Nigel Lawson gave an insightful address to the group who gathered for the Institute of Public Affair’s 2007 HV McKay Lecture in Sydney on Monday. He spoke on the politics and economics of climate change and commented:
“Is it really plausible that there is an ideal average world temperature, which by some happy chance has recently been visited on us, from which small departures in either direction would spell disaster? Moreover, while a sudden change would indeed be disruptive, what is at issue here is the prospect of a very gradual change over a hundred years and more.
In any case, average world temperature is simply a statistical artefact. The actual experienced temperature varies
enormously in different parts of the globe; and man, whose greatest quality is his adaptability, has successfully colonized most of it.
Two countries at different ends of the earth, both of which are generally considered to be economic success stories, are Finland and Singapore. The average annual temperature in Helsinki is less than 5ºC. That in Singapore is in excess of 27ºC — a difference of more than 22ºC. If man can successfully cope with that, it is not immediately apparent why he should not be able to adapt to a change of 3ºC, when he is given a hundred years in which to do so.”
The entire speech can be found and downloaded here: http://ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=695
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“The Ideal Average World Temperature,” however that might plausibly be quantified and rendered somehow measurable, would be that of the “Medieval Optimum.”
The “Medieval Optimum” is so universally considered optimum that it gains its name from that optimality.
One need only compare conditions during that period to the worldwide misery and deprivation encountered during the “Little Ice Age” to conclude that warmer is better than colder.
And, as the Medieval Optimum is considered worthy of its name, the planet needs to warm between 1.5 and 2.2 degrees C before we reach that optimum.
While we wait for the world to become a cozier, friendlier place, we can relax: over 15,000 scientists agree that the efforts of humanity are, for now, far too puny to change planetary climate.
For now, ‘terraforming’ remains the province of science fiction writers, among which Al Gore is rightly counted.
See the links:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/clim/wc98-1web.htm
http://www.iberianature.com/material/iceage.html
Ideal temperature for who?????
“That in Singapore is in excess of 27ºC — a difference of more than 22ºC. If man can successfully cope with that, it is not immediately apparent why he should not be able to adapt to a change of 3ºC, when he is given a hundred years in which to do so.””
So Nigel when in Singapore how often do you step outside, out of air conditioning??????
Hey guys have a look at Schiller’s first link. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm hahahahhahahahahaha …. oooo … you’ve gotta see the funny side.
So Jen are you supporting Nigel’s incisive ideal temperature comments or just reporting them?
Ender,
Quit your whining. People in Mexico have survived! And it is very hot!
The statement that it takes a hundred years to develop air conditioning is accurate. But we have it already!
So, what is your problem?
Allow me to quote Luke’s incisive critique of my proposal that the “Medieval Optimum” was Medieval, and optimum.
“hahahahhahahahahaha …. oooo … you’ve gotta see the funny side.” –Luke
Luke, thank you for providing such a persuasive argument. Your ability to reproduce pairs of letters in ASCII, and to repeat those letter pairs, may well be unsurpassed in the global warming literature.
May I cite you?
Go ahead Schillsy and don’t forget to include your reference. It’s of extraordinary significance. You could publish your findings in E&E with Mottsa. I’m sure they’d accept it.
hahahahahahha …. ooooo … it hurts
Thanks, Luke.
You will be cited in my upcoming article, “Blog Coprolites–Fossils, or Dingleberries?”
Again, thanks.
Schiller – “Quit your whining. People in Mexico have survived! And it is very hot!”
Yes they have however until the invention of air conditioning there were many areas that were uninhabitable due to heat.
So where is the energy for all these aircons coming from? People in Australia also survived and it is extremely hot however funnily enough the bulk of the population live where temperatures are quite mild – could be something in that.
Hey, Lukefish! You’ve linked us to Tamino, on a couple of threads re: this 2007 temp ranking. Would you wanna bet on 2007’s rank based on Tamino thread?
Remember when you linked us to: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/temperature-2007/ “reviews the global temperature anomaly nunbers and suggests 2007 will be second “warmest” if you like that sort of thing…”
You can have spots #1 & #2, and I’ll take the rest… Tamino’s disciple’s are chanting, “use the force, er’ Luke!”
Well gee Chicken Hawk – I don’t know. Was Tamino’s assertions – he was going for #2 as I remember. We’ll soon know won’t we. Maybe you’ll be really pleased and we’ll be back down to 1970s levels quick smart. You know with the Sun about to extinguish and so on.
I am puzzled by the idea that Medieval times were a Golden Age for humanity.
But what do the Enlightenment, The Renaissance, The Reformation, The American Revolution and Declaration of Independence (and the ending of slavery), Galileo and the birth of science, The Age of Exploration and European domination of the world, and the works of Shakespeare and Leonardo all have in common?
They were achieved during the Little Ice Age.
By comparison, the achievments of Medieval Europe (cathedrals, Viking exploration, ?) look rather pale.
It would seem that climate was irrelevant for all these things, unless a poor climate actually stimulates development of ideas and experimentation with progress.
Jennifer, I thought you were a biologist. Species adapt to their environment. There is no ‘ideal’ temperature, but there is the environment we are adapted to. Change that environment too quickly, and adaptation can’t keep up.
Well Mr Tamino and his disciples are such wise guys, how ’bout you can have #1,2,& 3 and I’ll take the rest. What d’ya say?
Mr Ender, SJT — you want any of this? Remember that record arctic ice melt, this year? Easy pickuns fer ya — just jump on the Lukefish, and let’em carry ya.
Poor old Chooky Hawk – still smarting after being pooned like a newb on cryospheric cracks for being a norty little fibber. Very interesting that our little chicken plucker doesn’t ever come up with anything substantive – just a bit of a drive by shooting. So Chooky-wook you tell us where 2007 will be (if it matters that much) – we’re in awe of your knowledge (snigger).
What need is there for adaption? All the existing species deal with far greater temperature variation already.
What casuistry, SJT. By that logic, the correlation between recent medical advances and temperature increase is so strong that Global Warming can only deliver more medical advances.
Of course, it will but there is this little problem of cause and effect that seems to have gone right over SJT’s head.
It’s not “drive by shooting” — it’s drive by fishing, Lil. But hooking physical science guppies like you is hardly sportin — so I always throw you back.
But since you hang around nibblin at bait and pollutin the tank, nearly every day, I don’t always catch your lies and copyright frauds until the weekend. Like when I challenged you directly out of the body of a paper, and you mass cut’n’paste almost everything else in the paper, along with unattributed stuff in other papers — then lie for several posts before I return on the weekend to pull your blathering guppy tail off the hook yet again.
So on this latest fishing drive by, you’ve got until the midnight Friday to decide. Do some homework, and take the bet — or don’t. By offering up the same to some other guppies*, one ought to be able to garnish a small cup of soup. One knows you’ll still be here, pollutin the pond, regardless.
In truth and fairness, Mr Ender was never a guppy…
What a load of irrelevant drivel. You were caught out deliberately misrepresenting the papers and hadn’t even read some. The reason it was unattributed was to see if you recognised it. Your responses didn’t disappoint me. And now all we have is “but but but “…. ping off. You got owned.
Get grip, Ian.
Just listen to “The World Today” today. Flying Foxes dropping like flies because of a temperature event. It’s a very interesting story, you might learn something. Transcript should be available tomorrow.
CO2 absorbs heat. Hmmm. Has anybody ever measured the ambiant temperature of a cornfield after it has absorbed all of the local CO2? You know to see if there is an appreciable drop.
Something else we will probably never see a study on – how many baby penguins freeze to death vs. how many fall off the edge of a crumbly ice shelf.
“CO2 absorbs heat. Hmmm. Has anybody ever measured the ambiant temperature of a cornfield after it has absorbed all of the local CO2? You know to see if there is an appreciable drop.”
Even as a joke that post fails.
There you go Ian, your taxes at work.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s2105121.htm
“NICOLA MARKUS: Oh, look, it was absolutely horrible. The camp at that time was carnage. Arriving at the campsite in the early afternoon was just one of the saddest sights I’ve ever seen, because literally, females and pups were coming down low in the foliage.
Generally they roost up high and they were coming down low in the trees and clinging on with the last bit of life left in them to the branches and to leaves, and the pups were dropping to the ground in exhaustion, and it was just something I’d like to not have to see again.
JENNIFER MACEY: Dr Markus has co-authored a report in a Royal Society journal that examines the impact of the heatwave on the flying foxes.
She says 5 to 6 per cent of the colony died, with the mortality rate higher among females and pups.
And she says black-headed bats were more susceptible than the grey-headed species.
NICOLA MARKUS: The black flying foxes are more of a sedentary species, and so in the areas that they come from, which are the northern parts and some more tropical coastal areas of Australia, it might be warmer overall, but it’s much rarer to get extreme heat events.
Whereas the grey-headed flying foxes that migrate thousands of kilometre along in the east coast are much more well adapted to extremes of temperature that they’ll encounter along the way. And so it was essentially just hypothermia, the bats overheated and died from overheating.
JENNIFER MACEY: The report says since 1994 more than 30,000 flying foxes died during similar heatwaves, leading to some of the most dramatic die-offs ever to be recorded in mammals.
Dr Markus says until recently these mass deaths were unheard of. But she says with climate change expected to lead to more hotter days more often, the flying foxes may be under threat.
NICOLA MARKUS: The problem arises where the flying foxes are being pushed south in coastal areas because of all the deforestation and the loss of forest that has gone on in other parts.
So they’re essentially being forced into areas further south that are not their normal habitat, and they’re more and more exposed to these heat events that are more likely to happen over time.
In time, even the grey-headed flying foxes are likely to be more affected than they are at the moment. And, you know, it’s one of the first times that we can actually demonstrate how much climate change and how quickly climate change, even just small amounts of temperature changes, can affect a species.”
You’re welcome.
Luke, Ender, SJT et al., you can all lay off now.
The job’s been done.
Your boy’s in ‘The Lodge’ already.
Relax.
A colony of black headed bats in northern N.S.W. trump billions of humans in under-developed countries in Asia, Africa, South America etc. any day.
Hmmm….
“Gatton Shire fruit producers are facing up to a “plague-like” infestation of flying foxes, according to the Queensland Country Life newspaper. ..”
pesky varmits
Here’s something else that was unheard of in 1994. New color scheme for a fruit bat.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070918-flying-fox.html
Ain’t that guy a little cutie? Isn’t live in all it’s diversity wonderful?
I wasn’t kidding about the corn field – it would be direct evidence to support or refute the AGW theory. All other things being equal, a field with zero ppm CO2 should be x amount colder then a field with 380 ppm. Unless of course AGW doesn’t exist.
Has there been any study like this?
I am shocked that C3PO doesn’t want to know.
Aren’t you a little curious?
Gee James have you heard of wind and eddies. Might mix the ol’ CO2 up a bit.
But anyway let’s play on – there’s no wind today.
Ever think that the atmosphere might extend upwards a ways above the corn? A duh…. says James. Trying thinking James – it’s called Modtran. You can Google it and find out how a layered radiation model works (but you won’t as you have the attention span of a gnat).
Extra CO2 will, all things being equal, make plant leaves warmer – but for why you think – less transpiration as they don’t have to open their stomates as much to photosynthesise and lose less water. i.e. they’ll be warmer.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=147578
Interestingly more CO2 makes leaves less frost resistant.
http://www.greenhouse.crc.org.au/Research/b1.cfm
Yes there’s been lots of experiments with enhanced CO2 in fields using diffusers – there called FACE – free air CO2 enrichment experiments. http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/programs/FACE/face.html
You can remember it by “being off your FACE”.
Being a scholar you’d also know about estimating carbon flux with this kit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_covariance
And you’d also be an expert in how different plant metabolism reacts differently to CO2 (maize or corn to you sepos is a C4 plant !).
http://wc.pima.edu/~bfiero/tucsonecology/plants/plants_photosynthesis.htm
All wasted on James…
That is a rather cute bat James.
chrisgo wrote:
>A colony of black headed bats in northern N.S.W. trump billions of humans in under-developed countries in Asia, Africa, South America etc. any day.
On ABC site:
“It bodes extremely badly for the black flying foxes.”
Any climate changes that harm flying foxes will have knock-on effects throughout all coastal forest ecosystems, she says.
Certain species of eucalypt, for example, rely heavily on the bats for pollination.
“They are a keystone species for forest environments,” Dr Markus said. “There are lots of other species whose fate may also be in serious doubt.”
It seems people can only see an organism for its direct consequences to them. Should an animal have indirect positive effects such as via forest pollination, many are simply too stupid to recognise it.
As for:
>What need is there for adaption? All the existing species deal with far greater temperature variation already.
Case in point with stupidity.
>”Gatton Shire fruit producers are facing up to a “plague-like” infestation of flying foxes, according to the Queensland Country Life newspaper. ..
Of course they are. Anything so it makes them look like they are suffering even more.
Is Earth’s temperature measured orally or rectally? The latter can be one degree higher. Are Earth’s rectal temperatures taken in France?
Also on ABC is a promo for James O’lauglin were there is a description of a NSW council using RFS tankers and nets to get rid of fruit bats (unknown head colour) out of a town centre.
One persons endangered species is another persons pest.
The RFS and nets were for starlings, not fruit bats.
Nigels ‘cooler assessment of climate obsession’ got a run in The Australian this morning and I had a read after noting it was alleged by Jennifer to contain insights. It does in the form of convenient adaptive logic. How bizarre to use a spatial temperature difference of 22C between Helsinki and Singapore to suggest the planet can adapt to plus 3C temporal trend over a century.Science Logic 101 assumes no one would ever use a spatial relationship to estimate a temporal one. Still, I remember Jen used to use the daily range in temperature to belittle a half degree average annual warming. The only insight I could imagine is Nigel looking up himself.
See my post on the Flying-fox thread. Dr Marcus is talking absolute bull$hit. The Flying-foxes moved south before 1929 to take advantage of the supply of fruit (Bananas, Paw-paws etc) created by the settlers. There was hardly any significant clearing in coastal Queensland prior to the 1920s.
bazza
well put, but how do you argue with bizarre?
Ok I’m looking in your face.
Blah blah blah co2 atmosphere rising blah blah blah global warming bad! blah blah
Second para – Blah blah blah CO2 is plant food blah blah blah could increase output by 30% blah blah blah is good for the forest and all the little creatures but we don’t want to admit it blah blah and a blah.
Last para – So we need to do this test and pretend it’s controversial.
You know Luke I’m not seeing anything in here about measuring the heat difference between a zero CO2 atmosphere and a 380 ppm atmosphere.
Did you post the wrong link?
Any of you guys ever heard of Tim Ball?
“Ever think that the atmosphere might extend upwards a ways above the corn?”
I’m not worried about the air over the corn.
All I want to know is if the extra co2 adds heat. That’s all. If it does then we can get back
to our regularly schedualed squabble.
Seems like this is the sort of study that should
have been done before the launch of the big
phoophorah about climate change.
For all I know someone did it – I haven’t heard about it though. What about you?
I’ve already sent you the info – read it dorkus.
Of course it doesn’t “Add heat” – are you mental.
Singleton Council have, for years, been trying to get rid of a huge bat colony – and it often goes over 43 in Singleton
http://www.bom.gov.au/clim_data/cdio/tables/text/IDCJCM0037_061371.csv
This absurd concern about a few bats borders on criminal:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4121/
Some can manage to actually be concerned about ‘a few bats’ (which belong on the next thread) and a few thousand people. Amazing.
I’m perfectly comfortable with saving bats.
But for decency’s sake, drop the ‘Global Warming’ validation.
The reason for raising the issue of the bats was to point out the fallacy of the author of the topic. Can anyone stick to the point here.
James
You don’t have a clue, do you?
James will be bored and back to ask something else he really doesn’t need an answer to soon.
Luke I read the stuff. That first link held some promise when they were talking about latent heat flux and sensible heat, but then a little further in it all went sideways.
you can boil the whole darn thing down to one sentence – “In 1998, the Dry plots received more irrigation water than planned, resulting in slightly warmer midday leaf temperatures in FACE than Control.”
Color me shocked that an increase in mass (ie more water then planned) equaled higher temperature. The Agricultural Research Service is well represented by the acronym ARS (as in up your).
I don’t give a damn about leaf temperature. I want to know the heat difference between a volume of air with 380 ppm of CO2, versus the same volume of air without CO2.
Is this such an unreasonable question?
James
the simple answer is absolutely none, if you just have it in a box in a dark room.
Well yes it is a bit unreasonable – you’d have to isolate with no boundaries, a column of air above your patch of ground or corn. x kilometres high.
And what do you want to know that’s warmer- the air or the leaves. As the leaves transpire and that process is influenced by CO2 you’re measuring a latent heat effect not a radiative recycling.
You see there’s a famous experiment – putting a container around things like a real glasshouse won’t do – as convection will take over.
How do you do your experiment without a glass/perspex/whatever box.
Here’s the experiment:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2005/10/people-who-tell-you-that-greenhouse.html
So greenhouse is a bad analogy
Simplisticly :
The science is pretty complicated in detail, but essentially shortwave radiation comes in from the Sun, warms the Earth which re-radiates longwave energy upwards. This interacts with greenhouse gases = water vapour, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and a range of other minor gases (but not nitrogen or oxygen).
Some longwave escapes to space. Some longwave radiation hits CO2 molecules and they get excited or energised. When the CO2 molecules rerediate the longwave again, half of it is directed downwards towards the Earth (half into space) so effectively heat is recycled.
So James it’s about recycling radiation not blankets or glass roofs. Really important concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
So how do you do your experiment and not enclose the experiment in a glass/plastic box which will cause convection.
It would be nice to have a baseline on how much the co2 heat trapping affects the thermometer.
I like the glass box idea and this is sounding more like something to do as a home science project.
I’m staring at a couple empty wine bottles on my shelf. Convection currents would be the same, but multiple thermometers, one at the top, one at the bottom, to see if it matters. I got no problem with that.
The thing is how to measure the co2 content and evacuate it in the control bottle. The corn was just the most practical method I could come up with for removing co2 from the control portion of air.
Still it seems to me this should have been done before. Doesn’t Tamino have a mr. wizard type page so the kiddies can prove the global warming to the grownups?
By the way how do we know there isn’t any convection in the stratosphere? That sounds like opinion to me.
HELLO – you like the glass box idea?? ARGH ! The point was that that doesn’t help you. Read it again. When Wood did his experiment it still got hot. All you’ll be doing is heating your box through convection – unless it’s a huge box a few kms high. THINK ABOUT IT AGAIN when not on drugs.
As for proving the greenhouse effect I gave you some good papers a couple of links ago and your reading of them hasn’t disappointed me.
As for stratosphere convection you go and research it and tell us.
“All you’ll be doing is heating your box through convection”
And the co2 “polluted” bottle would be warmer – I mean unless your full of it. And I like drugs.
Is AGW an untested opinion?
Are you thick ? You’re rapidly confirming that hypothesis. The CO2 bottle would be the same temperature numb nuts – your container is too small. Try to turn the second part of your cerebrum to “on”.
Interesting isn’t it James that there is a massive natural greenhouse effect but there is now way humanity could add to it? First class thinking James.
Satellites, viewing earth from space, tell us that the amount of
infrared going out to space corresponds to an `effective radiating
temperature’ of about -18 o C. At -18 o C, about 240 watts per square
metre (W/m**2) of infrared are emitted. This is just enough to balance
the absorbed solar radiation. Yet earth’s surface currently has a mean
temperature near 15 o C and sends an average of roughly 390 W/m**2 of
infrared upwards. After the absorption and emission processes just
outlined, 240 W/m**2 eventually escape to space; the rest is captured
by greenhouse gases and clouds. The `natural greenhouse effect’ can
be defined as the 150 or so W/m**2 of outgoing terrestrial infrared
trapped by earth’s preindustrial atmosphere. It warms earth’s surface
by about 33 o C.
Gee isn’t it interesting that we’re not at minus 18C.
But I think you’re right. Greenhouse is a hoax.
I’m afraid it’s all wasted on him, Luke.
James – “I like the glass box idea and this is sounding more like something to do as a home science project. ”
The problem is that this simplistic approach will lead you astray. The reality is far more complicated. Read these two articles from Spencer Weart that neatly explain the physics behind the enhanced greenhouse effect.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii
Excellent links, Ender, they answer a question I have been wondering about myself.
Hold on Luke, your uncited paste above is only part true. The solar constant is 1350W/m2 and yes, albedo is about 390W/m2 or about 30%, but the main contributor to the temperature of the planet is the other 960W/m2 (70%) that is absorbed by oceans and land.
And as the earth is 70% ocean, that absorbs 96.5% of insolation, then there is something that reflects a great deal of insolation before it gets to the oceans, thereby reducing average absorption to only 70%. That something is clouds, high level cirrus clouds in fact. And these are the things that the IPCC admits they do not understand very well.
If there were no cirrus clouds then the 70% of the earths surface that is ocean would absorb (0.7×0.965) 67.55% of total insolation while the remaining 30% land which absorbs between 85% and 70% of insolation (snow excluded) would produce a very serious hot house. If land averaged 80% absorption and 20% albedo then total absorption from cloudless oceans and land would be in the order of 90% or a massive 1215 W/m2.
All it would take is a minor change in the incidence of cirrus cloud cover to completely negate a major change in other greenhouse agents like CO2, which only have an influence on the 150 W/m2 of trapped outgoing infrared energy.
I like ender’s first link where it says,
“What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.” – Spencer Weart
And specificly this snip,
“Or it may transfer the energy into velocity…”.
Velocity of molecules being otherwise known as heat.
I can’t think of a way besides NASA co2 scrubbers to extract the ambiant co2 from the air, so that the level is at zero. However, I can add incrimental shots of co2 to my bottles of air.
I can imagine a whole line of bottles each with their own certain level of co2 concentration.
If the theory holds I should end up with a rainbow of temperature variations.
lets see.
James – “I can’t think of a way besides NASA co2 scrubbers to extract the ambiant co2 from the air, so that the level is at zero. However, I can add incrimental shots of co2 to my bottles of air.”
If you can’t think of a way then you should not be doing the experiment in the first place. Anyone with even the slightest scientific knowledge could tell you how to scrub CO2 – hint try googling CaCO3 and you will find on the first hit the chemical reaction you need.
You also missed that the capture window changes with temperature and pressure so each bottle would have to be at a different temp and pressure.
So James – you’re going to remove all CO2 from a column of air above the Earth’s surface and none of this will be a box that will invalidate the experiment. Yea sure.
Mottsa is now taking on all basic physics to invalidate the entire greenhouse effect on Earth. Pullease…. yes Ian we’re at -18C. I wondered why it was chilly.
Clouds can be albedo reflectors or greenhouse warmers – you tell us the balance.
Luke, you and your climate mafia mates have all tried to tell us that global temperature was all determined by changes in what happens to the 150 W/m2 of captured albedo. But common sense would suggest that changes in the 960 W/m2 of retained (absorbed) insolation might have quite a bit to do with it as well.
And just remember, it was you that raised the issue of the basic energy budgets, not me.
And you’re sure about 960 W/m2 in your energy budget are you?
Why don’t you tell us how it all works?
It’s suddenly dawned on him. ROTFL.
Why don’t you tell us, Boy Wonder?
Luke I am just trying to figure out why you think the co2 in the air column is important?
Ender’s first link admits that all the interesting stuff about co2 happens within 1 and half meters of the ground.
The other link where the RC guys make a big deal out of co2 molecules giving off less energy (because they’re colder) the higher in the atmosphere they climb.
Allow me to retort. DUH.
I like this guy, Knut Ångström, who said, “these global warming guys are full of crap”.
Then he proved it.
James – you’re a such a dick. If you weren’t so charming we wouldn’t talk to you. Somehow I think you need to start a little more basic (if that’s possible – keep reading)
MOTTSA – you’re out by a factor of 4 and confusing apples and oranges.
Now if you follow we got to this silly discussion as James has been bugging us on the existence of any greenhouse effect.
At the level of radiation the Earth receives (240 watts/m at the surface not the solar contant) we should have an effective radiating temperature of -18C. But we know it’s actually 33C warmer at 15C so we have an effective radiating temperature of 390 W/m2. Was from chapter 3 of the climate change FAQ for kiddies here at http://stason.org/TULARC/science-engineering/climate-change/3-The-natural-greenhouse-effect.html
150 W/m2 effective more of greenhouse from clouds, water vapour, CO2, etc.
So if Jimmy boy wants to argue there no greenhouse effect at all he can go argue with the most basic of physics here at the Stepahn Boltzmann equation.
Emitted radiation = S-B contant times ((temperature in Kelvin) to the fouth power)
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6f.html
Like – a duh !
OK – now save yourselves READ THIS IF YOU DO NOTHING ELSE
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2001Q1/211/notes_for_011001_lecture.html
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_1997_big.gif
AND look at the piccy.
And why do greenhouse gases do what they do with infra-red – dipole moments
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
So having convinced one’s self of the basic physics you would then look at the Philipona papers and see – “lo and behold” that over a decade using an elegant experiment with radiometers he’s confirmed the increase in longwave is about what you’d expect. Wow !
And the Harries paper shows radiation is being sunk from the outer space perspective of a satellite watching the Earth.
(You go and find refs here in the archive)
You would then force yourself (and you should) to check out the ruse arguments and fine points dispelled in:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii
Water vapour feedback of forcing http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor/
SO if you mo-fo’s are still here – yes this does not give you climate sensitivity as we’ve only done one forcing. But there is a bloody big chunk of radiation physics which says energy will get recycled with greenhouse gases. And the reason you guys get shit and derision is that you no real idea or respect for that physics.
So if aerosols improve over time which is likely as pollution controls improve, and unless clouds do something amazing, or the arse falls out of the Sun’s radiation – this physics should almost hold up even better in the future than now when the forcing kicks in big time and starts to dominate. You would at least think – shit there is a fair bit in this. Not convinced of course but that the phyiscs is pretty good in that part.
And not be just grovelling around with x-y plots alone basing your policy decision on that alone, like some frggin’ cheap denialist with no science.
Did you read what I wrote – probably not.
Have a dipole moment.
CO2 levels aren’t rising anywhere near as fast as the IPCC’s absurd 1%/yr, nor any of their alarmist ‘storylines’. This despite humans mining and using carbon at record rates for the last 5 years or so. Something to which the atmosphere and temperatures have been strangely unresponsive. Using Mauna Loa as our global proxy (and even the South Pole remains within a couple of ppm of this number) then the peak year increment was 1998 (3 ppmv, probably due to warm ocean outgassing during the impressive El Niño), followed by 2003, 1988, 2005, 1973 (2.2, although 1974 was a mere 0.5)…
While there is some inter-annual variation of a ppm or two, the Keeling Curve (KC) provides an easy way for us to check what’s going on. Still using Mauna Loa’s figures (as befits a nod to Keeling), we derive the KC value 1959-1999 as (368/316)^(1/40)-1 or ~0.38%. To derive current expectation from the 1999 value then it is merely a case of calculating 368(1.003816^8) = 379.4, we were looking for an observed value of about 380 and calculated a value well within observed variability — a tribute to Keeling’s observations and the robustness of the Keeling Curve. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are pretty much exactly where they were expected to be and are certainly not showing any dramatic acceleration when they can be comfortably predicted with the KC.
That’s the problem with simply taking the anthropogenic portion of emission estimates and extrapolating, isn’t it, the world just doesn’t cooperate.
For the curious, because someone always asks rather than calculating for themselves, according to Keeling (provided the sun doesn’t decide to deliver another Maunder-style Minimum, which would mean the KC will dramatically overestimate), in 20 years the atmospheric CO2 level is likely to be ~410ppmv, in 50 years, ~460ppmv and 100 years from now ~555ppmv — regardless of how successful Al’s carbon scam should be and despite the worst machinations of the EU.
Good lord – Schiller’s gone all sciencey for a change.
Schiller – ‘To derive current expectation from the 1999 value then it is merely a case of calculating 368(1.003816^8) = 379.4, we were looking for an observed value of about 380 and calculated a value well within observed variability — a tribute to Keeling’s observations and the robustness of the Keeling Curve.”
I am not sure what the hell you are trying to do here, however as sciencey it looks, really it is completely meaningless. The rise of CO2 has been pretty linear.
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/home/index.php
So you can extrapolate future trends with just a ruler through the middle of the graph.
There is absolutely no reason to think from the past that CO2 emissions will not start to increase away from linear in the future.
Crickets chirping from Mottsa – obviously realises he’s made a birk of himself (again).
Not so fast, Boy Blunder. I go off to paint a bloody room and the punk prances around like Mussolini on a viagra holiday.
You are jumping about between insolation on a m2 flat disc in space and a m2 on earth. Sure the amount on a m2 on earth is averaged due to the rotation but at the business end of solar radiation, at noon in the tropics, most of the solar constant is absorbed by an ocean with no clouds. And at midnight, of course, there is zero absoption taking place. That was the stage where my explanation was at. Your 390 W/m2 is the approx 30% of the solar constant that comprises the planetary albedo as measured from space, numb nuts.
Obviously, the next step is to average this to the planetary surface area but the fact that we didn’t get to it before you started gloating has more to do with your apparent desperate need for a win, any win.
Mate – you’re a bloody radiative disgrace. You don’t even know what the basics are. I mean let’s do a quick side-bar here and drop the mutual drop-kicking routine for a second. (actually I don’t know why you continually drop kick people who spend most of the day working on bush interests – that’s most waking hours actually).
This is really basic stuff – fundamental physics – you do an energy budget and work out if there was no atmosphere what the radiative temeprature of the Earth would be. It’s -18C.
But it’s not – it’s 15C – a whole 33C warmer. This is the cumulative greenhouse effect of clouds, water vapour, CO2 etc – a bloody big 150 watts worth effectively.
The argument was whether ANY greenhouse effect works (from sill boy James).
If you think you’ve invalidated the Stephan Boltzmann equation and the basic fundamentals of the radiation budget – well you’re a friggin genius. Straight to publication mate – it’s Nobel prize stuff.
The fact that you have NO understanding of this BASIC stuff tells me heaps. You’re not even at first base.
Don’t forget they have measured the outgoing longwave radiation via satellite. It’s not an optional discussion.
Seriously this is AN ISSUE. Note I have not ended on an insult.