The 500-strong contingent of skeptics currently in New York for The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change were up early to hear Robert Balling and Ross McKitrick speak at breakfast.
A key message from the address by Professor Balling was that there are a lot of non-greenhouse signals that can impact climate including sulphates, dust, ozone, biomass burning and land use change. Given even the IPCC agrees that we have a poor understanding of the impact of these different variables on climate – how can the debate be over? The Professor concluded with the Thomas Huxley quote, “Skepticism is the highest of duties, blind faith the one unpardonable sin”.
Ross McKitrick gave a very different type of address getting into the detail of the recent temperature record – how it is measured and how there is a large population effect on the US temperature data which accounts for about half the observed warming since 1980. Dr McKitrick went into the detail of the statistic analysis and his arguments with the IPCC and scientists at Realclimate.
Ross McKitrick speaking to the title ‘Quantifying the Influence of Anthropogenic Surface Processes on Gridded Global Climate Data’, 7am Breakfast Session
Bob Carter amongst the crowd who woke early to hear Dr McKitrick
Following the breakfast we had a choice of 6 different tracks on either paleoclimatology, climatology, impacts, economics, politics or movies. I spent most of the day in the ‘impacts’ track and thoroughly enjoyed myself.
I even got to meet polar bear expert Mitch Taylor. He followed a presentation by entomologist Paul Reiter which emphasised malaria is not historically a tropical disease with outbreaks in the England, Sweden and Finland before the advent of DDT. Dr Reiter also made the point that Al Gore was completely wrong in his documentary to suggest that Nairobi did not have a history of malaria outbreaks – in fact here were five major epidemics to the 1950s.
Of course the best photographs for the day were from Mitch Taylor who told us about his field work in the Arctic counting polar bears – or more correctly field sampling using mark-recapture techniques. Dr Taylor said that these demographic studies indicated at least two subpopulations of polar bears in the Artic had a constant population size, that two were increasing in number and that two were in decline – one of these from over hunting and the Churchill subpopulation from climate change in particular a reduction in the amount of sea ice. Accepting the climate models Dr Taylor indicated that bear numbers could decline across the Artic from present numbers of about 24,500 to around 17,000 over the next 100 years.
Jennifer Marohasy and Mitch Taylor, Marriott Hotel, March 3, 2008 International Climate Change Conference
My colleague Alan Moran told me that the best speakers of the day were Tim Ball and Fred Singer at lunch, but still slightly jet lagged and still recovering from a breakfast of scrambled egg, hash-browns, spinach, bacon, fried tomato and a bit more I decided to sleep through lunch. I also missed Dr Moran’s presentation as it clashed with Dr Taylor’s.
Denis Avery giving a television interview.
I did wake up in time to hear William Briggs who gave a fascinating insight into the worldwide hurricane data concluding there is no discernable increase in either number or intensity. This conclusions was supported by Stan Goldenberg from NOAA who emphasised the importance of understanding how hurricane data has been collected historically in his presentation which included photographs taken inside the eye of hurricanes from flights within NOAA’s Hurricane Hunters – WP-3D Turbo Prop Aircraft.
Leon Ashby, South Australian landholder and director of the Australian Environment Foundation, films conference proceedings.
I sat in on one of the economics sessions and the talk by Michael Economides, University of Houston, focused on our past, present and likely future dependence on oil and gas explaining that these hydrocarbons account for 87 percent of the world’s energy needs and suggesting that there was no alternative to hydrocarbon energy in the immediate future with wind and solar only likely to ever meet half of 1 percent of our energy needs over the next century. This presentation, in which the professor explained he considered AGW “unadulterated nonsense” contrasted sharply with the presentation from Benny Peiser. Dr Peiser spoke at the last session for the day in the impacts track asking the question “What if Al Gore is right?” He put it to the audience that the current response from the world’s skeptics was not reassuring to the public or politicians and that given our “cultural baggage” people had reason to fear climate change. Dr Peiser, like the other speaker in this session, Dr Stan Goldberg from NOAA, suggested regardless of the cause of climate change we should prepare for it.
Dr Peiser acknowledged government across the world had no real solution to rising emission levels but that solutions would come through geoengineering. In contrast to Professor Economides, Dr Peiser suggested the world might one day be run on solar energy and that within a 100 or so years we would know how to make it rain.
With the conference over for the day, my colleague Alan Moran and I decided on a brisk walk through Central Park before a wine and meal at Morrell’s in Rockefellar Plaza.
A racoon in Central Park. March 3, 2008
Another great day thanks to conference organisers The Heartland Institute.
More tomorrow.
—————-
And you can read about yesterday here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002809.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hello Jennifer
Very interesting and thank you for taking the trouble to post this diary. Small point – Reiter not Reister.
ATB
RW
Thanks Rupert, I’ve removed the ‘s’.
I can’t find much media on the conference?
Here is something via Marc Morano
“More than 550 climate scientists, economists and public policy experts are at March 2-4 event, their very presence shattering Gore’s myth of a warming “consensus” and a debate that is over. Yet because of the media’s embrace of Gore’s crusade, this may be one of the few places you read about the conference…
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=289440782678335
Good to see Mitch Taylor has actually been to the Arctic to count polar bears, so he knows what he is talking about. Can we send Gore to do the same!?
Marc Morano, much sound and fury, signifying nothing. 550 climate scientists, eh? That’s a lot, I’m impressed. Oh, I see, 550 climate scientists, and a lot of other people with no idea about climate scientists, the number of people who are actually climate scientists possibly including none.
“RealClimate.org predicted that no real scientists would show up at this conference.
Well …
With we have us, tonight and tomorrow, more than 200 scientists and other experts on climate change, from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden and of course the United States.”
The same trick again, only this time it’s 200. 200 scientists and other experts on climate change. Would they be people that are experts that aren’t actually experts, but like to think they are, as well as economists, who know that scientists always get economics wrong, but they can miraculously get climate science right, also brain surgery, one presumes.
Keep on bottom feeding SJT, you’ll find your missing turd eventually.
This is only the beginning. The number of scientists in climate-related fields who have significant problems with the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis numbers well into the thousands.
If scientists like their research funding, they are likely to keep quiet about controversial issues, since given the current militant bias of funding agencies, the most prudent scientists employed in the mainstream chose the better part of valour, and stayed home.
Thanks for the summary and the pics. This conference is great. Glenn Beck had Anthony Watts on last night. It was nice to see his site surveys getting some much needed exposure.
Global warming causes racoons to invade Central Park!
Thanks for the updates on the conference, Jen.
Thanks for describing breakfast, gives me an essential element of presence.
Noticed the Washington Post is saying 100 scientists are gathered, when it appears overbooked at 550.
More wishful free association by the dinosaurs.
Jen: No3 is a nice pic. Keep up the smiles hey
SJT and others; this conference seems like many many others, a social outing of like minds. Let’s hope for all of them good company is just good company.
Slightly O/T but nevertheless adding to the scientific uncertainty, there is an excellent post just added over at Pielke Snr’s blog (its a guest weblog by Valerio Lucarini, Department of Physics, University of Bologna):
http://climatesci.org/2008/03/04/does-the-danube-exist-versions-of-reality-given-by-various-climate-models-and-climatological-datasets/
He makes some very interesting points relating to RCMs/GCMs and their capacity to simulate the hydrological cycle at least in respect of the Danube basin, but his last point is particularly suggestive:
“Finally, it is to be emphasized that, in several cases, qualitatively different behaviours emerge among the models: often, the ensemble mean does not correspond to the output of any sort of average model, as the ensemble mean falls into nowhere’s land, i.e., between the clusters of the outputs given by the various models. This suggests that the usual procedure of merging data coming as outputs of various models is much more problematic than commonly thought.”
Indeed.
Jennifer – “The 500-strong contingent of skeptics currently in New York”
I would be more interested in the list of peer reviewed papers that are being presented at this conference. That is what normally happens at scientific conferences.
Can you publish the list?
Ender,
“I would be more interested in the list of peer reviewed papers that are being presented at this conference. That is what normally happens at scientific conferences.”
What would be the point of that? The material is then already available to the public. People usually discuss what they are working on at these conferences, though there will likely be some reference to the published material.
We have seminars for presenting published materials
Are Nicola Scarfetta or Michael West there? They have an interesting opinion piece in this month’s Physics Today. Unfortunately I think it’s subscription-only (http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_61/iss_3/50_1.shtml?type=PTALERT), but their main conclusion, on statistical (phenomenological) grounds, is that solar variation could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature observed since 1950, depending on the reconstruction of total solar irradiance used. They note that global cooling observed since 2002 (yes, you read that right) accords with decreased solar activity from the 2001 maximum to the 2007 minimum.
Jan – “What would be the point of that? The material is then already available to the public”
Normally scientific conferences present new work in the field. I would just like the list of new peer reviewed climate work that is being presented.
Mark – yes indeed interesting claim and from a decent source. So got my attention. Is this being discussed anywhere online.
SJT Probably this has been missed by others because either they don’t bother reading your posts or only skim them. I don’t often read your posts but happened this time because Ian Mott refered to one. What I want to ask you is are you sure you understand how to express yourself in written english? If you wish to rave please at least make it clear what you are trying to say.
“I would just like the list of new peer reviewed climate work that is being presented.”
An Inconvienient Truth.
“They note that global cooling observed since 2002 (yes, you read that right) accords with decreased solar activity from the 2001 maximum to the 2007 minimum.”
No need to read it right. I ran the charts.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/search/label/6%20Year%20Temperature%20Anomolies
Note: HadCrut3, UAH, and RSS show cooling in these charts. GISS does not. However, if you add January, even GISS trends down.
Coz GISS includes an estimate of the Arctic. The other data sets do not – which is often forgotten.
January – “a month” – pullease.
Maybe March will bring it back up – desperate stats.
Temperatures will come back up when the La Nina goes, as they go down when EL Nino events depart. Importantly looking at your data series the temperature has dipped before sharply, only to rise again – so you do have to separate the long term signal from the short term noise. Weather from climate.
If you put this is in the wider context of the whole century of climate data it’s a statis not a cooling.
So …
Is your regression slope significantly different from zero?
Icelandic minister of Fisheries, Mr Gudfinnsson stated that the condition of the fish stoks around Iceland is good.
But the quotas of cod must be kept low still during 10 years time…. he mentiones as well that the extension of the minke whale stock worried him , as the minkes ate cod:
http://www.fiskeribladetfiskaren.no/?side=101&lesmer=6464
Capelin fishing has restarted again ( so the minkes didn’t eat the last one ???):
http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_id=301942
Remi states on his blog:
“The Japanese Government is organizing another whale policy trade fair tomorrow, to encourage several small countries to join the International Whaling Commission and support the resumption of commercial whaling. According to the Japanese Foreign Affairs Ministry, the target countries are Angola, Cambodia, Congo (Brazzaville), Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ghana, Laos, Malawi, Micronesia, Palau, Tanzania and Vanuatu”
Ender: “Normally scientific conferences present new work in the field.”
Precisely and not necessarily peer reviewed or published yet.
I heard that L. Ron Hubbard was not invited to this event.
Al Gore and Tom Cruise didn’t show up at all.
Without them, where’s the credibility?
Ooops ….wrong thread and still too early to post comments!
Ender,
I did not see you comment on this thread at AB’s blog?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/reviewing_those_friendly_peers/
I wonder Why?
You are not usually so restrained!
Johnathan – yep and so? Human beings are involved. We’re fallible. All systems are potentially fallible. But given the enormous technological advances evident in the 20th and 21st centuries we might reasonably conclude that some of the science seems to work.
Peer review isn’t perfect. But if we have none? Is that better? Or peer review that lets sloppy work through in places like E&E? A free for all?
Anyone can have a go.
I doubt it.
Surely anyone can do neurosurgery.
When AGW sceptics start being “universally” sceptical and critical of their own “side” as well – respect will come. Till then it’s simply politics as usual.
It’s like religion – they can’t all be right. And many of the “alternative” climate change theories will simply turn out to be dead ends. Peer review is just one quality review mechanism. It isn’t perfect – but a peer reviewed paper has a better chance of some quality than something written with no review. Usually but not always.
P.S. And AB has gotten so much so wrong over the years why would you bother responding.
Jan – “Precisely and not necessarily peer reviewed or published yet.”
So where is the list of pre-peer review and/or published papers that are being presented?
“P.S. And AB has gotten so much so wrong over the years why would you bother responding.”
Like what?
And it wasn’t his opinion anyway, he merely pointed to some article!
Ender,Luke have you ever attended large conferences?
So is Jennifer talking? I want to know what she’ll do with her $1000!
Sunsettommy, they normally publish a book with all the scientific papers in (or just the abstracts) – known as “Proceedings”. So you get a nice big book filled with SCIENCE.
Yep
Mr T – “Sunsettommy, they normally publish a book with all the scientific papers in (or just the abstracts) – known as “Proceedings”. So you get a nice big book filled with SCIENCE.”
Which is what I was after. I have not attended a large conference as I am not a scientist however I have read what I now have been reminded are proceedings of several and I wondered where the (usually) pre-printed list of papers was.
Now I remember (thanks Mr T) the correct term where is the (usually) pre-printed proceedings of this conference?
When Jen first commented on lack of media I decided to leave my search till now.
Sorry folks. Google: “heartland 2008” was sure disappointing. Apart from heartland org there is little to go on
78 comments –
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/03/heartland-institute-times-square.html
Whoz who 17 page bio
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/ConferenceBios.pdf
I did not give a paper at the conference and i have no idea what the reference to $1000 by Mr T is all about.
As is common practice, the proceedings of this conference will be published as hard copy after the event and may also be available online at the Heartland Institute website.
Talking of peer reviewed science, Ross McKitrick’s talk was based on his peer reviewed paper that we discussed on this blog. M&M 2005 was peer reviewed by GRL. Of course, the likes of Michaels, Spencer, and Singer have a peer reviewed publication record.
Jennifer, speakers at the conference get $1000 apparently (or that was they say at Real Climate).
Paul, peer review doesn’t make something perfect. If there’s a problem with a paper, other people will publish responses. That’s the normal way.
I see they’ve got links to a “Summary” is this the publication you mean Jennifer?
http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf
Climate could be simply defined as a non-linear chaotic system.
Students of this would be then described as scientists.
However science demands that hypotheses be experimentally testable but as climate systems cannot be so tested, then not being a science, per se, makes the students technicians rather than scientists. QED.
Mr T.
I see you are an expert at what John Stossel referred to at the conference as ‘smearing’.
And to repeat my earlier comment and add a bit, the conference proceeings will be published by the Heartland Institute as a hard copy after the conference – given the editor will no doubt ask for some clarification and corrections from some authors, the need to format them all etcetera, and that the conference only finished yesterday I suggest you wait… at bit.
An unkind synonym would be to use pseudoscientist.
(My policy concerning Mr T remains)
Peer review means publishing what we agree ought to be published. In science that lacks the means by which to test hypotheses, peer review is basically the means to maintain dogma; Astronomy, Archeology and Geology are sciences that seem to be dominated by this methodology.
Ender,
“So where is the list of pre-peer review and/or published papers that are being presented?”
What part of “there need not be any” don’t you understand?
“If you put this is in the wider context of the whole century of climate data it’s a statis not a cooling.”
If you put the last hundred years in the wider context of the last 10,000 years, we have a natural variability, nothing more. You don’t get to pick the duration of meaning.
Tilo: If we haven’t got a problem with warming / cooling etc, why all the fuss particularly in the US?
Most rational people would let it pass or do something practical other than holding a talk fest like get on with the job of slowing CO2 emmissions.
Careful skeptics, your discussion of other viewpoints is scaring the Goracle’s footsoldiers.
Look soon for the sequel, “An Inconvenient Future” in which not only has a micro reduction in carbon emissions not had a chance to have no effect on the environment, but emissions have significantly increased in proportion to China and India’s surging coal-fired economies. Stagnant European economies wallow with high unemployment, their resources and prime transnationals picked off by Asian giants. The US and Britain, after devastating recessions, alone among the West have shed the shackles of Kyoto 3, and show signs of resurgence.
And to really stick a fork in the eye, trends from the last twenty years are clearly showing no significant warming trend and increasing correlation to solar variations and a myriad other factors. This fact causes deep resentment in the fetid dustbins of Africa, where massive transfers of conscience-salving wealth has provided the seed capital for the growth of basket-case economies and tinpot dictators from Abidjan to Zanzibar. Mysteriously, the massive influx of capital has done nothing to alleviate poverty or reduce the scope of the AIDS crisis, which now inflicts one in three.
From his compound in Tennessee, the 98-year old Al Gore still tours the lecture circuit at various universities across the country. He is the last of the old guard, and like Cuba under the Castro’s, young fresh minds wait timidly for his demise, and for a new dawn.
Guy:I read somewhere Al’s next movie was to be “The Cold Hard Truth”.Maybe there’s going to be a twosome.
Smearing? Jennifer I am hurt.
I had heard that speakers get $1000, did you not hear the same (or is it not true?).
Is the link I gave not the publication you are talking about?
Jan – “What part of “there need not be any” don’t you understand?”
Well if that is true what part of “completely irrelevant gab fest with no basis in actual science” do you not understand?
Ender,
“completely irrelevant gab fest with no basis in actual science”
I understand it perfectly as an attempt to smear with little basis in fact.
The correct link to Australian Environment Foundation is:
http://www.aefweb.info/
Mr T: Smearing? Jennifer I am hurt.
Your persistent harping about the $1000 could be seen as a well poisoning exercise i.e. smearing. Along with Ender’s carryon about peer reviewed papers being presented, it is hardly a relevant matter.
Jan, I asked if it was true. Do you know?
Note I didn’t mention it this time… So not smearing 🙂
Jan Pompe – “I understand it perfectly as an attempt to smear with little basis in fact.”
Other than your own admission plus the fact that no-one can produce any peer reviewed, in review or pre-publication scientific papers containing new climate science were presented at the so called ‘conference’.
It is not an attempt to smear. It is stating what you admitted:
“What part of “there need not be any” don’t you understand?”
in response to:
“So where is the list of pre-peer review and/or published papers that are being presented?”
And the fact that nobody yet has presented a link to the proceedings which at a real scientific conference would contain the papers or abstracts that are being presented.
Scientific conferences are where scientists get together to discuss the latest developments in their fields. This conference has nothing.
Smearing implies distorting the truth – I have stated what is the truth. There was no science at this conference.
Ender,
It isn’t relevant therefore it’s an attempt at smearing nothing more nothing less.
Peer Reviewed? You have to be kidding. Peer Review stopped the MBH fraud didn’t it. Oh wait, MBH served as the poster child for the AGW cultists for several years before we found out how completely worthless peer review among climatologist bishops actually is.
Let’s see, if it supports my Lexus payments I say publish it. If it runs contrary, stuff it so we can still say it hasn’t been peer reviewed.
Who cares what the climate establishment says. You are all a bunch of carnival barkers.
Gee you get some dishonest denialist ranters on here. A cherry pick here and cherry pluck there. And talking out of their bums as usual. Gee science has never been reviewed in the entire history of the world before MBH – spare us.
“Tilo: If we haven’t got a problem with warming / cooling etc, why all the fuss particularly in the US?”
The fuss originates from people like you who want desperately to make something from nothing.
“Most rational people would let it pass or do something practical other than holding a talk fest”
Yes, you would think that the Bali crew would go home and stop bothering people like myself. They seem to be having these talk fests continously now. However, I can’t understand why you would be so threatened by a single one being done on the other side of the issue. Well, yes I do. Socialists have never actually believed in freedom of speech. Gets in the way of their control addiction.
“you would think that the Bali crew would go home and stop bothering people like myself”
Tilo: I’m not bothered either way with these conferences but I am very amused with when and where you show up.
“Tilo: I’m not bothered either way with these conferences but I am very amused with when and where you show up.”
Always happy to bring some amusement to your day, Gavin.
“I see you are an expert at what John Stossel referred to at the conference as ‘smearing’. ”
I can’t understand how you hold someone like Morano in such high regard, he is the king of smears.
“When AGW sceptics start being “universally” sceptical and critical of their own “side” as well – respect will come. Till then it’s simply politics as usual.”
Yes, they will accept ‘scepticism’ from anyone. An oxymoron that they don’t seem to understand.
As New Scientist said, if they want to be taken seriously, they should lift their game, and ditch the narcissistic self promoters like Monckton, and the earnest amateurs like Archibald.
“”More than 550 climate scientists, economists and public policy experts are at March 2-4 event, their very presence shattering Gore’s myth of a warming “consensus” and a debate that is over. Yet because of the media’s embrace of Gore’s crusade, this may be one of the few places you read about the conference…”
“Joseph Bast, president of the Institute, began by announcing that the meeting of 500 participants had attracted more than 200 scientists,”
Can we get these numbers sorted out?
200 scientists? As we already know, Jennifer admits she is not an expert on climate, so does that make 199? Is Monckton included as a scientist?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/125281.html
“Michaels pointed out that the surface records show average global temperatures increasing at a steady rate of +0.17 degrees centigrade per decade since 1977. He also hastened to put the kibosh on recent assertions that “global warming stopped in 1998.” While global average temperatures have been essentially flat since 1998, Michaels argued that natural variations in the climate mask any increases due to greenhouse gases. In particular, cooler waters in the Pacific (“La Nina”) and lower solar activity have conspired to drop average global temperatures. When these trends reverse, average global temperatures will rapidly rise to reveal the established long term man-made warming trend of +0.17 degrees centigrade per decade. Michaels warned against succumbing to the temptation to cite current flattened global temperatures as evidence against man-made global warming.”
Interesting. That should put an end to half the sceptic posts here, I hope.
“Michaels ended by asking, “How much will it warm?” He suggested that the constant rate of +0.17 degrees centigrade per decade is likely. ”
Deniers note. He accepts warming caused by anthropogenic CO2, he only questions the rate of warming. Given that CO2 is going to double, at least, why would the rate of warming stay constant? Given also that there are positive feedback effects such as albedo changes, that also means a constant rate of increase is not going to happen, it will accelerate.
Mr T,
I don’t know if it’s true or not but given the cost for most people to even get there I hardly think it’s a matter for concern.
“200 scientists? As we already know, Jennifer admits she is not an expert on climate, so does that make 199? Is Monckton included as a scientist?”
A tiny percentage of the Bali conference were climate scientists. One of the guys who was at this conference, and who wasn’t a climate scientist, helped to take apart the research of a climate scientist than was peer reviewed and published in the top scientific journals. All of this, “how many of them were climate scientists” thing is pure garbage. You know that you will accept any fool as an AGW activist. But for the opposition you keep asking the ignorant question, “are they climate scientist?” You can be a physicist and shed light on the climate debate. You can be a statistician and shed light on the climate debate. You can be an economist and shed light on the climate debate. Is Algore a climate scientist? Did he speak in Bali? Do you guys actually believe that your ignorant question is in any way relevant?
“Given also that there are positive feedback effects such as albedo changes, that also means a constant rate of increase is not going to happen, it will accelerate.”
All of the positive feedback components are already part of the number.
It’s interesting that you are asking “who’s a climate scientist when you consider the ignorance of your remark. The effect of CO2 increase is logarithmic. In other words, the more you add the less effect you get for each unit that you add. So if you get, say, 1.5C going from 280 to 560ppm, then you would have to go from 560 to 1120 to get another 1.5C and you would have to go from 1120 to 2240 to get another 1.5C. In other words, if it took 280ppm to get that first 1.5C, it will take 1120 ppm to get the third 1.5C. Basically, this means that if CO2 continues to rise at a steady state, the rate of temperature increase will drop. And even if the CO2 increase accelerates a little, the rate of temperature increase will still drop. The rate of acceleration would have to be very large just to keep the increasing temperature trend constant.
“As New Scientist said, if they want to be taken seriously, they should lift their game, and ditch the narcissistic self promoters like Al Gore and Hansen.”
Yes, I agree SJT.
Tilo – “It’s interesting that you are asking “who’s a climate scientist when you consider the ignorance of your remark. The effect of CO2 increase is logarithmic.”
However you are now clearly demonstrating your ignorance. The increase of the CO2 is not exactly logarithmic as funnily enough the atmosphere is not all at one pressure, water vapour content or temperature.
Please read an atmospheric physicist’s careful explanation of the current state of knowledge of how greenhouse gases work in the real atmosphere.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii
Ender
“The increase of the CO2 is not exactly logarithmic as funnily enough the atmosphere is not all at one pressure, water vapour content or temperature.”
No, my boy, you are still the ignorant one. You just gave me arguments from the AGW propaganda site that argued against no additional greenhouse effect due to the badwidth being saturated. But you are arguing against an arugument that I never made. I said that the effect was logarithmic, not that it was saturated.
From your own link.
“Saturation refers to the condition where increasing the amount of CO2 fails to increase the absorption, because the CO2 was already absorbing essentially all there is to absorb at the wavelengths where it absorbs at all.”
And clearly that is not what I was talking about. The saturation argument says that you get no temperature increase at all. The IPCC talks about the temperature effect that you get “FROM A CO2 DOUBLING”, because they believe that the effect is logarithmic. Hansen believes this and so does realclimate. And they also talk about the effect of a doubling. They don’t talk about the effect of a 280ppm increase; they talk about the effect of a doubling. So if you don’t believe it, go argue with Pierrehumbert, or Hansen, or the IPCC.
Or, you could just educate yourself.
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
Tilo – “I said that the effect was logarithmic, not that it was saturated.”
Yes you did however did you ask yourself the question of WHY the effect is logarithmic? The answer is precisely because the absorption bands become saturated so that increasing CO2 makes a smaller and smaller changes resulting in the shape of a logarithmic curve if you plot the amount of absorption against the concentration.
If you had questioned your dogma rather than blindly accepting it and read and actually understood what Spencer was saying you can clearly see that because the column of a section of atmosphere is not a constant pressure, water vapour content or temperature the amount that greenhouse gases absorb changes over simple experiments done with glass cylinders filled with atmosphere mixes.
The upshot is that while the absorption curve is logarithmic, taking into account the whole atmosphere, we are still firmly in the early part of the log curve where it is quite linear, not in the part of the curve where the response is flattening.
We will get to quite high levels of CO2 before the curve starts to flatten out and at these levels of CO2 there will be possibly large effects on the climate.
Climate sensitivity is an estimation of what temperature change will happen with an doubling of CO2 taking into account all the factors of how greenhouse gases work in the real Earths atmosphere. There is no way to test this other than waiting and matching prediction with reality in 10 or 20 years if the CO2 level does in fact double from current levels.
If you were ‘educating’ yourself from the link you supplied then I can see where you went astray. It completely fails to take into account pressure broadening and the measurements that were taken by investigators looking for the IR signature of missiles and exploring the upper atmosphere. Your link is basically the very early experiments that Spencer has shown to be based on a lack of understanding about the conditions of the upper atmosphere that was discovered fairly recently.
Ender:
“Yes you did however did you ask yourself the question of WHY the effect is logarithmic? ”
Because that was 100% irrelevant to the point that I was making. It only mattered that it is logarithmic.
“The upshot is that while the absorption curve is logarithmic, taking into account the whole atmosphere, we are still firmly in the early part of the log curve where it is quite linear, not in the part of the curve where the response is flattening.”
Where do you get that nonsense? Logarithmic means we get one unit of temperature change for going from 280 to 560ppm – the same amount of temperature change for going from 560 to 1120, and one more unit for going from 1120 to 2240. Why do you think that everyone is talking about the 2xCO2 effect. And long, long before we get that third unit of change, we will be out of oil.
“We will get to quite high levels of CO2 before the curve starts to flatten out and at these levels of CO2 there will be possibly large effects on the climate.”
Now you are pulling stuff out of your backside.
“It completely fails to take into account pressure broadening and the measurements that were taken by investigators looking for the IR signature of missiles and exploring the upper atmosphere.”
It doesn’t have to. The calculation is based upon emperical evidence – meaning reality. And reality takes into account all of your factors, plus ones that have not yet been thought off. The only thing that the site missed, as far as I can tell, is the heat sink effect of the ocean. And that effect is still under heavy debate. It exists, but no one agrees on it’s length. Stephen Shwartz says that it’s about 5 years. I have yet to see any good evidence that it is more than 10 years.
“Your link is basically the very early experiments that Spencer has shown to be based on a lack of understanding about the conditions of the upper atmosphere that was discovered fairly recently.”
My link has nothing to do with very early experiments. Go back and read the link again, and go back and read your links again, and then come back when you understand it.
“A tiny percentage of the Bali conference were climate scientists.” Bali was not about proving or disproving the science of AGW, it was about what to do about AGW. That takes all kinds of people, not just scientists.
“My link has nothing to do with very early experiments. Go back and read the link again, and go back and read your links again, and then come back when you understand it.”
I think you are the one having the comprehension problem.
“Bali was not about proving or disproving the science of AGW,”
Neither was this conference.
“it was about what to do about AGW.”
And this was about what to do about AGW cultists.
Tilo – “Because that was 100% irrelevant to the point that I was making. It only mattered that it is logarithmic.”
It matters because the logarithmic effect is caused by saturation of the absorption bands so it is 100% relevant. The fact that you cannot understand this sort of makes it hard to argue with you.
“Where do you get that nonsense? Logarithmic means we get one unit of temperature change for going from 280 to 560ppm”
Yes it does however as you seem to have no understanding of logarithms, again I cannot spend the next few weeks explaining it you. Why not read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm
You will notice that in the early part of the curve it is quite close to a straight line. What you are not taking into account is the equation determining how much LW radiation greenhouse gases absorb is not a simple log(x)=n. The actual equation will be quite different and have a different curve. Right now we are in a place where doubling the CO2 will result in 1.5 deg to 4.5 degrees of temperature change.
“It doesn’t have to. The calculation is based upon emperical evidence – meaning reality.”
Yes it does as you will get the wrong answer. You cannot compare it to reality until iy happens in 20 years or so. Then we can compare what we predicted with what actually happens. Right now we can only project from past measurement and an understanding of how the atmosphere works. You are using a simple model that is out of date.
“My link has nothing to do with very early experiments”
Yes it does as it does not mention different absorption bands at different pressures and temperatures. This is bases on experimental and observational data. If you ignore it you get the wrong answer however much more it fits in with your denier dogma.
“It matters because the logarithmic effect is caused by saturation of the absorption bands so it is 100% relevant. The fact that you cannot understand this sort of makes it hard to argue with you.”
I understand perfectly clearly why it is logarithmic; but it makes absolutely no difference why it is logarithmic, it only matters that it is. Remember what started this discussion was SJT’s comment:
“Given that CO2 is going to double, at least, why would the rate of warming stay constant? Given also that there are positive feedback effects such as albedo changes, that also means a constant rate of increase is not going to happen, it will accelerate.”
Clearly, the logarithmic temperature effect of CO2 makes his/her “it will accelerate” absurd. And it doesn’t matter to the outcome if that effect is caused by pigs squealing or anything else. When it come to the temperature effect you get some unit of change per CO2 doubling. The reason for it is irrelevant to this debate.
“The actual equation will be quite different and have a different curve. Right now we are in a place where doubling the CO2 will result in 1.5 deg to 4.5 degrees of temperature change.”
No, you are wrong again. A doubling does not mean an addition of 280 ppm. A doubling is relative to where you start. The 1.5 to 4.5 degree number is not relative to where you start.
If you start at 100ppm, then you will get that 1.5 to 4.5 degrees by adding another 100ppm.
If you start at 1000ppm, then you will get that 1.5 to 4.5 degrees by adding another 1000ppm.
It’s the same regarless of where you start. Whatever the number is of your starting point, double that CO2 concentration and you will get the 1.5 to 4.5 effect. The temperature increase is constant as long as you do a doubling. But since a doubling takes more CO2 the higher your starting point, the effect is logarithmic. This means that if you start at 280 and add 280 you will get the 1.5 to 4.5. But if you start at 560 and add 280 you will get much less than 1.5 to 4.5.
“You cannot compare it to reality until iy happens in 20 years or so.”
Wrong again. You don’t need a complete doubling to see the effect of a complete doubling. You can compute the result of a complete doubling using only 40% of a doubling, or some other % of a doubling.
“Yes it does as it does not mention different absorption bands at different pressures and temperatures.”
It’s completely irrelevant. When we are doing emperical tests, we can look to see how much temperature change do we have from how much additional CO2. All of the physics of how that happens is built into it without having to know how it happens. You could have the physics all wrong and get the right answer. Or you could have the physics all right and get the right answer. For example, if I want to compute your rate of travel, I can look at the change in your odometer and divide by the number of hours that you traveled. I don’t have to care about what speed you drive at or how long your lunch breaks are or how often you stop for gas. It’s all IRRELEVANT.
By the way, I’m only using your 1.5C to 4.5C number as an example. The emperical evidence shows that 3C is a midpoint that is way to high.
“And this was about what to do about AGW cultists.”
Good, if you ever find any, let me know.
Tilo
from realclimate, the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect”. Most punters here seem to be incapable of absorbing the explanation, see if you can do better.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
“Most punters here seem to be incapable of absorbing the explanation, see if you can do better.”
The explanation is trivial and simple to understand. What punters like you cannot understand is that it is an explanation for why we have not saturated the effect of raising CO2. Since I never argued that we were saturated in the first place, it’s an irrelevant point. My argument is that the effect of adding CO2 is logarithmic. And your entire world of consensus AGW scientists understands that, although you do not.
“Good, if you ever find any, let me know.”
Sure! They are named:
Hansen – The high priest
Mann
Schmidt
Tamino
Rabbet
Algore
Luke
SJT
Ender
etc.
“The explanation is trivial and simple to understand. What punters like you cannot understand is that it is an explanation for why we have not saturated the effect of raising CO2. Since I never argued that we were saturated in the first place, it’s an irrelevant point. My argument is that the effect of adding CO2 is logarithmic. And your entire world of consensus AGW scientists understands that, although you do not.”
And his argument is
“What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.”
The effect is no longer a simple logarithmic function, from a pure CO2 level in the atmosphere point of view. It is being shifted and stretched by the other factors relevant to CO2 that are involved. There is also the effect of other non CO2 influences. These include particles in the atmoshpere, which reduce the warming effect, the occaisional volcano, etc, as well as feeback responses, such as change in albedo. So just taking a simple , pure, logarithmic response to previous CO2 levels isn’t going to tell you the answer you are claiming it will.
“”Good, if you ever find any, let me know.”
Sure! They are named:”
I thought as much.
“The effect is no longer a simple logarithmic function,”
Find me one of your favorite AGW types that makes that claim.
And I read your paragraph. No need to post it. It simply doesn’t say what you think it says. The effect that he is talking about is necessary just to get the logarithmic temp increase. Without that effect we would be talking about bandwith saturation and no temperature increase due to CO2. Now, run around like a chicken with it’s head cut off and find me one of your favorite scientists that says it’s not logarithmic.
The pure effect of CO2 is logarithmic. According to that, we would already pretty well have a saturated system, but we don’t.
OK?
Because of the enhanced greenhouse effect, as referenced, there is a more complex effect. It is still logarithmic, in terms of CO2, but it means we are not saturated, and there is significant warming still to come.
On top of that, are responses due to positive feedbacks. These are such effects as changes of albedo, which mean it’s no longer just a shifted logarithmic response.
“The pure effect of CO2 is logarithmic. According to that, we would already pretty well have a saturated system,”
How do you get that idea? We are talking about a log2 effect here.
“but it means we are not saturated”
I’ve told you that about 5 times now.
“and there is significant warming still to come.”
What do you mean by significant?
“On top of that, are responses due to positive feedbacks. These are such effects as changes of albedo, which mean it’s no longer just a shifted logarithmic response.”
Wrong again. There is no “on top of that”. It is the complete climate sensitivity number that is logarithmic, not just CO2 forcing.
Tilo – thought we have lost sight of the original question or answer as I understood the gist of what you are saying you are claiming, or the argument is, that the effect of CO2 long wave radiation absorption is logarithmic so therefore as the concentration goes up the effect decreases and in this you are correct.
What SJT and I are arguing is that the actual equation that describes the IR absorption is more complex than a simple log relationship. This also has the effect of changing what happens the area that we are interested in.
Nobody really cares what the temp change will be at 2000ppm, we are interested in the area from about 270ppm to 1000ppm. In this area due to the fact that this is in the relatively linear part of the log curve then the IR absorption characteristics of greenhouse gases will be nearly linear and not logarithmic. ie the more CO2 will result in a nearly proportional increase in heat trapping ability.
The amount of temperature increase that this results in is unknown however the argument that the effect of CO2 IR absorption is logarithmic therefore we do not have anything to worry about, is not true for the range we are interested in. It may be true and you can be bloody minded and claim that you are correct however it does not really matter as we are interested the most in a fairly small range where the IR response is quite linear not logarithmic.
“or the argument is, that the effect of CO2 long wave radiation absorption is logarithmic so therefore as the concentration goes up the effect decreases and in this you are correct.”
No, I’m not talking about CO2 long wave radiation absorption. I’m talking about climate sensitivity, of which CO2 long wave radiation absorption is only a portion. It also includes all of the feedback mechanisms.
“In this area due to the fact that this is in the relatively linear part of the log curve”
Where do you get that nonsense? Can you get it through your simple mind that the sensitivity is defined in terms of a doubling. This means that you will get the unit of sensitivity by going from 280 to 560ppm. But to get the same increase in temperature as you got from 280 to 560 again, you have to go from 560 to 1120. There is nothing linear about that. Do you understand logarithms Ender? Now, if going from 280 to 560 only gets you 1.5C for example, you are going to have to go from 560 to 1120 to get the next 1.5C. So you cannot simply worry about where we are now, because the temp change that you will get on your way to the 560 isn’t much. In fact, due to the logarithmic effect, you have already gotten almost half of it. This means that if you want to muster up a true catastrophe, you will need that second doubling, and probably even a third. And a third would require you to go all the way to 2240ppm. There is no linear increase in the logarithmic effect. That is your fiction.
I think I’ll give the sensitivity thing a try. Maybe it will help Ender and SJT understand. If there are any math types here, check to see if I’m doing anything wrong.
HadCru started keeping records about 1850. And 1850 is also about the time when we started adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere. So, I took a 12 month temperature anomaly average for 1850 and came up with -.44675. Then I took a 12 month temperature average for the last 12 months and came up with +.35258. This gives me a temperature rise from 1850 to now of .79933. Let’s call it .8.
The level of CO2 has risen in that period of time from about 280 ppm to 390 ppm. So I’m going to compute a constant that will allow me to determine how much more temp rise we will get on our way to a doubling. Like this:
K * log2(390/280) = .8
Solving for K gives me 1.673476
Now, to determine how much more temp rise we will get on our way to 580, I have done this:
1.673476 * log2(580/390) = X
Solving for X gets me .87.
Adding our emperically obtained .8 to the remaining .87 gives me 1.67 as the climate sensitivity number for one doubling of CO2.
That is a good starting point, but the rest is a bit of black magic. Mainly because the number that I used as my emperical evidence, .8C, is far from solid. Here is why.
1. The oceans serve as a heat sink, basically delaying the full exposure of the effect. But what is the delay. This is under heavy debate. Stephen Schwartz has computed it to be 5 years. Others have higher numbers. I see no evidence for it being more than 10 years, however. So I’m going to use that number. Considering that there has been some acceleration in adding CO2 in the last 50 years, I’m going to say that there is still between .1 and .2C left to be gained, even if we stabelized CO2 right at this point. That would push my .8C figure up to 1.0C.
But there are several factors that would also reduce the number. For example, 1850 was coming out of a little ice age. And 1850 is below the 1000 year trend. How much depends on who’s temperature reconstruction you use. But I think that it is reasonable to assume that we would have gotten at least .2 in temp increase even if no CO2 had been added to the atmosphere at all.
Then there is the element of solar variability. The sun was more active in the 20th century than in the 19th century. Look at the second slide here:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/Biesecker.ppt#2
If you ran a trend line through the lower graph, it would definitely trend up from 1850 to today. So some of the warming that we have experience can be blamed on the sun. How much is another area of AGW debate. I’m only going to claim .1C.
Then there is the issue of the climate record and if the urban heat Island effect is adequately taken care of. As Ross McKitrick’s paper in this conference pointed out, .2 to .3C of the temperature increase could be problems with the climate record. I’m going to assume that the number is .2C.
So, adding .2C for the oceans to our original .8C and deducting .5C for the other effects, it gives me .5C of change from 1850 that could be blamed upon human added CO2. Reproducing our original calculations using the .5C number, we get about 1.05C as a climate sensitivity number. Just think – Stephen Schwartz was only off by .05. LOL. Since some of the factors involved estimates, let’s slap on some error bands and say that it’s between .5C and 1.5C. For anyone who wants to take the favorite in the horse race, I’m willing to put my number against that of James Hansen. Let’s say an even 1000 dollars. Whoever has the number that is closest to the IPCC number in 25 years wins. Any takers?
Tilo – “No, I’m not talking about CO2 long wave radiation absorption. I’m talking about climate sensitivity,”
Actually you originally were talking about CO2 absorption however due to the apparent fact that you do not understand the terms properly you have now switched to climate sensitivity.
This is what you said on Posted by: Tilo Reber at March 7, 2008 02:28 PM
“It’s interesting that you are asking “who’s a climate scientist when you consider the ignorance of your remark. The effect of CO2 increase is logarithmic. In other words, the more you add the less effect you get for each unit that you add.”
You clearly said here the effect of CO2 increase is logarithmic which I guess gives you enough wriggle room to now claim that you really meant climate sensitivity. If you meant climate sensitivity all along this is where you should have said it not the effect of CO2 increase.
“Can you get it through your simple mind that the sensitivity is defined in terms of a doubling.”
Now that I get that you are actually talking about climate sensitivity and not CO2 energy absorption then of course it is logarithmic. However it was not clear from any of your posts that you completely understand the whole process and I really think that you are misunderstanding the two terms. If you were talking about the energy absorbing effect of CO2 then at this time it is so close to linear as not to matter.
Tilo – I forgot to mention that the link that you supplied was all about CO2’s absorption in the atmosphere so it is quite disingenious of you to now claim that you were talking about climate sensitivity all along, however I am sure that you are going to anyway.
Ender the relationship between absorption and concentration, absorption and optical pathlength, and, climate sensitivity are all logarithmic. The are all related through Beer-Lambert law.
You seem somewhat confused about this.
Jan – “You seem somewhat confused about this.”
Sorry I am not the one who is confused. I have not said that they are not logarithmic I have just said that the actual equation that defines the overall relationship between CO2 and heat trapped is not a simple y=logx equation. It is far more complex than this with other terms and other constants. I am also saying that at the moment, in the part of the log curve that we are in now, it is, within a few percent, approximated with a linear function. It is not until later the log curve flattens out and deviates significantly from linear.
Finally if you include climate sensitivity with other physical relationships then you and Tilo are making a grave mistake.
Climate sensitivity is at the very best an educated guess. It is not inherently logarithmic or anything like it. It is the best considered guess of climate scientists about what might happen if the CO2 level doubled. It is not a defined physical relationship and you can calculate it many different ways.
It is only logarithmic if this happens. From 270ppm to 560ppm there is a 1 deg rise in Earths average global temperature. If there is a 1 deg rise for the next doubling, 560ppm to 1120ppm, then this would be logarithmic. However if for instance we get a rise of 1 deg from 270 to 560 and then a 4 deg rise from 560 to 1120 then this would not be logarithmic.
You are making the mistake of assuming that if climate sensitivity is say 2 deg then this will be the temperature rise for all subsequent doublings, making it logarithmic. This is however not the case as the definition of climate sensitivity really only holds true for the first doubling as it it an emperical guess anyway. Even if it wasn’t then the range of 1.5 deg to 4.5 deg gives scope for it to be in the stipulated range and still not logarithmic. ie: if the first doubling was 1.5 deg the second could be 4.5 deg and still be in the range and the resulting curve would be closer to linear.
You really need to get a grip on what you are talking about.
[IMG]http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee272/JanPompe/concVabs.png[/IMG]
Oops in fine form tonight
For Ender where we are at on the log curve is about 16 (which is .016 mol/m^3 or 380 ppmv) well and truly on the falt part of the curve.
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee272/JanPompe/concVabs.png
“I am also saying that at the moment, in the part of the log curve that we are in now, it is, within a few percent, approximated with a linear function.”
You keep repeating this same thing. I keep telling you why it’s not true, and you then repeat it some more. Where do you get the silly idea that we are near linear?
“You are making the mistake of assuming that if climate sensitivity is say 2 deg then this will be the temperature rise for all subsequent doublings, making it logarithmic. This is however not the case as the definition of climate sensitivity really only holds true for the first doubling as it it an emperical guess anyway. Even if it wasn’t then the range of 1.5 deg to 4.5 deg gives scope for it to be in the stipulated range and still not logarithmic. ie: if the first doubling was 1.5 deg the second could be 4.5 deg and still be in the range and the resulting curve would be closer to linear.”
Oh my, you are confused. The value for climate sensitivity and the effect of CO2 doubling are completely different issues. The range of uncertainty from 1.5 to 4.5 is not meant to be a variation that can occur as a result of subsequent doublings. It is the range for a single doubling due to all kinds of poorly quantified factors like solar forcing + feedback, aerosols, moisture, clouds, ocean heat sync, albedo, etc.
“It is only logarithmic if this happens. From 270ppm to 560ppm there is a 1 deg rise in Earths average global temperature. ”
No, the amount of temperature rise that you get is independent of it being logarithmic. What matters is that you get the same amount of increase for each doubling. But really, you are simply pulling stuff out of your backside now. You cannot find anyone in the scientific community, including those that support AGW, that will back up what you are saying in your post.
“I forgot to mention that the link that you supplied was all about CO2’s absorption in the atmosphere so it is quite disingenious of you to now claim that you were talking about climate sensitivity all along, however I am sure that you are going to anyway.”
Frankly, I don’t know what you are talking about. The link that I supplied tries to come up with a value for climate sensitivity using the temperature change that we can observe versus the CO2 change that we can observe. And an observable temperature change would obviously include all feedback mechanisms.
Tilo – I really think that you need to research the whole climate sensitivity thing before you post again. Unfortunately only one of us is making sense.
Jan – “For Ender where we are at on the log curve is about 16 (which is .016 mol/m^3 or 380 ppmv) well and truly on the falt part of the curve.”
Thats fine however that is not an accurate description of how IR is absorbed in the atmosphere. It is simply you plotting Beer Lambert which is not a valid model for IR absorption anyway.
A post of mine got deleted here – I will wait a while before reposting.
“Unfortunately only one of us is making sense.”
In that case, you should be able to provide the evidence to support your statement about which part of the curve we are on; as well as your evidence that climate sensitivity is only relevant to the first doubling. Show me where you get the idea that you could have 1.5 C for one doubling and 4.5 for the next. Give us all the evidence for your assertions.
Ender: Thats fine however that is not an accurate description of how IR is absorbed in the atmosphere. It is simply you plotting Beer Lambert which is not a valid model for IR absorption anyway.
It’s no model it’s the observed relation of IR absorption to concentration and optical depth. It’s good empirical science.
command. At the same time and place, therefore, money is the exact measure depended on and a nation which abounds in them one year may,
production of the plants most profitable to man. A field overgrown with8qeBxD8p4EhYmust cease to be produced. The most round-about foreign trade of