concede this point, ambiguous evidence about current climate being worse, but I can’t see justification for the sort of scandalous bloviations of people like Hansen.” I don’t understand what you are saying? Could you clarify?
Jan, Milankovitch cycles are the triggering cause the ice-ages (along with continental drift) and CO2 aids it.
I think both Cohenite and Jan need to read Climate Audit. Steve Mc doesn’t seem to have a problem with the CO2 lag. Why don’t you argue it with him?
Here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3672#comments
“7
bender:
September 16th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Re: MarkR (#5),
Both. And that is the best verbal explanation I’ve read to date how CO2 can play both roles simultaneously, leading to a schizoid lead-lag pattern. It leads in cause, it lags in response (because of the oceans). I’m quite weary of “skeptical” arguments that fail to understand how this can happen in a lagged positive feedback system.”
“19
Steve McIntyre:
September 16th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Please move on from Co2 lead-lag discussions, which I’m weary of. TRy tofind something new in this paper to discuss or else there’s little point in having this thread.”
Will: It’s the “secondary” positive feedback theory that i have been addressing or hadn’t you noticed.
NT I spend muc more of my time at CA than I so here.
” I’m quite weary of “skeptical” arguments that fail to understand how this can happen in a lagged positive feedback system.”
Steve avoids it because he does not understand it. Posivive feed back in a passive system is thermodynamically impossible. I would not presume to teach Steve statistics I don’t think if he thought about that he would try to teach me feed back and control. He is quite right to stick with statistics himself.
Jan: “It’s the “secondary” positive feedback theory that i have been addressing or hadn’t you noticed.”
OK, good. Could you please flesh out in more detail why a secondary cause is incompatible with a lag? It seems to me there is no ‘lag’ problem if it is understood that the temperature rise is attributed initially to the first or primary cause.
Remember, the primary cause is still there acting on the climate during the temperature rise. The secondary cause is only acting as an amplifier (so the theory argues).
It seems to me that the cause/effect criticism only has validity if you’re assuming that CO2 is the first/primary cause. As soon as you concede that it’s a secondary cause, the cause/effect issue becomes irrelevant, and therefore disproves nothing.
Jan,
Interesting…
So a passive system is one that always dissipates energy, yes?
You say that a positive feedback can’t exist because then the system isn’t dissipating energy?
Jan
your quote here:
” passive system … a system with no internal energy source
Could you explain that please ? Can a passive system have an external energy source ? (eg. Sol)
I know the Ksp of CO2 is lower in warm water than cold water, so when the oceans warm from some other dynamic forcings, CO2 out-gasses from them. (Lag ~ 800 years). This has some unquantified feedback through re-radiation of long wavelength heat absorbed by the increasing concentration of CO2 molecules. At least that is where I’m at in this “lag” AGW debate.
Based on their posts, NT et al don’t yet grasp this simple chemical/physical interaction, but on the basis of emerging empirical data, the unquantified feedback is close to insignificant (Spencer & Braswell think so too).
So an external energy source becomes paramount, it seems to me.
Will; AGW is predicated on CO2 being a primary cause.
Ianl,
I think you are saying what Will and I attempted to say, that is that there are other forcings at play.
And you are right, my understanding of the detail is limited, however we have had other posts of the solubility of CO2 wrt Ocean temps. Cohenite thinks the current CO2 level is largely from gas released from a warming the Southern Ocean… Hmmm
“This has some unquantified feedback through re-radiation of long wavelength heat absorbed by the increasing concentration of CO2 molecules.”
Them’s fighting words for Cohenite…
How can ‘unquantified’ be ‘close to insignificant’? Doesn’t that mean you have attempted to quantify it?
“A genuine analysis of the 10 best and 10 worst papers on global warming would have covered papers on both sides of the argument not just those opposed to your particular viewpoint. ”
You are a MORON Grendel. You are an IDIOT. He said he was picking the ten best and the tend worst.
Obviously if he says he’s going to do that that is what he is going to do. This is not a labour-party factional deal where you have quotas or a massive public rumble breaks out. He said what he was going to do and he did it.
Don’t participate in a scientific discussion if you aren’t willing to take science seriously, with all its traditional values intact. Thats the new political correctness fella. You are insulting. Just you hanging around within the debate breathing is an insult. Because you don’t allow science to have its prescribed territory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We just cannot put up with this dickhead attitude towards science anymore. Its an attack on civilisation itself. Scientists have to take a bit more pride than to sit still for these changeling mongrels of the dead sperm donor of Leninism coming in and corrupting all their values and practices.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cohenite. It must have been hard to bring it down to JUST 10.
What about Annan using Bayesian statistics IN A POLITICISED SUBJECT???!!!!
Or how about him and others getting a LAMBDA derived from volcanic aerosols and a snapshot of some arbitrary time in paleo-history and then without evidence applying that to CO2? To some processed hypothetical of CO2-foricng without recognition of the hypothetical of it.
All hypothetical watts are equal in this view. No evidence needed and doesn’t matter where the extra joules (oops watts) are placed in the system.
Below or above surface measurments…. No problem. From now on put your furnaces on the roof. After all the placement of the extra joules makes no difference and you’ll have extra space in the basement.
Cohenite,
yes, but the earlier warming periods weren’t AGW yes? So they were initiated by other factors (Changes to insolation) and increasing CO2 helped carry on the warming once insolation had peaked and begun to wane. Look at the ice core evidence, rapid warming with gradual cooling – that’s not mirroring the Milankovitch cycle is it? There are other players in the game.
Hey Cohenite… I didn’t think Mann et al used PCA in their 2008 paper… 🙂
Spot on NT.
cohenite appears to be saying that he accepts the role of CO2 in warming in previous natural warming cycles, but then quibbles about the lag, as if the AGW proposal is suggesting this is just like one of the previous warming episodes.
It ain’t, that’s why it’s called AGW. Now it’s the ‘A’ bit that is the initiator, taking the place of previous natural mechanisms.
ianL said “Can a passive system have an external energy source “?
Jan has offered the math equivalent of a feedback system, but you can think of a passive system in electronics as devices that have no ability to amplify the input signal. For example, an oscillator can be created by connecting an inductor (coil) and a capacitor in parallel (tank circuit). If you connect an external voltage momentarily across the tank (a pulse), the tank will oscillate at a resonant frequency. Unless you keep supplying external pulses, however, the oscillation will die away due to internal resistance.
A passive mechanical equivalent is a mass/spring system. If you suspend a mass from a spring, apply an external downward force to the mass, and release it, the system will oscillate in simple harmonic motion. There are differential equations that describe both the electronic and mechanical systems well.
Passive circuits have gains (amplification) less than unity and are called attenuatators. In other words, they always reduce an input signal. In order to have amplification, you need to amplify the input signal using an ‘active’ device, like a transistor. There’s no point talking about feedback without an active device in the circuit to amplify the signal.
Positive feedback occurs when you sample the output of the amplified circuit and feed it back to the input in phase with the input signal. The effect of the input is to ‘increase’ the input hence the output signal. Negative feedback is a sampled output signal being fed back to the input out of phase with the input signal. It reduces the input hence the output signal.
I find that analogy confusing when applied to CO2/warming. As Jan said, their is no amplification device. I have a hunch that the modelers are applying math to the atmosphere as if it is a real amplifier. Afterall, they have to use differential equations of some kind in the modeling and their are provisions for feedback in such equations. It seems to me they are bending the rules to make the equations work to their liking.
My understanding of what they are up to is the following. The Sun warms the surface, the surface radiates IR, the so-called greenhouse gases capture it and re-radiate it back to the surface.
This is where things fall apart, however. The AGW theory seems to be saying that re-radiated heat can warm the surface more than the temperature it was when it radiated the heat to warm the atmosphere in the first place. That’s what contradicts the 2nd Law.
Clausius claims that when two bodies interact in such a manner, that the cooler body cannot radiate more heat to the warmer body than what the warmer body supplies the cooler body in the first place. The AGWers seem to be including radiation from the Sun in that process, adding them vectorally, and claiming the surface can warm more than the 2nd Law permits because of ‘net energy gain’, whatever that may be.
Think about that tank circuit I described earlier. If the external voltage is the Sun, it gives a shot to the tank which causes it to oscillate. Internal resistance in the tank will attenuate the oscillation till it dies away naturally. In the same way, if the surface warmed the atmosphere, and the atmosphere re-radiated the heat, there would have to be attenuation. You couldn’t heat the surface more than it’s initial temperature otherwise you’d have the basis for the perpetual motion machine refered to by Jan.
A refrigerator can reverse the process by means of an external device (compressor and motor). I don’t see how the Sun could be considered such a device, however.
As I said in another post, I think an error is being made by including the Sun as an internal source. The Sun is heating the surface mainly with heat from the visible spectrum but the IR radiated by the surface is in distinct bands in the IR spectrum. I think that heat should be considered a separate source within the surface-atmosphere-surface system. In other words, once the Sun has warmed the surface, it’s out of the equation. Maybe I’m wrong.
NT
“How can ‘unquantified’ be ‘close to insignificant’? Doesn’t that mean you have attempted to quantify it?”
That’s exactly what Spencer & Braswell 2008 attempt to do !! And their conclusion is that it’s close to insignificant.
Since the satellite temp differentials have plateaued for a decade now (and on UAH readings, even dropped slightly), this insignificance has some empirical weight behind it.
Cohenite: “Will; AGW is predicated on CO2 being a primary cause.”
Isn’t that logically incoherent? CO2 causes itself to release CO2 which causes warming? If CO2 is a “primary cause” how does CO2 initially cause the release of CO2?
Now we’ve moved from arguments over the temporality of cause/effect to the assertion that AGW proponents claim that CO2 is the cause of warming and the release of CO2 is caused by the release of CO2? Isn’t causality now circular? So this cannot be the actual scientific argument…
(Which touches on the point that Jan is making. But don’t even worry about physical possibility, because such a thing is not even logically possible.)
So this cannot be what AGW theorists claim and I have not read claims of this type anywhere from them. Maybe media reports and such like, or Green Peace press releases perhaps…???
Michael
We are not “quibbling” about lag. We are defining it so that AGW proponents have no wiggle room to claim CO2 as a primary dynamic element (yes, I know you didn’t, but plenty do, using misapprehended ice core data)
The point of the debate is that the CO2 feedback claimed as the A in AGW is not borne out by empirical satellite data … Spencer & Braswell 2008 conclude that natural dynamics (mostly ephemeral cloud formations) have a much greater influence.
“Cohenite,
yes, but the earlier warming periods weren’t AGW yes? So they were initiated by other factors (Changes to insolation) and increasing CO2 helped carry on the warming once insolation had peaked and begun to wane.”
No you are lying. Don’t present this as a statement of fact when you have absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever.
So you were lying.
Jerk!!!!!
It fits in much better as a negative feedback and obviously so. You are just claiming it is a positive feedback, without saying its an hypothesis that it might be.
You know for a fact that neither you nor anyone else, not even Coby Beck (for the love of stupid people everywhere) have no evidence for this trash-talk.
NT; will you and Michael stop verballing me. Whatever secondary effect increased CO2 has its IR absorption exhausts at levels below the current atmospheric level, and probably below historically low levels. In respect of historical levels of CO2, this is as important to AGW as current temps being historically high; an interesting non-Beck paper throws some doubt on the assumption that current levels of CO2 are historically high;
http:homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/userfiles/Ice-core_corrections_report_1.pdf (// excluded)
Sage’s thesis is relevant here too, not only for refuting Ruddiman, but for noting that the benefit of a CO2 increase wasn’t warming but increasing the photosynthetic capacity of human-friendly plants;
http:www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00009.x?journalCode=gcb (// excluded)
Sage was on my short list for best climate papers.
As for Mann 2; he did use an exotic form of PCA; that’s why Jolliffe was so indignant.
Don’t you just get sick of people making this claim. A claim that we have to feebly admit as a weak possibility that hasn’t been disproved to the nth degree…..
.. . And these pricks, who are going against THE NEW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS of the resurgence of traditional scientific values……. these pricks just keep on putting about this enhanced Malinkovitch cycle as a statement of fact.
They say that Malinkovitch cannot do it on its own and so that CO2 feedback is what makes it all work. They haven’t proved this. They haven’t got a scrap of evidence for this. But they keep on cliaming this.
All the anti-scientists do it. Coby Beck, Karoly, Brook, realclimate@bugger-the-data.org….
… Every moron that ever lived keeps claiming this as fact when its merely an assertion. An assertion that the data simply does not support. It could be there hiding, this positive feedback. Which means its too weak to get excited about. But clearly the actual data would seem to imply that its quite the opposite.
Cohenite
Ababneh was a PhD student at MAnn’s university. Her thesis was on an attempt to reproduce Graybill’s “bristlecone” data. To that end, she resampled the same trees that Graybill did originally but could not replicate his results.
Mann was one of her PhD examiners. She was granted the degree. She is young and untenured – she says legal advice precludes her from releasing her sample data.
Mann2 claims to have removed the bristlecone data, but the substituted proxy data are from Finnish lake sediments that are classified by the Finnish as recently anthropogenically disturbed, thus rendering them as not reliable. This is why Mann2 uses his invented version of PCA.
cohenite…considering the content of this thread in recent posts, I think this paper should be in your top ten:
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holland/Bias_and_Concealment.pdf
Summarizes the Mann/IPCC fiasco really well.
Temperature
[°C]
viscosity
[Pa·s]
10 1.308 × 10−3
20 1.003 × 10−3
30 7.978 × 10−4
40 6.531 × 10−4
50 5.471 × 10−4
60 4.668 × 10−4
70 4.044 × 10−4
80 3.550 × 10−4
90 3.150 × 10−4
100 2.822 × 10−4
Here’s a secondary effect right there. You all ought to get out of the habit of constantly looking at things via radiative heat balance.
In economics the tautalogy MV=PQ is very useful. But it is limiting to look at things through one prism alone.
Having said this I’ll compromise just this once to point out that lessening the viscosity of water changes the radiative heat balance immediately. What a wondrous planet it is. It can only go so far, this easening up of the great ocean conveyer…., and of water upwelling and so forth, since, if we warmed too much the push-factor behind the circulation (heat differentials) would reduce and so, though the resistance-to-circulation was lower, the power BEHIND circulation would reduce as well.
And how about water being less salty more generally when all the ice melts?
There is less viscosity right there, so less resistance to circulation, so that therefore the heat balance kicks in at a higher average temperature.
Also it is a feature of water that it can absorb a great many more joules without going up much in the way of temperature. It has a high heat capacity. it can expand. Expanded warmer water may even be able to absorb more light for all I know. That would change things as well since it would increase the photic zone.
Water under great pressure EXPANDING surely implies enourmous joules intake.
But the expansion itself does not lead to a higher temperature. More joules without changing the direction of those joules. OK so the water gets warmer as well. But the expansion part of this deal is itself a secondary effect. Stored energy.
H20 can be both water and ice at close to 0 celsius but the water version contains far more joules. So joules can be stored here. We can get cumulative joules here.
And under great pressure at the ocean floor it will be harder for the mantle to conduct joules to the water down there if that water is already warm.
So there is the opportunity here for CUMULATIVE warming and for secondary effects where they matter. And they matter in those instances where the bloody bloody bleeding material involved has the capacity to store some substantial amount of joules.
And thats not the bloody bleeding air least of all the CO2 component of it.
These dumb-left mantras are a huge barrier to the taking of a wider view of the situation. I only wish I could swear in a stronger fashion.
I had been going to spring the viscosity theory on people for a very long time. But the problem was that no-one seemed to get my resistance-to-circulation argument until Roger Pielke published his study. Or at least how it followed directly from Stefan-Boltzmanns law when you stopped aggregating every damn thing and took a marginalist approach.
Extra viscosity is a sort of LATENT heating potential for the planet entire. Also if the extra surface viscosity leads to greater flow and this in turn leads to some sort of pressure buildup at points in the conveyer….. if this sort of buidup takes a long time to pulse through and these sort of loaded springs could be set up along the chain this too could amount to an extra stored warming ability.
A good scientist like Roger will sooner or later come up with a study to add or take away weight from this sort of thing. But you must always remember you heard it here first.
“Since computer models consist of nothing more than human conclusions and assumptions, it makes sense to treat them as no more, and no less, than that.”
They are based on our best knowledge of the science. They are run against existing records to test them.
Gordon; thanks for your link; if all the Mann critiques were collected it would be quite a library.
Ianl; if one believes in Karma, than Mann will be reincarnated as a bristlecone.
Will; we are cross-purposes; CO2 doesn’t cause itself; as Graeme has noted oceanic and atmospheric CO2 partial pressure differentials control the flux of CO2; it is now problematic that isotopic distinction can isolate anthropogenic sourced CO2, so that aspect of AGW proof needs to be relooked at. When I said that AGW regards CO2 as a primary cause I was referring to the Spencer Weart piece I have included in my list; which is to say CO2 is a trapper of surface reradiated IR; the point about this is, that no increase in external radiation is required, according to the AGW manifesto, for heating to occur; just increased CO2. I think it’s now clear IPCC realise that CO2 cannot do that job which is why they have invented enhanced greenhouse; but this too has been knocked on the head by Roy Spencer’s recent paper; and before him, Miskolczi.
Cohenite, what does “verballing you” even mean?
Cohenite, Mann et al 99 uses PCA,
Mann et al 2008 uses “two different statistical methods: “cps” and “eiv.” The “cps” method is “composite-plus-scaling,” in which the available proxies are combined, then the composite is scaled to find the best match to the calibration data. In this method, data don’t have to match local temperature change, they can still be applied as long as they give information about global or hemispheric temperature change. The “eiv” method is “error-in-variables,” in which proxies are fit to calibration data allowing for errors in both the predictor and the predictand. ”
Does this mean it get’s taken of the “worst” list?
So Cohenite, basically the best are the ones that promote your paradigm and the worst are the ones that don’t. As one early poster said, this is a polemic. It’s not actually an analysis of what is good or bad about them.
Again, you are simply giving a biased and poorly considered opinon. You have confused the methods used by Mann et al, in both their papers, and you have listed articles that aren’t even papers in your “10 worst AGW papers ” – it’s not looking a very solid case is it?
Bird, are you suggesting the Milankovitch cycles don’t exist?
Cohenite, here is Tamino’s response to Dr Joliffe’s comment:
“[Response: I apologize for having misrepresented your opinion, but I hope you realize that it was an honest statement of my interpretation of your presentation, in no way was it a deliberate attempt to misrepresent you.
In your presentation you state: “It seems unwise to use uncentred analysis unless the origin is meaningful.” I took this to mean that you endorse uncentered analysis when the origin is meaningful. If you disagree, I accept your disagreement, but it seems to me that I can hardly be blamed for thinking so. It also seems to me (and I’m by no means the only one) that the origin in the analysis of MBH98 is meaningful.
I certainly agree with this statement from your comment: “… the evidence rests on much much more than the hockey stick. It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence …”] ”
It’s all about Mann et al, 1998.
Cohenite,
” …the point about this is, that no increase in external radiation is required, according to the AGW manifesto, for heating to occur; just increased CO2. I think it’s now clear IPCC realise that CO2 cannot do that job which is why they have invented enhanced greenhouse… ”
This is weird, I think you are just making all this up. The Enhanced Greenhouse as a theory existed well before the IPCC existed. Hansen was writing papers on it in the early 1970’s (why didn’t they get in your list of worst papers?).
NT; I didn’t know about these early papers by Hansen; have you got a link? I can almost guarantee they will make the next list.
As for Mann; this is as clear an exposition of what and how Mann has obfuscated; the key words are “life is too short”;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3601#comments
Jolliffe’s comment is entertaining; I like him; I’d push Mann out of the way to have a drink with Jolliffe. Your description of ‘cps’ and ‘eiv’ above convinces me you have no sense of the absurd; certainly the author doesn’t; I was under the impression that cps and eiv were Mann’s ‘special’ forms of decentred PCA.
Cohenite,
Not sure if you would like Joliffe, if you read more of his comments at Tamino you’ll see he’s no fan of McIntyre and he is a ‘believer’.
Ok, so the enhanced greenhouse effect. This is where there are other GHG’s at play like water and CFC’s etc, yes? This is what we are talking about?
OK Cohenite – write a critique of Philipona and we’ll ask him for a comment. Are you up for the mission?
luke; its been done;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/philipona05.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/194/4266/685
Cohenite: according to the AGW manifesto, for heating to occur; just increased CO2.
That’s fine. But something other than CO2 has to cause the temperature rise that then causes further CO2 increase. It doesn’t kick-start itself. My objection was to the non-argument that the cause/effect issue disproves AGW. It doesn’t disprove AGW any more than the correlation between temperature and CO2 proved AGW. The argument either way is a scientific red herring.
On a ‘political’ level it’s more significant. People always confuse correlation with causation. So show average Joe a pic of CO2 and temperature rise in some kind of relationship and the immediate assumption is that one causes the other. Spring out the reversed cause-effect argument, and the next assumption is that it disproves the thesis. In fact it does neither.
I would like to know, though, if CO2 is a powerful amplifier of warming, then during heating/cooling cycles, the cooling trend should be slower – on average – because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. I wonder, does anyone have links to any empirical data on this?
This isn’t on Enhanced Greenhouse but you can use it in your list of worst papers…
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0469/31/1/pdf/i1520-0469-31-1-84.pdf
“Cohenite, what does “verballing you” even mean?”
to verbal: (verb) to put words in someone’s mouth; for the purposes of incriminating…
Anyway, great job on the list, Cohenite. Muzeltov, old son.
What a coincidence, the ten worst papers all agree with AGW, the ten best all deny AGW. Amazing.
I think it was the late Prof. Auer of NZ who had an even better phrase than Kellow: Play Station Climatology
This one doesn’t want to work… I’ll break it up into pieces. It’s not from the 70’s but is pre-IPCC
yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BPHT4/$File/chapter2.pdf
Yeah! Just add the http bit.
It talks about how water is the dominant GHG etc.
Thanks Jimmock; the bush lawyers around here pretend to not even know what they are doing.
NT; I’m surprised you missed this one;
http:www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/213/4511/957 (// excluded)
The “fabled Northwest Passage.” Yeehah!
That’s not a critique – that’s a pussy little sook – you’re making the charge – are you gonna back it up or do a runner? I’m calling you Cohenite.
“What a coincidence, the ten worst papers all agree with AGW, the ten best all deny AGW. Amazing.”
Its no coincidence, don’t be an idiot.
“They are based on our best knowledge of the science….”
No they are not. You are lying.
“They are run against existing records to test them.”
And they always fail. My god you are an idiot.
We note, once again, that the AGW proponents go nowhere near Spencer & Braswell, nor the empirical satellite data.
Spencer & Braswell 2008 is a peer-reviewed attempt to quantify the “feedback”. Their conclusion does not support the AGW hypothesis, so honesty requires it to be addressed.
Mann2 invented statistical tests to suit his purpose and substituted one set of flawed proxies for another. The MWP is still a real problem for AGW.
“Pussy little sook.”
Look, Philipona seems like a nice guy, but would you ask him if his DLW measurements are only day-time ones? as per his 2 April 2008 paper with Ruckstuhl called “Detection of cloud-free skies based on sunshine duration and on the variation of global solar irradiance.”
I feel a bit bad about Philipona because I considered this paper for the 10 best;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034228.shtml
Are you going to give me a critique to put to Rolf or are you a pussy? Scared perhaps?
The water vapour paper did win the Norbert Gerbier – Mumm International Award of WMO for the year 2007.
I still don’t know how it beat http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
I’m calling you Cohenite. No one liners – write some paragraphs and we’ll get it on !
“We note, once again, that the AGW proponents go nowhere near Spencer & Braswell, nor the empirical satellite data.” – ianl
OK, I’ll bite.
Firstly I can only find a ppt of this. Is it actually published?
The primary issue is that Spencer is still doing his weather/climate conflation.
Yes, clouds have a short term cooling effect (ie over hours/days), but there is no reason, besides Spencers suggestion we consider it, that the same effects occur over decades.
SJT, and others,
I’m still waiting for a climate alarmist to send me their best ten, and their worst ten climate papers – but they need to set the info out like Cohenite has done. In other words I don’t just want a list of URLs (as Luke has provided), I need some explanation against each paper and also a preamble for the post and a conclusion would be good.
Ofcourse, this information would then be posted as two separate posts, as I’ve done for Cohenite.
Jennifer, like Cohenite’s worst ten ‘papers’? Can we criticise them for things they didn’t do (al la Cohenite and Mann et al 2008)?
Can we include blogs?
This is a very valuable analysis…
“clouds have a short term cooling effect.”
Rather more than that;
http:www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/publications/Ram_ILEAPSnewsletter-apr08.pdf (// excluded)
P18 is the relevant article.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002914.html
luke; from the 2004 paper;
“after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8 (0.8) Wm2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.”
From the 2005 paper;
“A remaining annual mean anthropogenic forcing of +0.35 (0.4) Wm2 for cloud-free, temperature subtracted and humidity subtracted longwave downward radiation… is shown in Figure 3e.”
Ask Philipona about that will you?
Cohenite – table your critique – not a series of disconnected quotes and one liners. Or be a shonky sceptic.
How the hell are they disconnected?
Waiting …
OK luke; your last chance; Philipona says insolation was declining during the period of the study 1995-2002; how does he reconcile this;
http:www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/virgo/proj_space_virgo#VIRGO_radiometry
Philipona also uses simple linear regression; I have explained to you the limitations of running means; the salient fault here is that the trend is determined by the starting and finishing point of the data which makes the first order curve fit of deceptive analytical value; for instance here are comparative graphs for the period 1995-2005;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/phil9505.gif
That PMOD link is here;
http://www.pmodwrc>ch?pmod.php?topic=tsi/virgo/proj_space_virgo#VIRGO_Radiometry
“The point, NT, was to demonstrate that there are genuine papers against AGW, and that there are papers, obstensibly seminal in nature, supporting AGW, which are essentially worthless, dross.”
Weart’s tutorial on Realclimate is not a peer reviewed paper, it is an attempt to explain the science that the average person in the street, ie, me, cannot understand by reading the source papers. To list it as one of the ten worst is ridiculous, since it isn’t a paper. I found it a very valuable description of the enhanced greenhouse effect, and why so much of what is said here by deniers is just wrong.
I’m tied; once more;
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/virgo/proj_space_virgo#VIRGO_Radiometry
Will: “OK, good. Could you please flesh out in more detail why a secondary cause is incompatible with a lag?”
A secondary cause is not incompatible with a lag per se provided there is an internal energy source to drive it. Earth does not have such an internal energy source.
An electrical analogy is you can’t build an amplifier using only resistors and capacitors.
This “ok I’ll bite” business is a big wank isn’t it?
Always said by people who seem to believe they can change reality so long as the lot of them refuse to acknowledge it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“I need some explanation against each paper and also a preamble for the post and a conclusion would be good.”
This was a big problem I had with Luke on my blog. He’d show up and lay down all these links. In the way a 10 year old would do, without attempting to explain what precise hypothesis he thought the link was detracting from or confirming and why.
This is a big problem with the leftists. They seem to be after sentimental support from scientific papers, and so are interested in the wording, to tell them whose side the paper is on. Papers divided by tribal allegience.
But they won’t make clear in their own mind even what the hypothesis is.
I once demanded evidence of someone on Annans blog in support of this ocean acidification scare being an authentic problem and he just whacked ocean acidification into google scholar and thought he was doing something significant. You go back to ask again and these guys are insulted and its not likely you will make it through moderation by that stage in any case.
It appears to be absolutely heretical to ask for evidence but its more than that. Amongst the frauds it appears to be a heresy for them to come up with any evidence. Its like a code of silence.
Two simple questions that AGW alarmist have to answer, based on empirical analysis and observable, measaurable data (no computer models – we’ve seen how the super computers that run our financial systems have screwed up!!):
1. Does CO2 initiate/cause the warming of the planet – yes or no. If yes, evidence please.
2. Does CO2 exacerbate any warming caused by other factors? If yes evidence please
(1) Logically as I’ve outlined (and nobody has argued this point yet), it cannot be the initial or primary cause.
(2) It’s very difficult to disentangle the CO2 contribution to warming from the many other factors or forcings in play. This is the crux of the problem. You can’t run an experiment on the climate system.
I have made the suggestion that if someone looked at the CO2 ice core history and did a statistical analysis of the temperature rises and then the temperature declines, on each cycle, the declines should be more gradual on average, than the rises, because more CO2 in the atmosphere should be helping to retain heat.
(Obviously, different the causes of each cycle will vary somewhat, which is why a statistical analysis would be necessary.)
I don’t know the answer to this question. It seems to me that someone should have investigated this already.
Birdy – surely you don’t need “an explanation” do you – you said “climate is easy”. Why do you need explanations for something easy. Unless of course you is sure dumb.
There’s a whole bunch of simplistic mush in what you have said – you can’t do a simplistic analysis on the ice core CO2 issue as you have a number of interacting factors. From memory modelling (err yukky horror) from Berger et al. asserted that an ice age glaciation didn’t occur unless atmospheric CO2 was low enough.
And of course there is an interaction with the solar input going up or down – CO2 is only recycling some of the solar energy – it’s not producing energy in its own right.
Ice age behaviour of temperature and CO2 is not an analogue to the present situation.
The PETM though could be.
Well luke, I gave you all the details about Philipona, and Graeme is right; you are just a hair-shirted Hansenite.
Cohers – don’t mind me mate. Your job is to substantiate your unconstructed ill-founded attack on Philipona – which I have to say – you seem very timid or unable to advance.
Will: “I have made the suggestion that if someone looked at the CO2 ice core history and did a statistical analysis of the temperature rises and then the temperature declines, on each cycle, the declines should be more gradual on average, than the rises, because more CO2 in the atmosphere should be helping to retain heat.”
The atmosphere has a sort time constant the heating/cooling lag is 8% of the diurnal cycle time (~ 2 hours) it cannot be responsible for an 8% lag on the time scale of the large Milankovitch cycle of 100,000 years.
luke; you are a squib.
Jan; lucia has just done a statistical analysis of the 20thC showing the causal connection between volcanos and temp, and confirming the post 1998 temp decline;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/volcanos-and-trends.jpg
This leaves no room for CO2 and greenhouse and throws further doubt on Keenlyside; her results are also confirmed by Christy and Douglass’s new paper removing ENSO and volcanic effects over the tropics to show a decadal temp increase of 0.07C, compared with the AGW decadal prophecy of 0.2C;
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv//papers/0809//0809.0581.pdf
Bickers wrote:
“1. Does CO2 initiate/cause the warming of the planet – yes or no. If yes, evidence please.”
This statement is crucial – is the planet itself that is supposed to be warmed up, or the air (and then which part of the air), or the surface of the planet.
Excellent point Bickers.
I should add that one of those laser presentation gadgets emits a beam that has a rather high temperature – but it could not warm a mouse dropping.
Raising the temperature requires a little more than mathematical prestidigitation that seems have blinded Luke and the rest of the AGW crowd.
Climate modelling is basically the same as econometric modelling – while possible it is none the less a totally inappropriate use of the calculus of the physical sciences.
Just imagine if the masses of the sun earth and moon varied randomly – applying Newton’s equations will produce results but they will be physically meaningles. This is the basic methodology of climate modelling.
And like Lehman Brothers they will find a tipping point but of something totally unexpected and equally physically meaningless.
Jan Pompe: The atmosphere has a sort time constant the heating/cooling lag is 8% of the diurnal cycle time (~ 2 hours) it cannot be responsible for an 8% lag on the time scale of the large Milankovitch cycle of 100,000 years.
But heat is also stored and released from the oceans and they can take thousands of years to cycle from top to bottom. Haven’t you just ignored that factor?
Will: “But heat is also stored and released from the oceans and they can take thousands of years to cycle from top to bottom. Haven’t you just ignored that factor?”
That’s the 800 year lag (and some intermediate ones) i haven’t ignored it at all.
Oh come on Louis – what are all those people out there with upwards and downward pointing pyrgeometers measuring?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=irc
And how does this congruence of observed data and modelling results work given you’re such an empirical dude?
Marty, C., R. Philipona, J. Delamere, E. G. Dutton, J. Michalsky, K. Stamnes, R. Storvold, T. Stoffel, S. A. Clough, and E. J. Mlawer (2003), Downward longwave irradiance uncertainty under arctic atmospheres: Measurements and modeling, J. Geophys. Res., 108(D12), 4358, doi:10.1029/2002JD002937.
Measurement and modeling of downward longwave irradiance are a special challenge in arctic winter due to its low water vapor content and the extreme meteorological conditions. There are questions about the representativeness of the instrument calibration, the consistency and unfcertainty of measurements and models in these environments. The Second International Pyrgeometer and Absolute Sky-scanning Radiometer Comparison (IPASRC-II), which was conducted at Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program’s North Slope of Alaska (NSA) site in Barrow provided a unique opportunity to compare high accuracy downward longwave irradiance measurements and radiative transfer model computations during arctic winter. Participants from 11 international institutions deployed 14 pyrgeometers, which were field-calibrated against the Absolute Sky-scanning Radiometer (ASR). Continuous measurements over a 10-day period in early March 2001 with frequent clear-sky conditions yielded downward longwave irradiances between 120 and 240 W m−2. The small average difference between ASR irradiances, pyrgeometer measurements, MODTRAN and LBLRTM radiative transfer computations indicates that the absolute uncertainty of measured downward longwave irradiance under arctic winter conditions is within ±2 W m−2.
Never expect a lawyer to have any respect for the truth.
Y’see, Cohenite, you and others here constantly perform a two-step – when someone attempts to explain the underlying science of global warming simply, from first principles, you start yabbering about semi-opaque models and Miscolkzi’s (incorrect) application of the virial theorem, and other complicating factors which you don’t understand – and when its pointed out that the complicating factors are the reasons we have to solve problems numerically in big computer simulations if we want precise rather than general answers, you complain that the models aren’t transparent and accuse the modellers of fudging the data.
James: ” you start yabbering about semi-opaque models and Miscolkzi’s (incorrect) application of the virial theorem,”
Miskolczi’s application of the virial theorem is just fine, so you have evidence it isn’t?
Luke,
Your post is a classic non sequitur and another irrelevant diversion – I don’t think you understand the issue I raised.
Not sure if this got up before; apologies if it did.
luke; you are squib.
Jan, Louis and others; lucia has just done a statistical analysis of the 20thC showing the causal connection between volcanos and temp, and confirming the post 1998 temp decline;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/volcanos-and-trends.jpg
This leaves no room for CO2 and greenhouse and throws further doubt on Keenlyside; her results are confirmed by Christy and Douglass’s new paper removing ENSO and volcanic effects (why wasn’t this done before?) over the tropics to show a decadal temp increase of 0.07C compared with the AGW decadal prophecy of 0.2C;
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
James; you must be joking; insulting a lawyer. I’d just like to get some of you bozos in the witness stand; as for not understanding; mate you have no idea; I make a great living making sense; what’s understanding got to do with it?
Cohenite
You didn’t correct your mistaken understanding of Mann 2008 (wrt use of PCA). This is one example of you not respecting truth.
And you resort to wnating to get people in the ‘witness stand’ – this is not at legal trial. You cannot use legal argument in a scientific debate, it doesn’t work.
Cohenite
I haven’t read Lucia’s post but volcanoes erupt as the result of a heat surge inside the earth’s interior. Given the mass of the earth and its thermal state, any variations in average temperature will be due to this heat source and not the inane CO2 fantasy.
So Lucia’s analysis confirms what geology has always known.
NT
There is no such thing as a scientific debate. Scientific facts are self evident from experiment.
There sure is debate in pseudoscience though.
Did you read any of the papers I sent you Cohenite? Do you retract your statement that the IPCC created the Enhanced Greenhouse?
Louis, so when you debate the existence of abiogenic oil, or the Electric Universe this is just pseudoscience?
Hey, if the LHC finds the Higgs Boson what will you do?
Hey, if the LHC finds the Higgs Boson what will you do?
Celebrate
It’ll be ace, Jan, yes. There will be much rejoicing.
I am concerned about what Louis will do. Won’t it confirm a gravitationally dominated universe?
NT,
Abiogenic oil is the result of experimental fact – the Electric Universe theory is described Dr Anthony Peratt at http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html.
They won’t find the Higgs Boson particle because it is an imaginary object invented to make gravity work. It might exist, however in your imaginary world of AGW.
Much easier to use the Maxwell and Lorentz equations to described observations.
So how about you providing experimental verification for Biotic oil? Ender has never been able to do it.
NT ” Won’t it confirm a gravitationally dominated universe?”
no just that mass exists 😉 Without it life as we know it is just a dream.
Jan, see I knew Louis would be dismayed by the Higgs Boson…
I as you correctly point out will be happy. We know longer have to depend on Descarte for our existence.
“We know longer have to depend on Descarte for our existence.”
lets have no chicken counting they haven’t found that G..damned particle yet.
NT
You have a reading disorder – how could I be dismayed about something that has not been found?
Have a read of the following link
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080916105720.htm
An important excerpt:
“The degree of electron pairing, also known as electronic spin state, can affect how well the materials conduct heat and electricity. Lin said modelers who make computer simulations of mantle dynamics will now have to go back and try to determine how this intermediate-spin state might affect the way heat is transferred within Earth, how superplumes form, how convection occurs in the mantle and how Earth’s magnetic field might radiate from the core.
The electronic spin state can also affect the speed of seismic waves traveling through material in the deep mantle. As a result, seismic images of the lowermost mantle-collected when earthquake vibrations travel through and reflect off of material in the subsurface-may have to be reinterpreted.”
NT: “And you resort to wnating to get people in the ‘witness stand’ – this is not at legal trial. You cannot use legal argument in a scientific debate, it doesn’t work.”
Public policy must be decided by the intelligent citizenry, not by scientists. Otherwise you risk setting up a new type of priesthood. Courts rule over matters of science everyday, i.e., intelligent design versus evolutionary theory, etc. Evaluating the merits of forensic evidence, etc.
NT: “There is no such thing as a scientific debate. Scientific facts are self evident from experiment.”
“Facts” are interpretations of models and theories. A good place to learn about this would be in an introductory university course on history of science, or a philosophy course on epistemology.
Will
It is a scientific fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Ask anyone in which direction sunrise is and they will point to the east.
So are you asserting this is actually an intepretation of a model and some sort of theory?
Will,
I should add that theories and models are dervied from facts, not the other way around as you seem to believe.
Louis, if you don’t want to do a university course, even if you went to visit a book store and grabbed an introductory book on the topic, you would gain a lot of insight into this interesting subject.
As for your question:
From one theory’s perspective the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. This is the “Earth is at the centre of the universe theory”. From another theory (Newton’s) we know that the Earth is moving and not the sun. So facts are not simple to interpret, as you can see. It depends on where you are making the observations from and how you interpret them.
Will
The direction which the sun rises has nothing whatsover to do with “The Earth is at the centre of the universe theory”. It does not require it.
Kuhn’s text was mandatory reading when I was an undergraduate.
Incidentally I labour under the burden of a couple of science degrees so I might be a little biassed.
I’m not sure why, but it’s often the case that a scientist espouses his expertise in the field of history of science or epistemology, without having done any of the actual course work…
I suppose by stating you’ve read the Kuhn book, you’re implying you understand it, but completely disagree with everything written in it, since I’ve written nothing that Kuhn would disagree with.
NT; You mean that Hansen paper on trace gas perturbations? What about that one I sent you about Hansen and the “fabled Northwest Passage.” That was in 1981; Hansen sounds as though his head wasn’t stuck in one of his orifices back then, and may have had a sense of humour. As to recanting what I said about Mann; you mean that he misused an obscure and ambiguous form of PCA so he could use dodgy data? Nah, I won’t do that because that is what he did. Now, I have given you Jolliffe’s link to prove that but that isn’t good enough for you even though Jolliffe is the world’s leading practitioner of this method, according to Tamino who is the world’s leading pain in the backside. But look at what you wrote before;
“the ‘cps’ method is composite-plus-scaling, in which the available proxies are combined, then the composite is scaled to find the best match to the calibration data”
This is amphigory; how is the composite arrived at; what is the scaling method; who decides what the best match criteria is; what is the calibration data?
I don’t even won’t to go near the “eiv” definition without my immunisation being up to date. And you are defending this guy; he’s a witch-doctor.
Will
I imply nothing – I am sure Kuhn would have agreed with everything you have written – but I do not – there are independent objective facts and pointing to the direction of sunrise is one of them. Whether Maori in New Zealand, Australian Aboriginal or anyone on the planet, ask them in which direction sunrise is, all will point to the same direction. This is called a fact. It is not based on anything other than a long period of repeatable observations.
Whether the earth goes round the sun, or the sun round the earth is totally irrelevant.
Will, that second quote is from Louis, not me.
As to the first bit, yes you are right that Public Policy etc are made by everyday people blah blah blah. But that has nothing to do with the science of AGW. Science and publlic policy may meet in a third space, but they still operate independently.
Cohenite.
Go and read the Open Mind Blog – or even the Climate Audit. Mann et al 98 used PCA, not Mann et al 2008.
Not defending him, I don’t know if his anaylsis is bad, just showing that your analysis of his paper is incorrect. The rationale you use for saying it is bad is actually wrong.
http:tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/pca-part-4-non-centered-hockey-sticks/
this is the post where Dr Joliffe was wrongly referenced, as you can see it is all about Mann 98 (and also predates Mann 2008 – which had not been published).
Louis: “Whether the earth goes round the sun, or the sun round the earth is totally irrelevant.”
Unfortunately it is the crux of the issue.
It’s a ‘fact’ that the sun moves — this can be established firmly and without any doubt from observation.
The theory that is in best agreement with this ‘fact’ is the stationary Earth centred theory. This ‘fact/observation’ apparently contradicts the theory that the Earth moves around the sun.
As you can see, your basic principles on how to do ‘good science’ lead to the wrong conclusions in even the simplest cases.
Sorry, what is the point of your objection? That AGW is false because it’s based on theories?
Will
You don’t understand it. I am not arguing whether the sun moves or the earth moves – this has nothing what so ever to do with the observation that the sun rises in the east.
Who is denying the sun moves? I am certainly not, and never even raised it as an issue.
It is your interpretation that is flawed.
Your last sentence is nonsense.
NT; when you’re wrong you’re wrong; Mann 2008 didn’t use the PCA shonk; he used other shonks; I let a good story about his holiness, Tamino, turn my head; for the real story about Mann’s latest effort I still prefer this;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3573
Wil
Theories are based on proven facts – AGW wasn’t.
NT, my apologies for attributing a quote to you that you did not write.
Oxford dictionary definition:
theory
* noun (pl. theories) 1 a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. 2 an idea accounting for or justifying something. 3 a set of principles on which an activity is based.
Cohenite
Do you mean you’re wrong?
“5. Mann et al (part 2): Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf
Rehabilitated, Mann threw out the tree-rings and used an even more esoteric form of statistical analysis (PCA) to produce data so robust it could withstand minimal correlation with instrument records and 2 confirming dates over a millennium in some of the proxy series. McIntyre couldn’t believe it, but Tamino, in praising Mann’s use of whatever form of PCA he used, is taken to task by Ian Jolliffe, the world’s leading expert on the method, whatever it is. Jolliffe is nonplussed and declares, “This is just plain wrong.””
So you attributed Joliffe’s claim to Mann et al 2008. When it was about Mann et al 1998
Don’t you want to make a new post and outline why Mann et al 2008 is wrong?
Oh That’s wonderful – a theory not based on prior facts – gee anyone could come up with a theory then and find facts to prove it. That’s AGW to the letter.
Yeap, that’s the scientific process. Messy, isn’t it? Even quantum theory – the ‘most tested’ theory in history – will be replaced one day by something better. And when that happens those unambitious ‘facts’ will be reinterpreted.
Will
Sorry, you have it back to front – whta you are describing is pseudoscience. Pseudoscience get’s replaced with a new new paradigm because paradigms are consensus positions.
I do not see any forseeable change in the use of electricity to power cell phones – we might imporve on it but the the Maxwell and Lorentz laws are pretty robust. This one “paradigm” which won’t change – actually when a theory becomes established and works, it becomes an engineering problem.
You will also find that quantum theory seems to work but as a famous physicist pointed out, no one knows why.
“I should add that theories and models are dervied from facts, not the other way around as you seem to believe.” – Louis
In theory, but sometimes not in fact.
NT; wrack off.
OK ok… I’ll stop poking fun
“And how does this congruence of observed data and modelling results work given you’re such an empirical dude?”
No you are lying Luke. The models are always wrong and rejigged after the fact. They never get anything right.
Michael
Correct -m AGW theory being one such
Climate science IS easy Luke. And I don’t need an explanation from you. I need you sacked and a retraction and apology from you lot for scaring small children and politicians.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now I’m going to nag you people if you don’t discuss serious ideas seriously. The oceans in response to better orbital conditions or stronger solar activity stores some of the extra joules and sets things up so that more can easily be stored in the future.
Thermal energy will pass from the oceans to the atmosphere via conduction whenever the air is cooler than the ocean which happens at least some time in 24 hours. But the thing is the oceans have many ways of storing joules, and setting up more to be stored, than just increasing in temperature. A cubic metre of surface ocean may be cooler than the air and so may still be absorbing thermal energy from the air even although it holds vastly more joules.
Now these delayed effects ought to be 80% or so no mystery if you try and bring more simple science into this matter instead of being intellectually constipated. Climate rationalists I’m talking to you as well. Too much you allow the relentless aggressive stupidity of the other side to control the discussion. I might just talk to myself and go on with it if you are all bogged down.
Those living next to the great lakes find their summers cooler and their winters warmer than others in the same area but further away. Is there any mystery to this?
We must think in terms of cumulative joules but along with that the altering of conditions such that the oceans can accept more joules than their radiative heat balance would otherwise allow.
Taking the marginalist approach that the economists discovered in the 1870’s but that the climate alarmists (and some of the others) cannot seem to get….
….. We find that the oceans can accept more joules if they can mix better. If the energy they do accept can move around within the oceans more easily.
The more that energy is distributed WITHIN the oceans, the higher can be their joule retention, in terms of their radiative heat balance…. if we disaggregate the oceans conceptually and then reaggregate them again.
So we see that ease of mixing is the key to how warm the earth can be.
And the primary and most well-known example of this mixing is with the great-ocean-conveyor belt.
So we see that the more easily this giant current can flow, the more easily the oceans can accumulate joules.
Now it just so happens that in accepting these joules the ocean changes in such a way that allows it to go on accepting and accumulating more vis a vis its radiative heat balance.
As it gains more joules the water freshens somewhat, from the ice melting, thus becoming less viscous. Less viscosity of the oceans means more thorough mixing, thus increasing its implied radiative heat balance.
Also the expellation of O2 and CO2 reduces the amount of life within the oceans increasing the photic zone.
As well the extra warmth of the water leads to the water being less viscuous.
So you see the conditions are set up for the oceans ability to mix more, for the conveyor to move more easily and so the setup is there for the oceans to go on increasing the intake of joules.
The historical record is astounding in this regard. With a weaker sun we have oceans of a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius plus at the South Pole at times in our history.
These were times with a continental layout that allowed and easier flow of a differently shaped conveyor no doubt. But with the oceans less salty and warmer, including the deeper oceans, we see that the joules accepted at the equator could be quickly transported north and south with more freely flowing currents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bringing this back to Malinkovitch and the last 2 or 3 million years it can be little mystery then as to why we see a millenium of delay between the changing orbital cycles and their reaction in the atmospheric climate.
I don’t see a great deal of mystery to it.
Its certainly nothing much to do with CO2. Although in the much earlier time where you had that 20+ temperature at the South Pole, its very easy to see how CO2 could have then played a part because it was probably of a level so substantial to have markedly increased air pressure, making the wind able to push currents along more easily and making the surface temperature warmer more or less directly. As well as increasing the atmosphere’s ability to hold in the thermal energy coming off the oceans.
The viscosity business, if true, might also help explain the pile-up of warmth in the far north. It seems to be the case that though the solar irradiance of the last cycle peaked around 2001 and the heat budget as measured by Argos peaked around September 2003 (correct me if I’m wrong on both counts) the far north continued to warm right up until 1 year ago.
If the warming adds to viscosity and perhaps momentum of the conveyor, then we would expect this sort of continued post-peak-pileup since the most notable surface warm water is that of the gulf stream which travels in the most direct equator-pole direction of any part of the conveyor.
“Clausius claims that when two bodies interact in such a manner, that the cooler body cannot radiate more heat to the warmer body than what the warmer body supplies the cooler body in the first place. The AGWers seem to be including radiation from the Sun in that process, adding them vectorally, and claiming the surface can warm more than the 2nd Law permits because of ‘net energy gain’, whatever that may be.”
If this is true still we cannot discount all gains in this direction since because we have night and day its not just a question of the inability of backradiation to warm its source.
It may not be able to warm its source but what it can do perhaps is slow down the rate at which the source cools. And this could amount to a little bit because of the existence of day and night.
Still one would expect the difference that might turn out to make… to be a couple of orders of magnitude less than what the moonbats are talking about.
And just think Birdy – Cohenite support syou all the way. Oh what a feeling. Toyota !
luke; I gave you enough information to query Philipona; zilch. Graeme has given a good exposition of the oceanic influence, and lucia and Christy have done recent presentations which completely negate AGW; and all you can do is gibber on; have you been drinking? I know it’s Friday night and you AGW executive types work hard all week networking, but that is no excuse to come on here inebriated.
Oooh wah, a Rumpole situation methinks.
Cohenite, this is the problem you see this “Graeme has given a good exposition of the oceanic influence, and lucia and Christy have done recent presentations which completely negate AGW;”
the refutation is entirely in your own mind…
Good to see you’re not sulking though.
And nice to see you have resorted to ad homs like every other poster here.
What ad homs?
Cohenite – make with the refutation – I need a coherent story – unless of course – you’re ……. chicken….. here chooky chooky
Given the passage of time since its last post, NT might be having difficulting finding a few Cohenite Ad homs.
Graeme
AGW is basically the theory that as the earth cools by radiating IR outwards, this is captured by CO2 which then reradiates it backwards to maintain the temperature.
It might make sense in a close system in thermal equilibrium.
I can see how Luke, NT and the rest think how this happens – they, unfortunately, suffer from closed system thinking, if that is the correct description in the first instant.
luke; you are definitely drunk; or is some sort of natural high; like, up, up in the air in my beautiful radiosonde.
Louis; that’s not an ad hom is it?
In other threads I likened Luke to Medusa – so it’s good to see that he has not disappointed – his poster pikkie seems to me Medusa like – one post its James Hansen, then its Arnie Swarzenegger, what next Michael Mann? Will we see a pikkie of Phillipona? How about Phil Done?
Cohenite,
No it can’t be if it is true. In any case Luke has lost the argument, since it appears you have filliped his Phillipona.
Haven’t missed much while away hey
same old, same old…arguments and posters
Gavin,
Yes and the same old trite non-posts from you.
“There is no such thing as a scientific debate. Scientific facts are self evident from experiment.”
“I haven’t read Lucia’s post but volcanoes erupt as the result of a heat surge inside the earth’s interior. Given the mass of the earth and its thermal state, any variations in average temperature will be due to this heat source and not the inane CO2 fantasy.”
Where’s the experiment, Louis?
In other threads I have likened Hissink to a twit. He continues not to disappoint. So Sinkers tell us – can you explain what the radiometers are measuring.
Cohenite has done a runner – obviously not prepared to back up his nonsense.
luke; I have done a runner; trying to catch up with you running furiously from your challenges; I have put the following issues about Philipona’s papers to you;
1 A discrepancy in the DLR amount of +1.8(0.8)Wm2 in the 2004 paper, and +0.35(0.4)Wm2 in the 2005 paper; how does he reach these widely different conclusions?
2 Why does he restrict his measurements to the period 1995-2002? An extension of his temp trends, from HadCrut, to 2005, shows a markedly lower trend.
3 Why in fact did he use HadCrut temp records when he is measuring an atmospheric effect/ Why didn’t he use MSU satellite data, which is 38% less over the period?
4 How does he reconcile his claim that his measurement of DLR has isolated a clear-sky anthropogenic component, after removing Stefan-Boltzman and humidity, when insolation, according to PMOD, was not declining during the test period?
5 His estimate of the water vapor effect is based on a modelled estimate of vertically declining vapor. How does he reconcile that with layer inversions which are common over Europe, and which trap excess vapor at height?
6 Even if his use of the 1st derivative of Stefan-Boltzman to ascertain the temp based upward radiation is acceptable, how can you extrapolate from this pronounced regional effect to a wider area?
7 According to a 2008 paper, with Ruckstuhl, Philipona’s measurements of DLR is done during the day. Can you confirm that his measurements of DLR are in fact diurnal?
Graeme Bird said…”It may not be able to warm its source but what it can do perhaps is slow down the rate at which the source cools. And this could amount to a little bit because of the existence of day and night”.
While quoting Clausius, I wasn’t implying that the back radiation did not warm the surface. The AGW theory is claiming that the back radiation will warm the surface to the extent it will release more water vapour and the extra vapour is what is theorized to cause the excess warming. In other words, the surface will get warmer than the 100 watts it was heated to by the Sun initially.
I’m interpreting Clausius as saying you can’t get that extra warming to create an excess of vapour because it contravenes the 2nd Law. Think of the surface as the source of the heat and say for arguements sake it is 100 w/m.m. It radiates that 100 watts only in an ideal system…there should be losses. If the water vapour and CO2 absorb the 100 watts and re-radiate it perfectly, you have a perpetual motion machine.
We know that doesn’t happen since the back-radiation is only a fraction of the surface. Clausius is saying that 100 W supplied by the surface cannot be re-radiated to heat the surface beyond 100 watts.
The AGW theory is claiming that back-radiation adds to the incoming radiation from the Sun to warm the surface beyond 100 watts due to a balance of ‘net energy’. In the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner, they claim that is wrong, that the AGW theory is confusing heat with energy.
Heat is a form of energy but energy is the amount of heat transfered in a time period. I’m not clear on this yet, but it seems the AGW theory is treating the system of heat flow to the atmosphere and back again as a time-based machine in which you could measure energy differences.
That’s not what appears to be happening, however. The heat engine is initiated by the surface, not the Sun. Once the Sun has heated the surface, it’s out of the equation. The surface now becomes the radiator and the heat flow is between it and the atmosphere. That’s where the 2nd Law comes in, it applies to the heat flow from the surface – atmosphere – surface only.
“While quoting Clausius, I wasn’t implying that the back radiation did not warm the surface. The AGW theory is claiming that the back radiation will warm the surface to the extent it will release more water vapour and the extra vapour is what is theorized to cause the excess warming.”
Crazytalk. Since it focuses on the warming of the air and forgets the oceans that must lose energy to turn the water into water vapour.
Its conjuring something out of nothing.
Luke,
A radiometer can quantify electromagnetic radiation intensity, but no one knows how and there is much scientific debate about this.
SJT,
You are the classic pseudoscience proselytiser- demanding one’s debating opponents to perform an impossible experiment to prove their argument.
I wrote a non sequitur in one of the posts above.
Which one.
🙂
“You are the classic pseudoscience proselytiser- demanding one’s debating opponents to perform an impossible experiment to prove their argument.”
So you’ll drop that claim you made since you can’t do an experiment in a lab to prove it?
I’ll be looking forward to your lab experiment that proves the earth is a homopolar generator. Better build a big lab for that experiment.
“In other words, the surface will get warmer than the 100 watts it was heated to by the Sun initially.”
If you are going to try to sort this out in your own mind, you really have to get sorted out what terms you are using. Are you talking about the rate of energy going into the system, that is, watts, the amount of energy, that is, joules, or the temperature that results, that is, Degrees C. You seem to be talking about a mix of all three as if they are interchangable.
Andrew Apel
I hope you see this. To answer your question there are models that predict the tides. In the past mechanical models were used to simulate the tides in a harbor. This is a complex problem and there are many factors. Friction, gravitation (of earth, moon, sea water and Sun), sea floor topography and earth rotation to name a few. Computer models do it better because then all known the factors involved can be calculated. Note that they do it better not perfectly. A GCM creates a virtual reality which attempts to predict conditions at finite points (less than 10000). The number of factors involved are infinite at least by the reckoning of two of the modelers. Principally thermodynamic calculations are used and this means mainly physicists are saying what the climate will be a hundred years in the future. If the GCMs can calculate enough of the infinite number factors to make an accurate prediction then we know what the 10000 points will be a hundred years in the future. These points are set at an average point a few metres above the surface which is about 510100000 sq. km in area. So we are making a prediction for a single point in every 51010 sq. km or to put it another way a square 226 Km on each side. All we then need is a guarantee that the transition is uniform from point to point. Personally I prefer an Ouija board the results are about the same.
SJT,
You don’t understand the scientific method – it is the proposer of an hypothesis who has to prove it, not the sceptics to disprove it.
If the earth’s rotation is not driven by a homopolar mechanism, then pray tell what does maintain it, short of a mechanical miracle.
“If the earth’s rotation is not driven by a homopolar mechanism, then pray tell what does maintain it, short of a mechanical miracle.
Do your experiment and prove it to me.
I have heard a whisper on the grapevine it is inertia and the lack of drag in a vacuum that keeps the earth spinning.
Louis Hissink.
Scientific hypotheses are not proved, they are supported. Or disproved.
There’s a big difference, and it has profound consequences for your statement. One of these is that the proposer, or any other scientist, only ever adds to the support base, and never truly ‘proves’ anything.
And one would suspect that anyone bothering to test an hypothesisis is, almost tautologically, a sceptic. Whether you subscribe to collusive science conspiracy theories or not, it is rather apparent that it is scepticism that usually drives disproof.
And I thought that this blog was peopled by Popperians.
“AGW is basically the theory that as the earth cools by radiating IR outwards, this is captured by CO2 which then reradiates it backwards to maintain the temperature.”
A “cool” CO2 molecule can’t RE-RADIATE back to earth.
This is a common error since CO2 can absorb some of the outgoing IR.But can only emit at a LOWER temperature.
Therefore what is emitted is COOLER than what it absorbed.
Therefore what is emitted is no longer IR.It is now a cooler wavelength.
CO2 can not RE-RADIATE! It can only emit at a lower temperature than it initially recieved.Otherwise there would be no emission at all.
How can it maintain atmospheric warmth when it is cooler than the surface?
Thus it can’t maintain anything warm that is warmer than itself.
CO2 or any molecules that emits will always be cooler than what it absorbed.