ONE week ago the Sydney Morning Herald published an opinion piece by Michael Raupach from CSIRO and fourteen other Australian scientists making four key claims to support the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). A regular reader and commentator at this weblog, Cohenite, explains that the claims are not supported by the available evidence:
1. The world is warming
The first conclusion is that the world has been warming since 1850. This is generally correct but what Professor Raupach et al. don’t mention is the warming follows a particularly cold period called the Little Ice Age [LIA] which ended in 1850. The correlation of a decline in solar activity with the LIA is well established with various measures of solar activity showing an increase at the same time as the world warmed after 1850.
Professor Raupach et al. say that most of the warming since 1850 has happened since 1950. This is incorrect. The temperature data from both the official English agency, HADCRUT, and the land-based American temperature agency, NASAGISS, show an increase in temperature from 1910 to 1944 which is equivalent to the temperature increase from 1976 to 1998.
It is also problematic whether the temperature increase from 1976 onwards can be attributed to AGW. Two recent studies by Australian scientists throw doubt on AGW being a cause. The first is by John McLean, Christopher de Freitas and Robert Carter. They show that over the last 50 years from 1958 to 2008 the majority of the temperature trends, both warming and cooling, are from natural variation in the form of the Southern Oscillation Index which is a proxy for El Nino and La Nina climate patterns.
The second study is by David Stockwell. Dr Stockwell shows that the increase in temperature over the twentieth century occurred in the short interval between 1976 and 1978 and was due to the transition from a cool, La Nina dominated period called a negative Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] to a warm, El Nino period called a positive PDO. Dr Stockwell also found a probable reverse transition in 1998 after which time world temperatures have declined consistent with the new negative PDO
2. Sea levels are rising
Professor Raupach et al. also refer to rising sea levels and increasing ocean heat content [OHC] as confirmation of temperature increase. In the recent reply by Senator Wong to Senator Fielding’s questions about temperature, Professor Steffen, a co-author of the article with Professor Raupach, stated that the increase in sea level rise and OHC was accelerating. This is incorrect. The sea level has been measured accurately by satellite since 1992. The satellite data shows a slight annual increase. Since 2005 this rate of increase has declined. This is simply shown by averaging the full data history and then showing how much each annual increase is above that average, or anomalous.
Recent studies by Ishii and Kimoto, Domigues, Willis and Loehle all show a decline in OHC since 2003. Even the official measurement from the National Oceanographic Data Center [NODC] shows no rise since 2003. In 2003 the more accurate measuring devices called ARGO were introduced replacing the less accurate ones.
None of the indices, atmospheric temperature, sea-level increase and rising OHC, support the theory of AGW. This means the increase in carbon dioxide during the twentieth century cannot be said to be the dominant cause of the warming which has occurred.
3. Tipping points
The third conclusion and prediction that “business as usual”, unchecked AGW will lead to temperature increases of up to six degrees and “climate tipping points” must be regarded as unsubstantiated alarmism, unsupported by any climate science, since it is well established that every extra carbon dioxide molecule has much less effect on temperature. Such computer based predictions have already been tested and found wanting. In his study Professor D. Koutsoyiannis and colleagues found that the IPPC’s computer predictions in its first report about future climate from 1990 to 2008 had a success rate of only one in eight, or about twelve per cent. This is not much better than random.
4. Warming is irreversible
The article’s fourth conclusion, that heating cannot be reversed for many centuries, is also problematic because OHC is already declining and if there is no increase in OHC there is nothing to sustain the predicted future heating.
Furthermore, for Professor Raupach and his co-authors to begin by claiming there is an overwhelming consensus of thousands of scientists who support the theory of anthropogenic global warming [AGW] is pure politics. Even if this were true it does not prove the science supporting AGW is valid. It only requires one fundamental disproof of a scientific theory for that theory to be invalidated.
In conclusion, the science is not settled and contrary to the claims of Professor Raupach et al. the available evidence does not support the theory of AGW.
Cohenite lives in Newcastle, Australia
**************
Notes and Links
Climate change poised to feed on itself, by Michael Raupach and John Church, CSIRO; David Griggs, Amanda Lynch and Neville Nicholls, Monash University; Nathan Bindoff, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre; Matthew England and Andy Pitman, University of NSW; Ann Henderson-Sellers and Lesley Hughes, Macquarie University; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, University of Queensland; Roger Jones, Victoria University; David Karoly, University of Melbourne; and Tony McMichael and Will Steffen, Australian National University.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/climate-change-poised-to-feed-on-itself-20090731-e4gi.html?page=-1
The Sydney Morning Herald
August 1, 2009
Read more from Cohenite here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/cohenite/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“The third conclusion and prediction that “business as usual”, unchecked AGW will lead to temperature increases of up to six degrees and “climate tipping points” must be regarded as unsubstantiated alarmism, unsupported by any climate science, since it is well established that every extra carbon dioxide molecule has much less effect on temperature.”
Jesus christ, did you even read what they wrote about the “tipping points”. They talk about the small changes caused by CO2 triggering other changes not to do with directly with CO2.
Well after yet another night of sex, drugs and rock & roll what do we wake up to … a Coho essay.
And what a most amazing collection of recycled denialosphere flotsam and jetsam.. After a night at out a Broke winery Cohers is recycling war stories as fact again.
You’ have to give this attempt the biggest award for a try-on I’ve ever seen. The McLean et al paper only recently deceased – we were all getting over it (never to speak of it again but it’s “baaacckkkkk”). Do we have to put a nail-gun through the bastard to finish it off? If readers don’t know by now why it’s a try-on – you’re a denialist scummie who we’d rather drop than converse with.
“And as for the idea that we are just recovering from the LIA, there is not one scintilla of evidence supporting that, while there is a mound of evidence pointing to the forced nature of variations both in the LIA and subsequently. Changes in the LIA for instance are reasonably well approximated (given the various uncertainties) as a response to decreased solar and increased volcanic forcings – which have long since vanished”. – gavin]
Then we’ve got an unpublished bit of uber-stats by Stockers et al. All chicanery of notch theory – but no mechanistic insight.
At this point the tedium is so great one has to resist chewing one’s own arm off in the sheer pointlessness of further argument. We’ve been through all this with Parker et al. The dominant trend is the trucking centennial trend with some embroidery of PDO and AMO.
Bit no – we now have the ultimate Jack’s Beanstalk – PDO growing heat over centuries. OMIGAWD !
Then we have a recycled rave on sea level which percepticons will not has now moderated from “falling” to “no increase” type descriptions. SAY RISING !
And the usual pork chop – “OHC is already declining ” – err nope !
And so some of us are reminded that the ocean warming has periods of statis in a greater longer term warming – which we now have another example.
Do we see a little flash of CO2 is logarithmic again. Quick Coho – write to Nature – nobody else knows.
And a recycled Koutsoyiannis ruse argument when we know that’s what you’d expect and fingerprinting is the only validation technique.
Looks like Cohers is dumping all the old ordinance on the argument before the Sun and El Nino comes back up. Milk it for all it’s worth.
Coho – team Lukes and Luckettes spit on your pretentious try-on. Coho – so tedious – so recycled. But I am learning – the wire cage around the monitor did work – stopped it being punched out. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
“Jesus christ, did you even read what they wrote about the “tipping points”. They talk about the small changes caused by CO2 triggering other changes not to do with directly with CO2.”
Well just WHERE the hell are the “small changes caused by CO2” in the last 10 years? The temperature been cooling, despite the ever-increasing CO2 levels. Wheat harvests in Canada this year will be down by about 30% due to the cool weather.
You extremowarmers have to admit that the current hiatus in warming demonstrates clearly that there is some factor affecting the climate that is stronger than any CO2-related factor. Whaddayabet it is the Sun?
Coho, the logic of your post is woeful.Let’s itemize
1a Heating since 1950. You said MR’s statement is not correct. It is, as looking at a graph would show. You could more reasonably, claim it is a cherrypick. But you’ve countered with your own cherrypick. That’s the thing about cherrypicks – they can both be right. MR is not incorrect. And his cherry is bigger than yours.
1b. You say: {McLean et al] show that over the last 50 years from 1958 to 2008 the majority of the temperature trends, both warming and cooling, are from natural variation… Well, the paper is junk, for reasons amply given. But the current embarrassed position of the authors is that “The paper by McLean et al does not analyse trends in MGT”.
1c. The paper by Stockwell (and mystery co-author) does the following. Suppose a temperature model consisting of two (or three) discontinuous linear segments, plus noise. What gives the best fit? And so you find a break at 1976 gives the best fit. So now you’re saying – hey look, we’ve proved there was a break in 1976, when all the heating happened overnight!
2. You list the familiar cherrypicked claims that say warming has stopped, reversed or whatever. Well, OK. But in a new twist:
This means the increase in carbon dioxide during the twentieth century cannot be said to be the dominant cause of the warming which has occurred. ???
3. every extra carbon dioxide molecule has much less effect on temperature Wildly exaggerated. In fact, the departure from linear increase of CO2 effect with post-industrial CO2 growth has been very small. But your only argument is to say that some prof K claims that IPCC often predicts wrong, so this must be wrong.
4. MR’s “warming is irreversible” says that once we’ve put CO2 in the atmosphere, we can’t get it out. You haven’t countered this. Instead, just another familiar cherrypick claim that OHC has declined over a few years. Well, there’s no evidence at all that it has. But the uncertainty of these readings is such that you need to observe for a long time before you can be confident that anything has happened. This is particularly so with the new instrumentation and its teething problems.
Ah, spoilt for choices for brekkie; where to respond first? I had been discussing the break paper at Deltoid when I thought I could go no further because of this comment;
“In case there is any doubt, by “you (Stockwell)” I mean “you, or Stockwell”, and not “you, being Stockwell”.”
I didn’t know what BJ meant and since the Raupach vanity project had been lingering for a week without a response I thought I’d combine the 2; Raupach starts well;
“Around the world, thousands of scientists have devoted their professional lives to studying the climate. Not centrally organised, they sometimes build temporary affiliations but they remain scientists throughout – that is, they are independent, constantly challenge each other and are committed to searching for truth through objective, independently verifiable evidence”
I struggled with this for a while because it reminded me of something and then it dawned on me;
“Truth Justice and the American way.”
Professor Raupach is Superman and the other 14 nonpareil boys and girls are the Justice League; any criticism of this puddle of ethics is immediately going to be tainted with ad hom; that is, the introduction and establishment of self-esteeem in the article is the reverse of ad hom; instead of insulting the sceptics the authors claim the high moral ground so that any criticism of them must be an insult. This is quite a brilliant contribution to the ethical context of this debate. Too bad the rest of the essay is a farrago as I’ll get to in another post.
Coho – I warned you about getting some serious external peer review. And it’s lamentable that you’ve come back to cite McLean et al when it’s about to be comprehensively smacked down in the formal literature. Not a good look for the sceptics on a maiden voyage is it? It’s a threshold decision for you guys to defend or walk away !!
Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation
on tropospheric temperature”
by J. D. McLean,
C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter
G. Foster, 1 J. D. Annan, 2 P. D. Jones, 3 M. E. Mann, 4 B. Mullan, 5
J. Renwick, 6 J. Salinger, 7 G. A. Schmidt, 8 K. E. Trenberth 9
Abstract: McLean et al. [2009] (henceforth MFC09) claim that the El Ni˜no/Southern
Oscillation (ENSO), as represented by the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), accounts for
as much as 72% of the global tropospheric temperature anomaly (GTTA) and an even
higher 81% of this anomaly in the tropics. They conclude that the SOI is a “dominant and
consistent influence on mean global temperatures,” “and perhaps recent trends in global
temperatures”. However, their analysis is incorrect in a number of ways, and greatly overstates
the influence of ENSO on the climate system. This comment first briefly reviews
what is understood about the influence of ENSO on global temperatures, then goes on to
show that the analysis of MFC09 severely overestimates the correlation between temperature
anomalies and the SOI by inflating the power in the 2–6 year time window while
filtering out variability on longer and shorter time scales. It is only because of this faulty
analysis that they are able to claim such extremely high correlations. The suggestion in
their conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature
is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in that paper,
especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported
correlations.
Submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research
1Tempo Analytics, Westbrook, Maine, USA.
2RIGC/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan.
3Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
4Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pennsylvania, USA,
5NIWA, 301 Evans Bay Parade, Wellington, New Zealand.
6NIWA, 301 Evans Bay Parade, Wellington, New Zealand.
7School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New
Zealand.
8NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Interesting – international effort led by private enterprise.
How does fossil fuel burning cause sea level rise 20,000 years ago ???? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
Good post Cohenite, but because it is so logical and starts at the natural beginning of the slight warming over the last 150 years you’ll be attacked and abused with all the religious fervour they can muster.
You are following the true historical account but they are resorting to stupidity and fundamentalist religious faith.
The factual chronology backs your account whatever they try and throw at you.
“But the uncertainty of these readings is such that you need to observe for a long time before you can be confident that anything has happened. ”
Hmmm. What is a “long time,” Nick? Can you be “confident” in assuming AGW caused the warming since the LIA? What about the cause of the MWP and RWP, etc.? Those events certainly had nothing to do with SUVs, and there is no evidence of any significant changes in CO2! There simply is NO WAY (yet?) to “confidently” attribute modern warming to AGW, until the causes of the MWP and LIA are understood. That is the Achilles Heel of the Warmo-freaks.
luke; McLean et al stirred the pot; the response is tired looking; the same old names; Annan, Mann [!] and Messerschmitt all guns blazing; well, they’re not the only ones who can make a comment. Reflecting on the response from Nick while sipping my Broke tipple from Marsh Estate vintage champagne it strikes me that the linear response to additional CO2 is a bit of a stretch;
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115707ce438970b-pi
Coho, that’s a nonsense diagram. We’ve gone from 280 to about 390 ppm. The scale reduces the difference to about a pixel.
But yes, you could say that after all that extra CO2, each new CO2 molecule is about 33% less potent in blocking IR than it would have been in 1750.
luke; do you have the link to the full paper; I’ll admit it, I’m interested in their review of the effect of ENSO on global temperature;
Yeah sure Nick; but thanks for the concession; a 33% decline in effective blocking is not linear!
But I still think you are underestimating the decline; figures 3 and 4 here are to the point;
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
The full comment to the McLean paper is here;
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/FosteretalJGR09.pdf
“ONE week ago the Sydney Morning Herald published an opinion piece by Michael Raupach from CSIRO and fourteen other Australian scientists making four key claims to support the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). A regular reader and commentator at this weblog, Cohenite, explains that the claims are not supported by the available evidence: ”
Speaks volumes about the denialist position. 14 experts, one dissenter, who’s right. Why coho of course!
Run away global warming on Earth is about as credible as perpetual motion on Earth.
SJT “Jesus christ, did you even read what they wrote about the “tipping points”. They talk about the small changes caused by CO2 triggering other changes not to do with directly with CO2”.
Would you care to explain exactly how that’s done? I just gave you a link to Jeffrey Glassman’s article, which explains this fetish climate alarmists have with the fragility of the planet, and a misunderstanding of positive feedback. CO2 cannot indiscriminantly create a positive feedback condition. Besides, as Glassman points out, Hansen et al have it wrong. The excess CO2 is coming from a warming ocean, not from anthropogenic CO2.
You like to ridicule Beck, claiming he’s not a scientist. As Coho points out in his article, there was a warming between 1910 and 1944. One of the scientists Beck cites, and I have read the impressive in-depth work this guy did with his CO2 measurements, claimed CO2 density was over 400 ppmv between 1925 and 1940. Why is that so difficult to understand? We had the same kind of warming as today and the CO2 densities were equivalent.
A tipping point cannot happen without positive feedback, and as Glassman, an engineer, claims, positive feedback is not possible without gain (amplification). Where is the amplification? It’s not the Sun, as you claimed in a previous post, since it’s a constant, and all its energy goes into warming and maintaining the surface. It also warms the atmosphere with IR, which makes up 52% of its spectrum.
Hansen et al should spend more time trying to understand the physics rather than making irresponsible statements about a runaway greenhouse effect that contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Luke “And as for the idea that we are just recovering from the LIA, there is not one scintilla of evidence supporting that…..”
Luke and his cherry-picking machine. There’s not a scintilla of evidence to support the LIA but all that good proxy evidence, the only evidence supporting the CO2/warming theory, is good (in Luke’s mind). The IPCC even supported the LIA/MWP in a 1990 review, before they failed to notice that Michael Mann had lost them in the hockey stick.
Which is it? Were they right in 1990 and wrong in 2001, or wrong in 1990 and right in 2001? If they were wrong in 1990, what caused all that advancing glaciation in Europe during the period of the rumoured LIA? One town in the Alps was wiped out by an advancing glacier during that period.
When I saw David Karoly and Ove H-Guldberg among the list, I laughed. With support from such illustrious folk, AGW needs no opposition – they furnish all the material to make AGW an unsupported hypothesis and a growing joke.
Neville “Good post Cohenite, but because it is so logical and starts at the natural beginning of the slight warming over the last 150 years you’ll be attacked and abused with all the religious fervour they can muster”.
Before they reach for their peer review ad homs, maybe they should look at what Akasofu has to say about the same time span. He’s an expert on the atmosphere with respect to solar plasma and the magentosphere.
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Why_has_global_warming.pdf
The following link from Akasofu is very slow….takes over 7 minutes on a DSL connection. It’s worth the read:
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/recovery_little_ice_age.pdf
Irelevant twaddle Gordon – “There’s not a scintilla of evidence to support the LIA” – that wasn’t what was said – so being such an utter liar !
don’t bother trying diversions on LIA. You know the debate even as a diversion was about worldwide extent. Don’t be so utterly dishonest.
If you support Beck on CO2 – you’re on drugs… so 6 recent CO2 measuring stations show steady progression (Not just Mauna Loa)_ BUT Beck shows CO2 running around like a mad cat. Pullease Gordo – pull the other leg.
Neville – nobody is suggesting a runaway so stop fabricating.
The BIG news is that Coho is at it again recycling denialist doo-doos and his major paper has just been sideswiped by a locomotive. So much for the denialists big day out.
BTW Coho – here’s a stats lesson for ya
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/influence-of-the-southern-oscillation-on-tropospheric-temperature/
luke; the Foster et al comment on McLean is a mixed bag; it’s fair to say the stat analysis of the McLean paper has issues; but the comment then extrapolates from that reasonable conclusion to a blanket of statements about underlying warming trends for the post WW11 period; ie ENSO clear trends of up to 0.25C PD for the 1979-1999 period and 0.4C for the 1950-2006 period; they need to look at these papers;
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf
The Sun Yu paper establishes a NONZERO residual effect on the mean state temperature changes; that is, it affects trend not just variation. The processes they describe, cloud feedback, thermocline depth and upwelling variation, dovetail with the re-emergence mechanism described By Alexander and Dresler;
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0485/25/1/pdf/i1520-0485-25-1-122.pdf
Partick B. “14 experts, one dissenter, who’s right. Why coho of course!”
Another famous Aussie, Barry Marshall, was a voice in the wilderness trying to convince the medical fraternity that Heliobacter pylori caused stomach ulcers. Ultimately, he was proved correct and all the rest wrong, and he got a Nobel for his aloneness.
It’s becoming clear to me that AGW advocates suffer from faulty thinking. They have allowed their egos to intervene between the truth and their understanding of the truth.
“Submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research”
Wow – three and a bit pages from nine authors = about two paragraphs each. This is more like a petition, or rather the doctrine from the High Priests to inform the faithful quickly. That’s why Luke knows about it.
If it’s only been submitted, then what about the clear and deceptive insinuations that it has been accepted and in press – Journal title in the header, claim of AGU copyright – and clear breaches of AGU Permissions policy. If I did that in my discipline I would be in trouble (quick, someone archive Trenberth’s site). These ‘climate scientists’ seem to think they can make up their own rules.
“Run away global warming on Earth is about as credible as perpetual motion on Earth.”
They are not predicting runaway global warming.
“It’s becoming clear to me that AGW advocates suffer from faulty thinking. They have allowed their egos to intervene between the truth and their understanding of the truth.”
You have it completely the wrong way around. It was the old school who didn’t believe that CO2 could be a problem, and needed to be convinced that the new idea that it would be was correct. Those who weren’t convinced are the ones who are out of touch with the up to date science. Read Weart’s history of global warming.
Nick Stokes,
“But yes, you could say that after all that extra CO2, each new CO2 molecule is about 33% less potent in blocking IR than it would have been in 1750.”
BLOCKING IR????????
Come on Nicky boy this is really pitiful. You apparently need a radiative forcing kindergarten refresh!!!
Luke,
Maybe those CO2-free earth temperature fluctuations that you find so hard to cope with can be explained by this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/06/long-debate-ended-over-cause-demise-of-ice-ages-solar-and-earth-wobble/#more-9788
Just relax, ol’ buddy and enjoy the warm while you got it.
And BTW cohers, thanks for the effort. Good stuff!
Here is a link for carbon crackpots to ponder …
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3823
“Scientist” Admits Using Climate Change To Further His Socialist Agenda
Read this book if you want insight into the mind of a “scientist” who has surrendered all moral authority to speak truthfully about global warming.
Warmest Regards
Luke “If you support Beck on CO2 – you’re on drugs…”
I gave up drugs in the 70’s…stopped smoking and drinking when I was 12.
Beck did not make this up over breakfast. He sorted through 175 papers written over a century. You’re claiming each one of those researchers was dead wrong, even the Nobelists. What’s the odds of that? I’d say there are far better odds that the cherry-picked IPCC CO2 research is dead wrong.
BTW…have you ever seen a mad cat running around?
For luke and Nick; the Foster comment notes previous studies whereby the much lower ENSO effect had been isolated by reputable scientists; Foster quotes a warming trend from 1979 to 1999 of 0.15C per decade which increases to 0.25C when ENSO and volcanoes are removed; bear in mind the period from 1979-99 is a warm ENSO phase; now, those figures must be GISS based because the trend from UAH is 0.1075C per decade.
If we look at the period from 1998 to current the GISS trend is 0.11PD;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2009/trend
The first chuckle is the comparison with UAH for the same period;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2009/trend
The second chuckle is that since we now have a ‘pure’ AGW trend of 0.25C the GISS trend of 0.11C must be reduced entirely by the cool ENSO phase since there are no relevant volcano effects [I’m ignoring solar because AGW says that has been negligible]; this means the cool phase of the ENSO suppresses AGW more than the +ve phase of ENSO plus AOD [as a proxy for volcano]; Douglass and Christy calculate the effect ontemperature of AOD is 0.036CPD, so that means that during the +ve phase of ENSO from 1979-99 the warm ENSO suppressed AGW warming by 0.064C; the cool, -ve phase of ENSO decreased AGW by 0.14C.
2 things flow from this; firstly, according to AGW specialists warm variation has a cooling effect on the AGW trend about 50% of the cooling effect that the cool variation has; and secondly, the Sun Yu thesis of a warm ENSO nonzero residual is contradicted.
“Beck did not make this up over breakfast. He sorted through 175 papers written over a century. You’re claiming each one of those researchers was dead wrong, even the Nobelists. What’s the odds of that? I’d say there are far better odds that the cherry-picked IPCC CO2 research is dead wrong.”
They were each right. They were measuring the local concentration of CO2 quite accurately.
what a sorry, sorry pile of dingo doo doos, cohenite.
let’s start with a tiny, eensy, ever so obvious mistake in your reasoning
“it is well established that every extra carbon dioxide molecule has much less effect on temperature.”
carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas, dear. making endless arguments based around carbon dioxide alone will expose you to untold mockery and quick dismissal.
i recomment strongly that you change your article to include mention of methane, at the very least.
Patrick B at 10:51 am – 14:1, eh. Now that looks like a consensus, Patrick, and we all know that’s how science proceeds. Add in your support and it’s looking even better, Patrick. Oh, and just for good measure, let’s not look at any evidence that does not support the AGW hypothesis.
To all of you on this blog there is little point in entering a debate with Luke. He has a lack of knowledge of any physics or chemistry and firmly believes that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply anywhere and in particular has no application in global warming theory. He seems to have invented the very first perpetual motion machine. I wish he would patent it and set up a company to market the machine – he could save the world with all that free energy.
But back to cohenite’s great post. The only item I thought cohenite did not explore is why anyone would think that there is a problem with temperatures going up. Who decided that our current climate is the best that it can be; and why must these temperatures never vary from today’s levels? Does anyone else question this basic assumption?
Cohenite’s great post – hahahahahaha – Michael believes the sugar industry invalidates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
But more interesting –
Ian Plimer challenged George Monbiot to a public debate on you-know-what, following the latter’s criticisms. Monbiot accepted with some conditions, having to do with Plimer answering specific questions. Plimer then backed out of the debate, whereupon Monbiot accused him of cowardice. Plimer relented and has now agreed to a debate under Monbiot’s conditions. Please read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism
Given the sun’s back up and EL Nino is out there – warming trends about to continue. Sceptics hunted down like vermin. Excellent. License sceptics not guns.
Coho – after the McLean paper fiasco – perhaps sceptics should be confined to home detention, fitted with ankle bracelets and forced to report every week to their nearest constabulary. But then again I guess they wouldn’t notice the change.
Just to help the debate
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/06/long-debate-ended-over-cause-demise-of-ice-ages-solar-and-earth-wobble/#more-9788
luke, why on Earth are you bringing up Monbiot? I’ll debate him by the way; my only condition is that we both have to be nude and at the North Pole; since it’s so hot there; you can come along to rub Monbiot’s extremities and stop him getting frostbite after he discovers its not so hot.
Now, what about that Sun & Yu paper?
” Michael believes the sugar industry invalidates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”
You are a liar Luke it was you who said that the sugar industry invalidated the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I don’t think you know anything about the laws of thermodynamics at all.
SJT:
“They were each right. They were measuring the local concentration of CO2 quite accurately.”
Which when averaged using standard statistical protocols showed that CO2 levels were much higher during the last century.
Settle down Mikey – after your disgraceful performance on that thread I think we know your standards. And you did a runner anyway.
Coho – I think we’ve had just about enough of denialist mischief. I’m reading Ecosceptic II ‘s interesting paper and then going to bed with a foxy babe.
Luke,
So sugar has a sweet exception to thermodynamics?
You all seem to be in a bit of a frenzy.
Is there enough coffee and tea for you guys?
I think anyone who is a strong believer in AGW has enough understanding of thermodynamics to believe in perpetual motion.
Luke,
Regarding your group’s sleeping habits, just how many copies of that magazine do you have to buy?
Or do you share one copy?
“Which when averaged using standard statistical protocols showed that CO2 levels were much higher during the last century.”
Which when averaged revealed the local levels of the scientists breath in the room they were conducting the tests in.
“I think anyone who is a strong believer in AGW has enough understanding of thermodynamics to believe in perpetual motion.”
All you are revealing in statements like that is your ignorance of greenhouse gases, what they actually do, and how the process works.
Roy Spencer defends the science of the greenhouse effect.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
He only disagrees on the magnitude of the increase of CO2 on the effect.
Lazlo,
AGW promotion and belief requires a large number of new rules for everything from history to science to ethics.
Luke to debate is to engage in argument and discussion. It is not emails at 15,000 kms. How riverting for the audience as Monbiot read out emails from Real Climate with a parrot (green of course) perched on his shoulder squawking Denier! Denier!
Plimer challenged Monbiot, Monbiot initially declined then realizing that he looked a bigger plonk than usual tried to cover his butt.
Ian Plimer debated Barry Brook in Adelaide last week. I was there but as I am a Denier ( a term I have come to cherish) I sure my opinion is worthless to you. You could go to Brave New Climate but the normally verbose Brook had very little to say post-debate, nor did his acolytes, can you guess why. When asked for the audio Brook said oops there was a technical problem, can you guess why.
SJT,
So you think greenhouses are an exception to thermodynamics?
It is very entertaining that you would quote Spencer, who clearly knows the difference between the greenhouse effect and AGW hype, as a pathetic means of defending AGW hype.
Spencer is attacked by RC and other AGW promoters, for pointing out that the greenhouse effect is not going to drive the climate to anything like a crisis or dangerous tipping point.
It is Spencer, and scientists like Spencer, who know the difference between greenhouse effect and the apocalyptic hype of AGW.
Troll on, SJT.
“So you think greenhouses are an exception to thermodynamics?
It is very entertaining that you would quote Spencer, who clearly knows the difference between the greenhouse effect and AGW hype, as a pathetic means of defending AGW hype.
Spencer is attacked by RC and other AGW promoters, for pointing out that the greenhouse effect is not going to drive the climate to anything like a crisis or dangerous tipping point.
It is Spencer, and scientists like Spencer, who know the difference between greenhouse effect and the apocalyptic hype of AGW.
Troll on, SJT.”
What weird mind you have. I am saying that Spencer, Lindezn, and the rest, all agree the greenhouse effect is real, and it doesn’t break the laws of thermodynamics. If you read Spencer, he explains why.
Raupach et al: “Overwhelmingly, this evidence has led to four conclusions. The first is that the world is warming. The global average temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees since 1850, with most of the increase occurring since 1950. The warming varies among decades because of natural fluctuations but the overall trend has been inexorably upward.”
According to Coho: “This is incorrect. The temperature data from both the official English agency, HADCRUT, and the land-based American temperature agency, NASAGISS, show an increase in temperature from 1910 to 1944 which is equivalent to the temperature increase from 1976 to 1998.”
Although I am not generally impressed by Coho’s effort in this instance, the temperature data clearly shows that the increase in temperature from the early part of the century is equivalent to the increase in temperature in the latter part of the century. It is a misrepresentation to suggest otherwise. Obviously the increase in the earlier part of the century cannot be explained by CO2, since by all accounts this had not risen sufficiently by then to have much of an effect. Apparently it is IPPC policy to ascribe this rise in the early part of the century to solar factors but I admit to being unclear on this issue.
What I do not understand is why the authors, who in their elevated minds apparently wish to impress upon us the fact that they are objectively self-characterising themselves as objective, would want to tarnish both themselves and their reputations by stooping to effect such a misrepresention. Is it because they wish to gloss over the fact that they really do not have any good explanation for the warming that occurred during the early part of the century, or do they wish merely to create the false impression in the public mind that “the only significant period of warming in the 20th century occurred during the period of highest levels of CO2.” Or what? What is the purpose of this misrepresentation?
Can any of the resident AGW geniuses, whose brilliance clearly outshines the sun and the moon, (and one of whom at least has finally got a root at last judging by the amount of desperate noise he is making), explain to this plodding dimwit who sits at their feet gazing upwards why this is not a gross misrepresentation of the facts on the part of Raupach and his climactic comrades?
BTW, note also the interesting Freudian slip in this paragraph from Raupach:
“This critical conclusion is based on several independent lines of evidence, including basic physics, studies of climate changes in both in the geological past and in the industrial era, and finally – but far from solely – from the predictions of climate models. Together, these provide an overwhelming case that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations cause warming, and that CO2 is the largest contributor to the current warming”
Raupach claims here that the conclusion is based on several independent lines of evidence, then states, redundantly, ‘but far from solely’ with relation to model predictions. The phrase ‘but far from solely’ is an overemphasis, being in this instance a grammatical attempt to make it look like there are actually more lines of evidence available than those that are actually quoted. If there were such further lines of evidence of any importance, Raupach would undoubtedly have quoted them. Oddly enough, it seems that Ruaupach’s inner id is not in agreement with his public posture. Perhaps it is a sign that Raupach’s suppressed scientific conscience wishes to publicly dissociate itself from its abject corruption in the service of AGW advocacy.
SJT:
“What weird mind you have. I am saying that Spencer, Lindezn, and the rest, all agree the greenhouse effect is real, and it doesn’t break the laws of thermodynamics. If you read Spencer, he explains why.”
Well….not “all” agree: http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=754
Further to Raupach et al: “This critical conclusion is based on several independent lines of evidence, including basic physics, studies of climate changes in both in the geological past and in the industrial era, and finally – but far from solely – from the predictions of climate models. Together, these provide an overwhelming case that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations cause warming, and that CO2 is the largest contributor to the current warming trend.”
In relation to the above paragraph I should point out also that what are represented as three independent lines of evidence, ie:
1. Basic physics
2. Studies of climate changes in both the geological past and in the industrial era (it appears that the hockey stick is either dead or too hot to handle as far as Raupach et al are concerned)
3. Climate models
are in fact only two independent lines of evidence, since climate models are said by AGW believers to be constructed on basic physics. I have not heard so far of any studies of the industrial era which demonstrate the relationship between CO2 and global warming except perhaps an eyeball squizz at the late 20th century temperature index.
@dribble
I think it is sort of a dilemma and a vague picture that is painted
If you look at the IPCC AR4 figure 9.5,
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-9-5.jpg
“The simulated global mean temperature anomalies in (b) are from 19 simulations produced by five models with natural forcings only.”
you see that the IPCC shows that the 5 computer models that were used, are able to simulate the first half of the century with natural forcings only. The models were not able to do that for the second half of the century. For the second half of the century they needed more forcings and found them in the greenhouse gases. I guess they concluded the sun was the main cause in the first half and the greenhouse gases the main cause in the second half of the century for the temperature rise. I think in the public discussion this is very often oversimplified to: greenhouse gases caused the main warming in the 20th century, which is according to the attribution using models within IPCC AR 4 not the correct statement.
However, I think you are correct to point that out. The line of evidence that is usually mentioned is mostly evidence from computer models, at least to my knowledge. Every other evidence I have seen uses at least one unproven assumption in order to attribute CO2 as the cause.
Basic physics I think is misleading. It is certainly correct that the basic differential equations are written down in the first place, but in order to solve them a lot of assumption and linearizing needs to be done. Moreover, I think a lot of interactions are missing and processes might still be unknown.
But that is always the case in a models. Models have limitations that is natural.
In addition the basic physics of clouds is not incorporated with satisfactory performance. So basic physics is certainly true, but not the complete and correct physics with all the nonlinear effects. Here is the deviation from nature.
Even more Trenberth et al recently quoted about some models the following:
„We considered all 24 models but some have incomplete information, some apparently do not conserve energy, and some have artificial ‘‘flux adjustments’’ of energy, and these were excluded. Thirteen models were retained but computations were made for all. “
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/2009GL037527.pdf
Therefore some models also get the physics wrong for the 20t century, but simulate the data.
Best regards
Guenter
I have read Spencer. I have sat with him as he personally shows that the greenhouse effect does not mean we are facing a climate crisis.
Perhaps you are not deliberately distorting what I am saying or what Dr. Spencer says?
Perhaps you do not perceive the distinction/
AGW claims, unlike Dr. Spencer, that the greenhouse effect will produce catastrophic changes in the climate.
Dr. spencer claims, and has shown by way of history, models, and current evidence, that the green house effect of ACO2 does not.
If you persist in implying he says the opposite, it would be a pretty good confirmation of bad faith on your part.
SJT:
“Which when averaged revealed the local levels of the scientists breath in the room they were conducting the tests in.”
This has to be the most inane statement yet uttered by you – you have summarily denigrated the whole basis of organic chemistry and biology by European scientists over the last couple of centuries.
I think it best to let you continue digging the hole you are in, rather than distract you with criticism of your misunderstandings of basic science.
“Roy Spencer defends the science of the greenhouse effect.”…………….
“He only disagrees on the magnitude of the increase of CO2 on the effect.”
Don’t you see SJT that you have made the point with those two statements – it is the magnitude that is the most important factor. There isn’t any possibility of reaching the magnitudes described by the AGW models. It cannot happen.
I am puzzled by this statement attributed to Raupach et al:
“The global average temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees since 1850, with most of the increase occurring since 1950.”
In fact half of this warming occurred prior to 1950, i.e. prior to any strong anthropogenic rise in CO2. This half at least of the rise is therefore natural. The second half of the rise starting in the mid-1970s might have something to do with our emissions. But even here there is the caveat that this rise has not been significantly evident since the mid-1990s (Lindzen), despite rising CO2. If there is any AGW going on since the mid-1990s, it is hard to disentangle it from natural variation like ENSO, the PDO and solar effects.
It is regrettable that debate on how to make policy on a possible AGW is repeatedly subjected to attempts at stampeding everybody by alarmism.
As jae’s link shows the proponents of the greenhouse effect do not consider atmospheric presssure as contributing to atmospheric temperature profiles at all; the most famous justification for the 33C difference in atmospheric temperature because of the greenhouse effect is Arthur Smith’s article which was the subject of a post here a few months ago. Arthur ignored atmospheric pressure completely. It simply is another reason for doubting the whole AGW ediface and the pronouncements of supposedly distinguished scientists like the gang of 5 confirm that a con job is being conducted. Atmospheric pressure is a major contributor to the temperature of the atmosphere;
http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/atmos.htm?200820
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Rethinking_the_greenhouse_effect.pdf
More tedious appeals to pseudo-authorities like Spencer who couldn’t even sort out his own satellite data. Maybe he should have done some more maths and less meteorology – LOL !
Hey Cohers – what is it about denialist scummies that makes you guys recycle the same old lies and crap relentlessly.
And we have political activists like Coho, hunter, et al grabbing our arms tightly and with drug addicted eyes imploring us to believe their latest shit. Like McLean et al. – let go Coho – It went down by the stern in about 2 hours after launch mate. Tell us guys what theory is the chocolate wheel on this week. Some many theories – so many denialist scum. Multiplying like zombies.
So if you have “n” denialists in a room you probably have ” n ^ (n +1)” mad ideas to sift through.
Luke,
How did y’all enjoy your evening?
Visualizing the Luke ensemble critiquing Spencer brings to mind the a squeaky munchkin chorus from the the Wizard of Oz. Luke the lollipop kid, lol.
But what really describes the way the group Luke, and the rest of the AGW true believers go at it summed up here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE
No matter how silly AGW looks when the curtain is pulled back, the AGW faithful still look to their wizardry.
It is not my stuff I am trying to get people to believe. I, and other skeptics, are merely pointing out that the predictions of AGW are not coming true, have not come true, and that there is noreason to believe they are coming true.
If you Lukers and other apocalyptic cult freaks want to believe in the end of the world, go at it.
Just don’t make me pay more taxes to medicate your fears.
“As jae’s link shows the proponents of the greenhouse effect do not consider atmospheric presssure as contributing to atmospheric temperature profiles at all; the most famous justification for the 33C difference in atmospheric temperature because of the greenhouse effect is Arthur Smith’s article which was the subject of a post here a few months ago. Arthur ignored atmospheric pressure completely.”
Arthur demonstrated what was a simple model of the atmosphere which ignored a lot more than just pressure, but which gave results that were reasonably accurate. It was no more nor no less than it claimed to be.
“Don’t you see SJT that you have made the point with those two statements – it is the magnitude that is the most important factor.”
I agree, but repeatedly people claim that the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics. It doesn’t.
The only debate is on the magnitude of the change.
“Hey Cohers – what is it about denialist scummies that makes you guys recycle the same old lies and crap relentlessly.”
If you want to see some relentlessly recycled lies and crap just go to the Dept of CC website where they still wave the warming wanker’s hockey stick as the banner for all climate truth.
I hope, for the sake of your cred, you point things like this out to Penny, too, Luke.
Cohenite, your link to the McLean rebuttal paper doesn’t work.
Try Here
luke wakes up refreshed and continues to romance the CO2 molecule; the only ‘chocolate wheel’ is the one at MIT;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/26/how-not-to-make-a-climate-photo-op/#more-8038
The trouble with the AGW boys is that they won’t stand still; Nick has disappeared after verballing me at the beginning of this thread and luke is avoiding the issue of whether sea levels increases are increasing at an increasing rate and ditto for OHC; surely this is a legitimate point since Raupach and Steffen have both asserted this.
“I agree, but repeatedly people claim that the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics. It doesn’t.”
That wasn’t the point. The point was that the “magnitude” of the increase does and can only be achieved if the laws of thermodynamics are set aside as they are in many of the climate models.
Thank you DK; I don’t know what happened to that other link; the Foster comment extrapolates from Tamino’s analysis; certainly McLean et al, in trying to isolate the SOI effect, managed to enlarge that effect by virtue of the removal of other effects in their differencing of temperature; the comment says that the SOI contribution to variation is less than 2% [0.0171]; this is too low and I think a figure of about 7% is more realistic; the paper does not consider cSOI or cumulative SOI/ENSO which is what McLean were getting at via their lag; the Sun and Yu paper poses a nonzero residual effect on the mean temperature from a dominat El Nino component of SOI which is cSOI; oddly, as I have observed in a prior post, the comment suggests that the ENSO effect in the 1979-1999 period has a negative effect of AGW temperature trend; and this was during a period of positive PDO. As I say, odd.
sjt:
“Arthur demonstrated what was a simple model of the atmosphere which ignored a lot more than just pressure, but which gave results that were reasonably accurate. It was no more nor no less than it claimed to be.”
??? WTF are you claiming, sjt???? Is Authur God, or what? The Model I cited is MUCH simpler and more defensible, physicswise. Can you put it down, without citing “Arthur?”
Here you go Cohers – bigger than the PDO !
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3046/
Sun’s coming up , El Nino brewing – 2010?
Well luke, generally both sides of the debate tend to stay from glaciers because the damn things often behave contrary to prevailing weather conditions; your link shows some contradictory responses by the 3 glaciers with a nod to larger scale climate factors than PDO; they must be talking about the sun; the data also finishes at 2003; here’s another take on the Alaskan glaciers;
http://www.farnorthscience.com/2007/07/10/ak-sci-forum/icy-bay-glaciers-advance/
Coho – come on in your heart of hearts, you know we’re right. It’s simply a matter of how much.
“Well luke, generally both sides of the debate tend to stay from glaciers because the damn things often behave contrary to prevailing weather conditions; your link shows some contradictory responses by the 3 glaciers with a nod to larger scale climate factors than PDO; they must be talking about the sun; the data also finishes at 2003; here’s another take on the Alaskan glaciers;”
Glaciers
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/graph-jam/
“That wasn’t the point. The point was that the “magnitude” of the increase does and can only be achieved if the laws of thermodynamics are set aside as they are in many of the climate models.”
Sheer fantasy.
And you think those comparative pie charts are meant to be real little will?
“And you think those comparative pie charts are meant to be real little will?”
What makes you think they aren’t?
To those readers who might still be confused on this issue, the deafening silence emanating from the AGW parasites that infest this blog demonstrates that the statement from Raupach et al:
“The global average temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees since 1850, with most of the increase occurring since 1950.”
is a blatant lie and a deliberate fraud. The purpose of this lie is fairly obvious. It is make the alleged correlation between CO2 and temperature rise during the 20th century look better than it actually is. Thats right dear reader, this supposedly respectable group of scientists, who laughingly characterise themselves as ‘independent, constantly challenging each other, committed to the search for truth through objective, independently verifiable evidence’, are quite happy to lie to you in black and white in a major metropolitan newspaper if it might bring them some political gain. In fact you will soon go on to find out that lying, deceit and corruption is so endemic in climate science that you will begin to doubt if any of these learned wankers would actually know what the truth was if they fell over it.
In relation to my previous comment the phrase ‘deliberate fraud’ may have been a bit harsh. What may have happened is that climate scientists like Raupach et al are so used to making petty distortions of the facts in order to bolster up their agenda for financial and political purposes it may be that they did not even notice that in this case they had slipped past the boundary of petty distortion into the realm of blatant lie. Also the phrase ‘learned wankers’ is incorrect, this should have read ‘allegedly learned wankers’.
I’m sorry, did you say something that was worth replying to?
Gee dribble that’s sure some insightful dribble.
And if this is the climate science understanding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png – well you’d be an ape arse wouldn’t you.
SJT – denialist cocktails – one part bile, one part snake oil, one part pixie dust – add hemlock to taste – stir vigorously and serve with sprig of African box thorn.
SJT,
The greenhouse effect does not violate thermodynamics.
AGW predictions about about the climate ignores thermodynamics.
AGW is not the greenhouse effect. AGW is a set of predictions that tiny changes in the heat balance can lead to a tipping point that leads to a catastrophe.
Luke,
Your recipe is exemplary of your typical post.
You seem to enjoy the taste greatly.
“AGW is a set of predictions that tiny changes in the heat balance can lead to a tipping point that leads to a catastrophe.”
No it doesn’t – you’re an utter moron.
Luke,
by the way, your latest mantra, ‘sun’s coming up’, seems a little bit desperate, since it is not factual:
http://www.solarcycle24.com/swpc.htm
But then, to be a true believer like you all in AGW, you need to set aside petty things lie fact, tact and reality pretty smoothly, no?
I thought the sun had nothing to do with influencing climate any way. Why your gang’s emerging need to remind us the sun comes up?
Luke,
Your kind response to my post is a bit unclear:
““AGW is a set of predictions that tiny changes in the heat balance can lead to a tipping point that leads to a catastrophe.”
No it doesn’t – you’re an utter moron.”
What part of my statement is wrong, oh wise ones?
Think of this as not only a teachable moment for a moron, but a time for your group to enlighten the many morons here and to really shine.
Hunter
It would be good for once if you tried to pay attention. Look at this graph of understood forcings – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Now how do you think this squares with your comment “I thought the sun had nothing to do with influencing climate any way” – I think it means you’re just spruiking any crap that comes into your mind.
The greenhouse effect itself is driven by the Sun, also the role of changes in solar forcing are well acknowledged.
““AGW is a set of predictions that tiny changes in the heat balance can lead to a tipping point that leads to a catastrophe.”” – well it’s the tactics of denialist scum to continually try to corral the debate to catastrophism – effects might be gradual, inconvenient, costly, beneficial for some, and sometimes catastrophic. But you already have climate catastrophes – droughts, floods, heatwaves, cold snaps, hurricanes. We actually know little about abrupt climate change.
AGW works in the background pushing the climate system in an upwards trend. But other influences exist – solar changes, decadal oceanic effects, El Nino and La Nina. These will make that upwards path wiggle around.
The denialists attempts to contain the discussion with narrow goal posts is simply a ruse.
Hunter – what has become readily apparent is that you are clueless about this issue really. Your comments make it obvious you haven’t spent 5 minutes listening or thinking about what is being said. You’ve simply signed up to a side like one would with football teams.
cohenite,
You are reading too much into MdFC.
You have blinkers on to Foster & Co.
There are obvious issues with the McLean et al piece; they would get kudos if they acknowledged this but Carter (at least) has blown it.
At least he can now claim to have been published on “climate science”. It is unfortunate he has added his name to this paper, but I am not surprised.
Luke,
If I took Wikipedia’s cute little chart and erased Greenhouse gasses from the column and wrote in Fish schooling, would that mean Fish schooling was responsible for .69 change???
A couple of years ago your favorite Alarmists thought the sun had NO effect. Son of a GUN but they now think it DOES have some effect.
Basically you are lost in the past and can’t seem to catch up to the reality of GHG forcing NOT having any noticeable effect. PLEEEEEEASE read something other than those incestuous RealpoorClimate pronouncements you are so fond of!!!
Luke,
Does your ensemble of bureaucrats have anyone with manners and tact? Or is that bred out in the Australian civil service?
I would have thought a great set of minds like yours would have at least quoted the IPCC.
But of course the IPCC is promoting catastrophism.
If AGW is not about catastrophe and in end of days, then why in effin’ heck are AGW promoters like you demanding radical solutions? If it is just a mild nudgeroo, then why not deal with things that actually help?
And by the way, when a rude, non-communicative group of sock puppets such as you continually think adjectives like ‘scum’ are somehow increasing your credibility or appeal, it only shows that you jerk wads are the ones that are simply cynical farts that are riding AGW for the nice stream of tax dollars.
It is the behavior of AGW believers like you that make me more convinced daily that AGW is no more real than Lysenkoism or eugenics.
Luke makes an absolute arse of himself…again!!! I need a seconder to nominate Luke as Aussie twit of the year.
“It would be good for once if you tried to pay attention. Look at this graph of understood forcings – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png”
OK, Luke, we’re paying attention. Now hit the discussion tab at the top of the page and go to the bottom of that page. Here’s what it says:
“The graph doesn’t come from there, of course, its made by DF William M. Connolley 16:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)”.
You absolute twonk. A graph made by a computer programmer who splits as a flunky at realclimate and a censor at Wikipedia. I was wondering who would produce such a ridicilous ‘observed’ graph, wrapping itself around the modeled graph. Only a computer programmer alarmist could be that naive.
SJT “I agree, but repeatedly people claim that the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics. It doesn’t”.
No one I know of has claimed the GHE violates the 2nd Law. It is the concept that back-radiation from GHGs can warm the surface to a temperature higher than it is heated by solar radiation that violates the law.
AWG types are using a mathematical hocus pocus called a ‘balance of energies’. They are summing back-radiation with solar energy and claiming it is positive with respect to surface radiation. You cannot add back-radiation to solar energy because the solar energy was already used to heat the surface that heated the GHGs…at a loss!!
There is a time element involved. Solar radiation heats the surface and that heats the GHGs. The back-radiation from those GHGs cannot be added again to the solar energy because it is required to maintan the surface temperature. If that surface temperature drops, the GHG radiation drops. Also, the surface radiation that heats the GHGs is a loss of energy at the surface and there are further losses going through the atmosphere, caused by thermal conductivity, diffusivity and scattering. Before back-radiated energy from the GHGs can warm the surface higher than the solar radiation, it first has to make up those losses, and that is not possible without amplification or external work.
Clausius said, with respect to the 2nd Law, that a cooler body warmed by a warmer body cannot warm the warming body to a higher temperature than it was when it warmed the cooler body. That implies that back-radiation must be weaker than surface radiation and it must radiate with a different spectrum than the surface spectrum and the solar spectrum. Since solar radition is warming and maintaining the warming body, it cannot be used in addition to back-radiation to make the surface warmer. That would be a perpetual motion machine.
SJT: I’m sorry, did you say something that was worth replying to?
So you agree that Raupach et al are wankers? Yes I think thats obvious too, they made a real mess in the bathroom this time. Why cant they just learn to use a sock like everybody else?
“If I took Wikipedia’s cute little chart and erased Greenhouse gasses from the column and wrote in Fish schooling, would that mean Fish schooling was responsible for .69 change”
gee Kockhead Kat – I didn’t think of dat. You’ve got me pinned there. hmmmm – gee perhaps we should have filled a few pages with all the other science.
“A couple of years ago your favorite Alarmists thought the sun had NO effect” – no Kockhead Kat – you’re a fabricator that needs to be dropkicked over the back fence.
““The graph doesn’t come from there, of course, its made by DF William M. Connolley 16:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)”.”
Alas Gordon – you’ve had too many organs removed – you qualify for the monthly knee jerk denialist dickwit award – attribution ACTUALLY goes to famous climate scientists – Gerry Meehl et al. Join Kooky Kat in a voyage over the back fence. I forgot denialist Nazis don’t read.
“You cannot add back-radiation to solar energy” – yes you can – it’s how heat shields work you wanker. Anyway if you’re so sure go publish in GRL, Nature or Science. We’ll wait for you to come a gutser like McLean et al. But you’re too chicken to publish your stupidity. At least you’ve progressed from back radiation not existing.
Thank you Guenter for your discussion of IPCC climate models in relation to the AGW ‘Theory of 20th century CO2/temperature correlation’. I found this discussion most helpful.
Its interesting that the theory requires two co-incidences to work, not just the one that normally filters out, ie “temperature rise in the late 20th century matches the rise in CO2.” According to IPCC modeling, temperature rise in the first part of the 20th century is said to be due to natural causes, temperature rise in the later part of the century is said to be due to anthropogenic CO2. This means that, according to this theory, around 1950 natural warming suddenly stopped and CO2 warming immediately took its place. What an amazing co-incidence. At the exact same time in history that anthropogenic CO2 began to take up its insidious warming effect, natural warming quits and hands over to CO2.
The 20th century CO2/temperature correlation theory is so weak that nobody in their right mind would normally attempt to use it as evidence of CO2/temperature correlation. That’s why climate scientists like Raupach et al feel the need to lie about it and serve up manufactured substitutes like climate model predictions instead. Anybody who takes a climate model prediction seriously is as desperate for evidence as Luke is for a grope on his first date with a girl who actually has got squishy things on her chest.
AGW paranoid world savers would do much better for their cause if they stuck to the mutton and actually attempted to comprehensively prove the CO2/temperature correlation rather than just spending all their time covering up their inadequacies. Its obvious that the venal pollies like Kruddie, Turnbull and the up and coming Abbot penis-head pick up on the fact that the scientific case for AGW is in reality a shonk. They therefore have no trouble easing back on real mitigation policies because why should they work too hard on the issue if the AGW believing scientists cant come up with the goods either.
Of course if the AGW believing scientists actually stuck their noses to the grindstone and tried to come up with real evidence for AGW instead of just making it up as they go along, they might discover to their horror that, oops, it wasn’t CO2 after all. Uh oh, better not go down that road.
Without greenhouse gases the surface would be colder than it is. So would the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases absorb IR light radiated from the surface and the atmosphere.
That energy is transformed into heat by collisions with other molecules.
The greenhouse gases are, in turn, vibrationally excited by collisions.
The vibrationally excited greenhouse gases emit IR photons, some of which reach the surface and add energy to it in addition to that absorbed by the sun.
Since the surface has to shed energy equal to what is absorbed, it warms, increasing the rate of emission. The same is true for the atmosphere. Both the atmosphere and the surface are warmer in the presence of greenhouse gases than they would be without.
In the atmosphere the energy flowing in and out results in a steady state population of vibrationally excited greenhouse gas molecules established between absorption of energy from IR radiation, thermalization of that energy by collision, thermal activation of the greenhouse gas molecules by collision and their re-radiation.
The energy flowing into and away from the surface is also in a balance established by solar warming (+), thermal radiation from the surface (-), absorption of IR radiation from greenhouse gases (+), vaporization (-) and condensation (+) of water and convection (-). Conduction away from the surface and warming from the mantle are minor and can be neglected.
Remove any of the + terms and the surface gets cooler because less energy flows in, increase them and the surface gets hotter, visa versa for the negative ones.
In short, IR radiation from the atmosphere to the surface adds to the flow of energy to the surface making it warmer than it would be without the greenhouse gases.
This is not precisely an equilibrium in the thermodynamical sense, if it were all of the pieces would have to be at the same temperature (including the sun and its radiation, which is basically the McGuffin that Chris Essex tried to sell), but a thermal balance between energy flowing into the surface and the atmosphere.
Gordon is blathering.
eli says;
“The energy flowing into and away from the surface is also in a balance established by solar warming (+), thermal radiation from the surface (-), absorption of IR radiation from greenhouse gases (+), vaporization (-) and condensation (+) of water and convection (-). Conduction away from the surface and warming from the mantle are minor and can be neglected.”
eli discovers the lack of discontinuity at BOA; he does believe in Miskolczi after all.
“Now that looks like a consensus, Patrick, and we all know that’s how science proceeds.”
Indeed, the general acceptance of theories usally proceeds from the presentation of sufficient weight of evidence. This would appear to be the case with AGW. Glad to see you can apply a bit of historiography to science, was it difficult for you?
Gee dribble – the intellectual pressure of your argument is crushing.
So you seem to be saying that we should be subject to non-stop solar warming.
But gee you might inform us if there has been a significant increase in solar forcing in the last 30 years?
Sorry Lukey, I didn’t say anything about solar induced warming except that it appears to be used by the IPCC explain the temperature rise in the early part of the 20th century. Whatever caused the warming in the latter part of the 20th century I don’t know and I don’t know enough about the subject to even begin to offer a theory. CO2 might be causing the temperature rise or it might not be. What I find insulting however is the sickening sight of all these overpaid, elitist and corrupt AGW scientific mediocrities pretending that climate science is at a mature enough stage to rule out anything else except CO2 as the cause.
Fair enuff Dribblers.
But might I suggest you seem to be suffering certain biases “I don’t know enough about the subject to even begin to offer a theory” uh-huh …
And “sickening sight of all these overpaid, elitist and corrupt AGW scientific mediocrities” – mmmm uh-huh.
And even though you “don’t know much about the subject” -BUT you “do know” that they’re corrupt and mediocre eh?
mmmmm – uh-huh – seems logical … (not!)
So it hasn’t ever dawned on you to be a bit of serious research? But easier just to be a ranter isn’t it. You realise there’s a tad more to it than a graph of CO2 and temperature. But don’t let us lobby you – back to ranting with you – off you go now. Quietly does it.
luke; Scafetta has taken a potshot back at Schmidt’s paper on him and the alleged dearth of solar forcing on climate in the latter 20thC;
http://climatesci.org/2009/08/03/nicola-scafetta-comments-on-solar-trends-and-global-warming-by-benestad-and-schmidt/
I will second that motion, and by acclamation the Luke is arse of the year.
I do particularly like that when the Luke is asked specifics, all they can do is act more rudely and pose as if they are authorities on something besides boorish behavior.
At the end of the day, the AGW community depends on arguments from authority to sustain its political agenda and credibility. Any serious questions about AGW and its credibility are simply dissembled or blustered away.
Notice that none of our AGW extremists can even admit that AGW is all about catastrophe, when each and every major part of the AGW community screeches on about the impending doom daily.
Lukey: And even though you “don’t know much about the subject” -BUT you “do know” that they’re corrupt and mediocre eh
I would have thought that Raupach et al offer all the evidence that any normal person would need to figure that out. What’s that bleating noise I hear coming from your room again Lukey? It sounds like your woolly companion is getting impatient for your nightly get together. Off you go now. Don’t push her too hard you know she doesn’t like it like that. Didn’t Mummy say the other day to stop being so rough with her?
Co’s dear lad, you are incoherent.
Eli and many others keep sayin:
“In short, IR radiation from the atmosphere to the surface adds to the flow of energy to the surface making it warmer than it would be without the greenhouse gases.”
But if this were true, I should be able to melt steel by combining the heat from several propane torches. I cannot. A cooler object (the atmosphere) cannot heat a warmer one (the surface/lower atmosphere).
Can someone show me why this thought experiment is not valid?
Oh, and Gordon’s analysis above is absolutely correct!
Cod’s wallop baby. What you can’t do is raise the temperature of the steel above that of the torch (in the earth’s case the sun which would be pretty toasty indeed). In the case of a torch on a piece of steel, the metal is always colder than the torch, because of radiation and convection. However you can easily raise the temperature of the steel by surrounding it with a metal box. A nice example of this is surrounding a light bulb with some aluminum foil (Darwin test warning. Don’t try it unless you have a clue about electricity). BTW, you could do the same thing with black paint which would absorb and not reflect.
Gordon is blowing gas and you are simply repeating.
“However you can easily raise the temperature of the steel by surrounding it with a metal box. ”
Sorry, Eli, but you can play around with paint, foil, boxes, all of those, and you will never melt steel with air/propane torches, even though the added wattage from several torches clearly exceeds the wattage from an oxy-acetylene torch, which WILL, INDEED melt the steel.
I challenge you to try it!
That is EXACTLY why you cannot add “backradiation” to up-radiation to increase temperatures.
You are the one blowing gas, rodent.
“Sorry, Eli, but you can play around with paint, foil, boxes, all of those, and you will never melt steel with air/propane torches, even though the added wattage from several torches clearly exceeds the wattage from an oxy-acetylene torch, which WILL, INDEED melt the steel.
I challenge you to try it!
That is EXACTLY why you cannot add “backradiation” to up-radiation to increase temperatures.
You are the one blowing gas, rodent.”
Eli just agreed with you, you won’t get the surface of the earth hotter than the sun. No one is claiming that will ever happen, (unless the sun goes red giant, worry about that when the time comes). What he is saying is that if you add insulation around the steel, it will get hotter than it would have without the insulation.
I suggest eli and little will immediately set out on a safari to find the legendary missing THS as evidence of the equally mythical back-radiation process; god speed!
SJT:
“Eli just agreed with you, you won’t get the surface of the earth hotter than the sun. No one is claiming that will ever happen, (unless the sun goes red giant, worry about that when the time comes). What he is saying is that if you add insulation around the steel, it will get hotter than it would have without the insulation.”
SJT, It really appears that you don’t know what the f&^%) you are talking about. Eli, as is extremely common among the AGW freaks, postulates a completely irrelevant buncha bullshit, designed to derail the whole conversation. He specializes in this kind of deceit. I wonder if it is actually his job? His “light bulb’ crap has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. If the reader doesn’t understand this, then it’s time to quit reading.
The question for those still interested and sober is: Can the atmosphere, at an average temperature of 0 C or less, actually affect the surface temperature at an average of 15 C? The answer, as clearly stated by Gordon, is NO. NO. NO.
Now, I don’t expect to win this argument in my lifetime, because even the majority of the “skeptics” don’t even understand the basic physics. Gordon and I do. But, WHO CARES, you get to see my opinion, anyway. LOL!
Oh, and…you will not see the rodent refute what I said about the propane torches, because I’m correct and he is wrong. “Back radiation” does nothing.
You’re an utter dick Jae – the light bulb has everything to do with the discussion. Why does the bulb get hotter? The foil is cooler than the element – but the foil system is hotter overall – according to Gordon there should be no difference.
And look at Coho go trying to slip a little bit of “mythical” into the discussion. You can measure backradiation with a radiometer boyo. Don’t try sneakies !
Obviously in Gordo/Coho land a photon knows where it came from.
SJT don’t waste you time on rank imbeciles like Jae
Eli:
I think the surface temperature is determined by the net energy balance from energy conservation.
Net energy content change of the earth system = incoming energy – outgoing energy.
Since greenhouse gases reduce the amount of outgoing energy, the surface layer of the earth warms.
Adding back radiation to this equation can be done, if you simultaneously subtract an equal amount of energy. Otherwise conservation of energy is violated.
Eli Rabett “In short, IR radiation from the atmosphere to the surface adds to the flow of energy to the surface making it warmer than it would be without the greenhouse gases”.
Based on your arguement, the heat radiated from the surface should warm at least the near atmosphere to a higher temperature than the surface. You have GHG’s heated by incoming solar IR as well as IR from the surface. Christy has looked for that warming, as claimed by AGW theory, and has not found it.
As G&T tried to point out, the 2nd Law applies to heat, not the summation of energies. I realize that heat is energy but it is a special application of energy related to the average kinetic energy of molecules/atoms. If you’re going to talk about the 2nd Law, and any contraventions thereof, you have to restrict it to a system in which atoms are emitting radiation due to the level of their kinetic energies.
One such system could be modeled by two surfaces radiating against each other, with one surface being heated by solar radiation and heating the other surface. That model is complicated by the fact that 52% of solar radiation is in the IR spectrum and heats the other surface (GHG surface) as well. Your arguement seems to be that GHG’s heated by solar radiaton can somehow store that radiation and add it to the solar radiation.
If you visualize one CO2 molecule, which physicists advise against due to the complexity of the phenomenon, and see it absorbing one photon of solar radiation, then emitting it, all it’s doing is relaying the Sun’s energy, not adding to it. If the molecule wasn’t there, the solar energy would reach the surface anyway.
That leaves the IR returning from the surface and being intercepted by a molecule of CO2, which physicists again advise us not to do due to the over-simplicity of that model. The photon reaching us from the surface is of a lower intensity and frequency than the photon from the Sun that warmed the surface. That’s obviously because the surface is cooler than the solar radiation. A photon leaving the surface represents a loss of energy at the surface, and it loses more steam going through the atmosphere. The atmosphere represents a conductive medium with resistance to heat flow. It is then absorbed and re-emited by a CO2 molecule, at a still lower energy and different frequency, because the atmosphere is cooler than the surface. This is all Planck’s Law.
With all those losses, how can a photon returning to the surface, that originated there, and which comes from a cooler body, have enough energy to warm the surface to a higher temperature than it was heated by solar radiaton?
The problem with your theory is that you are not allowing for the losses present when heat flows through a medium. Furthermore, you are not allowing for the fundamental differences in heat intensities of surfaces in that medium. Thirdly, your theory is not operating in a system. You are regarding energies as being independent when in fact the temperatures of the GHG’s are dependent on the surface temperature, which is dependent on solar radiation.
The surface cannot radiate energy and stay at the same temperature. It must lose heat when it radiates. That lost heat warms the GHG’s, which you are treating as independent heat sources. Even if the GHG heat could be added to solar radiation, it is of a magnitude smaller than the lost heat at the surface that created it. So how can that add so as to increase surface heat beyond the temperature to which it was heated by solar radiation? It wont even make up for the loss in surface heat that created it.
The model of the surfaces radiating against each other, with the Sun warming one surface, which warms the other, is the system of concern wrt the 2nd Law. The 2nd law states that the cooler surface cannot warm the warmer surface that warmed it, to a higher temperature than what it was warmed by the Sun. AGW theorists are playing mathematical games by claiming the cooler surface is an independent variable. It’s not, it’s temperature is totally dependent on the warmer surface, whose temperature is totally dependent on the Sun.
I am not arguing here about the greenhouse effect. I have already stated that I don’t know how the atmosphere is warmed. The GHE theory is a metaphor, IMHO. I would not be in the least surprised if it is not the oceans that are behind the warming.
correction…I said “AGW theorists are playing mathematical games by claiming the cooler surface is an independent variable”.
That should read, “AGW theorists are playing mathematical games by claiming the cooler atmosphere is an independent variable”.
I should be more specific…the cooler atmospheric GHG’s.
luke says; “Obviously in Gordo/Coho land a photon knows where it came from”; actually luke it is better than that; quantum entanglement, an empirically verified attribute of photons, says that not only do photons know where they came from they also know what their buddies are doing over any distance; Nicholas Gisin, a quantum physicist from the same neck of the woods as your mate Philipona, has recently done work which confirms the previous experiments of John Clauser and Stuart Freedman, Alain Aspect and John Bell’s original work in the 1960s; Gisin showed that if the properties of one photon are known than the properties of other photons from the same source will also be known; in this respect the property of distance is irrelevant so that information apparently is being transmitted faster than light;
The problem for Philipona therefore and his night-time, clear-sky, back-radiation measurements confirming AGW is that what he is measuring maybe just a paired response on the night side of Earth of what sun sourced photons are doing on the day side; which is striking the surface.
Yes Coho – an pair under identical cloud cover. NEXT !
I found a dead cat and poison vial in a box too.
After all these months we get – “I have already stated that I don’t know how the atmosphere is warmed. ” good night, sleep tight, don’ let the brain bugs bite.
“The problem for Philipona therefore and his night-time, clear-sky, back-radiation measurements confirming AGW is that what he is measuring maybe just a paired response on the night side of Earth of what sun sourced photons are doing on the day side; which is striking the surface.”
I thought it was Louis who liked the nuttiest theories, you are giving him a good run.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
“Secondly, the idea that a cooler atmospheric layer can emit infrared energy toward a warmer atmospheric layer below it seems unphysical to many people. I suppose this is because we would not expect a cold piece of metal to transfer heat into a warm piece of metal. But the processes involved in conductive heat transfer are not the same as in radiative heat transfer. A hot star out in space will still receive, and absorb, radiant energy from a cooler nearby star…even though the NET flow of energy will be in the opposite direction.
In other words, a photon being emitted by the cooler star doesn’t stick its finger out to see how warm the surroundings are before it decides to leave. “
Luke cites Wikipedia! Would you ever do that in a paper submitted to a journal? Oh, of course you have probably not had that experience..
““Secondly, the idea that a cooler atmospheric layer can emit infrared energy toward a warmer atmospheric layer below it seems unphysical to many people. I suppose this is because we would not expect a cold piece of metal to transfer heat into a warm piece of metal. But the processes involved in conductive heat transfer are not the same as in radiative heat transfer. A hot star out in space will still receive, and absorb, radiant energy from a cooler nearby star…even though the NET flow of energy will be in the opposite direction.”
This is NOT the same thing as saying that the down-radiation ADDS to radiation from the surface to create the requisite 390 wm-2. You cannot ADD radiation from a bunch of colder bodies to produce a body that is warmer than any of those colder bodies. And it seems to me that cartoons, such as K&T’s, do just that.
Wikipedia cites Meehl – J Climate you pig-ignorant hillbilly. Try what’s called “reading” the link.
““Secondly, the idea that a cooler atmospheric layer can emit infrared energy toward a warmer atmospheric layer below it seems unphysical to many people. I suppose this is because we would not expect a cold piece of metal to transfer heat into a warm piece of metal. But the processes involved in conductive heat transfer are not the same as in radiative heat transfer. A hot star out in space will still receive, and absorb, radiant energy from a cooler nearby star…even though the NET flow of energy will be in the opposite direction.”
This is all correct. But it is NOT what is being said by many proponents of CO2/AGW. It appears to me that the radiation cartoons, like the one by Kiehl and Trenberth, are depcting the ADDITION of back-radiation from the cold upper atmosphere to upward radiation from the warm surface. THAT is WRONG, as Gordon explains and as my example with the propane torches proves. You cannot ADD watts from the cold upper atmosphere to watts from the surface to “derive” some magic 390 watt “global average surface irradiation.”
And Luke, you and Eli can screw around with a lightbulb and tinfoil, black paint, etc. all you want, and you will never get a temperature that is hotter than the filament in the light bulb. Of course, that temperature is probably over 1,000 degrees! Likewise, you can produce some very high temperatures by focusing light from the sun. But those issues have NOTHING to do with the temperature of the atmosphere.
And how is that sun coming out to blow all the skeptics away?
Oh, its not, is it?
http://solarcycle24.com/
30 days, no sunpots. No new candidates seen yet.
Luke’s recent mantra about ‘the sun is out’ reminds me of a song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jdpc7aaAlQ&feature=related
AGW- a way for alleged grownups who have no ability at movie making to still make money telling scary stories.
SJT,
Your reliance on Spencer, whose work shows there is no AGW disaster in offing, only makes you look rather stupid.
“you will never get a temperature that is hotter than the filament in the light bulb.”
Are you artificially stupid Jae? The point is that any of these radiation shield examples give distance x from the heat source (filament) hotter than without the shield. NOT hotter than the source !!!
The simple point is that the bulb surface is hotter is it !
You guys say it can’t happen ! It does – so take a hike wankers.
oooo – ooo – gee Hunter a “whole 30 days” – ooooooooo – be still my beating heart
“hotter than without the shield”; the shield on the Earth is continually insulted by the rabbit talk of tin-foil [ I would like to see you in your tin-foil hat luke], insulation and motley blankets; the shield around the Earth has weight which effect is always ignored by the funny-bunny alarmists and it is flexible and MEP’ed as a cursory check of the history of optical depth fluctuations [ie there haven’t been any] over the last 60 years will show; the last 60 years is the period during which allegedly naughty humans hve been disrupting the garden of eden and pristine state of nature. As you know luke, the OD is the measure of the greenhouse effect; if it has been stationary for 60 years then whatever has been happening to climate during that time hasn’t been because of the greenhouse or enhanced greenhouse effect;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/optical-depth-trend-1.png
which makes the talk of back-radiation as relevant as britney’s weight fluctuations; hang on, maybe she is the greenhouse effect!
Luke: it is easy to tell that you are a true member of the “Church of the Latter Day AGW Liberals”: no substance, no science, no facts, just insults and “bumper sticker” slogans. Too bad you couldn’t have been in the USA to vote for Obamamania! LOL
You little snake wanker!
Luke,
I asked for the bright part of your ensemble to show up, and instead they send in grocery sacker.
But hey, you can count to 30; very impressive. Really.
So does your snark hide the fact that you admit the sun is not out, or does it hide the fact that you have no idea of what you are talking about on this topic, either?
Coho – ho ho ho ! – at what level of significance would you see a trend in that noise. ROTFL
What else affects optical depth …. mmmmm. Perhaps McLean et al could do some X-correlations. Or X-dressing?
Hunter – spots are there – it’s moving !
Jae – sorry you didn’t read the article now before ranting aren’t you doofus. Now off you toddle – time to get your diaper changed.
“SJT,
Your reliance on Spencer, whose work shows there is no AGW disaster in offing, only makes you look rather stupid.”
I’m not relying on Spencer, I’m just trying to get you to realise that even your own heroes acknowledge the greenhouse effect is real and agrees with the laws of physics. Spencer gets plenty wrong, but at least he gets that right.
What noise? It’s a linear trend based on annual means.
Coho – so what trend/values would you expect if greenhouse checks out and what’s statistical probability of finding it in a signal like that?
luke, I’m not sure what you mean but the OD can be measured fairly precisely;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_photometer
Line by line codes also allow very precise calculation of the absorption and emission in the atmosphere; the graphs I’ve linked to are based on NOAA data and apart from some disingenuous and ironic criticism of the data must be regarded as the standard; of all the aspects of Miskolczi it is the OD which is the most unassailable because it is empirical and from official data; as I say the trend for OD is a simple linear graph based on annual means from measured data; no embellishments; so if AGW were real and the greenhouse affect were increasing the trend for OD would be rising; it isn’t.
Yep all good – but you data series is all over the place. A trend – tell me – how much trend would you expect to see?
You mean a trend for AGW as compared with natural factors such as ENSO? Well, this is the $64 question. Here is a simple analysis;
PERIOD JAN/1977- DEC/2008
Temperature increases
Number of El Nino events 9
Sum of all temperature anomaly increases during El Ninos 0.990 C
Number of solar maximums 3 [2000, 1989, 1979]
Sum of all temperature anomaly increases around solar max 0.318C
Total temperature anomaly increases 0.990+ 0.318= 1.308 C
NOTE
1] There have been temperature anomaly increases immediately after a solar maximum for 8 0f the last 11 solar maximums]
2] Mount Pinatubo effect is included here [- 0.193C] for 1991-1992 El Nino.
3] 2005 -2006 El Nino also [-0.060 C]
Temperature decreases
Number of La Nina events 5
Sum of all temperature anomaly decreases during to La Ninas 0.500C
Sum of other temperature anomaly decreases due other causes 0.233C
[1981-1982, 1977-1978, 1990-1991]
Total temperature anomaly decreases 0.500 +0.233= 0 .733C
NET CHANGE 1.308- 0.733 = 0.575C
EXPECTED ANOMALY -0.254 + 0.575= 0.321C
[1976 anomaly plus net changes]
ACTUAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALY 2008 0.325C
On this basis the AGW effect on trend is: 0.325 – 0.321C = 0.004C.
Guenter, if you increase the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, the system will go out of balance, and there will be more incoming that outgoing radiation for a time until the surface warms enough to restore the balance. To do this the total amount of energy in the Earth system must increase and it does. Once the balance has been re-established, there will again be equal amounts of incoming and outgoing radiation. There is no violation of the first law.
It would, of course, be excellent if this were directly observed. Unfortunately a satellite that could do the job was axed for political reasons (google Triana). It would be good if we had a long term, reliable record of ocean energy content, but there, although measurements are improving, we don’t have a time machine to go back and start the system in 1850..
Gordon, you really are clueless. Lets start with your little paen to G&T:
“One such system could be modeled by two surfaces radiating against each other, with one surface being heated by solar radiation and heating the other surface. That model is complicated by the fact that 52% of solar radiation is in the IR spectrum and heats the other surface (GHG surface) as well. Your arguement seems to be that GHG’s heated by solar radiaton can somehow store that radiation and add it to the solar radiation.”
First of all the thermal radiation from a surface at ~300K (the earth) has about zero overlap with the thermal radiation from a surface at 5000 K (the sun). The solar spectrum poops out at ~3 microns, where the thermal from the earth starts. (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~kushnir/MPA-ENVP/Climate/lectures/energy/blackbody.gif for 1 sq meter of a body at each temperature) One can call anything longer than ~800 nm the IR which puts your setup into the perfectly true but purposely misleading category. Worse it is useless, because you never defined the temperature of your second surface but from the tone, Earth temperatures seem appropriate.
The second point you have not figured out is that the absorbed photon energy is rapidly transferred to the other, non-radiating, molecules in the atmosphere (oxygen and nitrogen) where the energy IS retained as thermal motion until transferred back to CO2 and H2O by collisions. The net is that a few percent of the greenhouse gases are on average vibrationally excited at any time and radiate.
For a small charge, Eli could go through the rest of your tangle, but this simple illustration should be enough for most others.
“For a small charge, Eli could go through the rest of your tangle, but this simple illustration should be enough for most others.”
LOL. Talk about wasting your money! 🙂
“Guenter, if you increase the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, the system will go out of balance, and there will be more incoming that outgoing radiation for a time until the surface warms enough to restore the balance.
Eli, please explain where all that “extra heat” from the increased CO2 over the last 10-12 years has gone. Something is certainly “complicating” your theory, at a minimum. What?
Hint to Eli: star.
Luke,
“spots are there! it moves!”
No, the spots are not there.
http://spaceweather.com/
Please post a link to a site that translates your gibberish, or have one of the coherent members of your pack borrow the keyboard for a moment or two.
SJT,
Most of us on the skeptical side are in general agreemnt with Spencer.
It is the AGW distortion of physics and its false claims and failed predictions that reasonable people are skeptical of .
Eli wrote:
Eli, do you have references to mean time to re-radiation and mean time to transfer to non-radiating gasses at various pressures? It was my understanding that at normal atmospheric pressures (100kPa or less) re-redaition time is an order of magnitude shorter than collision time, but perhaps I am wrong and that only applies for water->waper vapour and back, of course) would add significantly to the uncertainty. Propogation of likely error bounds would be nice, so we can all see how “sure” these calculations are. Of course, if you (or someone else) has already published such information, references will suffice. Thank you for your time.
Eli:
Heat is the net transport of energy across a system boundary. The whole earth system therefore warms according to the net energy difference at the top of the atmosphere. Not according to back radiation.
In radiation transfer the energy flows along decreasing temperature Back radiation for my opinion is a model concept or a way of bookkeeping if you model the earth system per example as a two layer system consisting of the land/ocean as 1 layer and the atmosphere as the second layer. If the atmosphere is colder as ocean and land, which is the case on average the heat flows from ocean/land to atmosphere. The amount of Radiation from the air to land/ocean is then always balanced if the atmosphere is colder and is therefore not warming anything if integrated globally. You cannot add back radiation to the incoming energy from sun at the ground without simultaneously adding the same amount of energy to the outgoing energy from the ground. Otherwise you created an energy source within the atmosphere out of nowhere. This would violate conservation of energy..
Again the earth system warms or cools according to the net energy difference at TOA
Of course as part of the horizontal energy transport radiation from a warmer air mass can warm a colder ground. However in terms of energy conservation for the whole earth system the horizontal energy transport integrates to zero.
Coho – you’d do well on team McLean – adding rampantly, disregarding any cross correlations and inventing Jack’s beanstalk where the world continually warms itself from pixie dust.
LOL !
Hunter – there were a few spots in June. Many think change is nigh. We’ll see.
Eli Rabett “Worse it is useless, because you never defined the temperature of your second surface but from the tone, Earth temperatures seem appropriate”.
Thanks for corroborating that AGW theory is clueless. That’s all it is based on, a clueless model based on two surfaces radiating against each other. I don’t give a hoot about the model and I did not present it as proof of anything. I presented the two surfaces as the model used by the AGW theory. The only other model they have is the blanket theory (photon traps) which is a serious hoot.
“The second point you have not figured out is that the absorbed photon energy is rapidly transferred to the other, non-radiating, molecules in the atmosphere (oxygen and nitrogen) where the energy IS retained as thermal motion until transferred back to CO2 and H2O by collisions”.
Hold on!! Where in the AGW theory, or in the IPCC dogma, is anything said about the ‘non-radiating’ molecules? You are stealing my theory, that the 97% of atmospheric gases made up of N2 and O2 are being completely overlooked. We are crediting GHGs, which make up no more than 1% of atmospheric gases with raising the average atmospheric temperature by 33 C. As far as them being non-radiative, explain the satellites picking up radiation from O2.
Are you now claiming that N2 and O2 are warmed solely by the 1% of GHG’s? Lindzen doesn’t seem to think so. He thinks it is conduction, convection and the transport of heat via clouds that moves most of the heat. Before you go off into your pseudo-science, try explaining how the photons are transfered. Remember, we’re talking about radiative transfer.
Since you have intimated that G&T are clueless, it doesn’t bother me that you think I am too. What I have found about people who refer to others as being clueless is that it’s them who are clueless. I’ve seen your critique of G&T’s paper and I’d be embarrassed to reveal my utter lack of physics by putting out such a paper.
Besides, you’re playing the old alarmist trick of not answering the charge that the 2nd Law is contravened. You clearly have no idea what the 2nd Law is about.
Luke has had his head up his ass for so long that his brain has been severely deprived of oxygen. Hence, he spouts complete moronshitspeak.
SJT ““Secondly, the idea that a cooler atmospheric layer can emit infrared energy toward a warmer atmospheric layer below it seems unphysical to many people.”
I have written to Roy about this point because he seems to be under the impression that people are attacking the GHE theory with the 2nd Law whereas they are attacking the AGW theory. Personally, I don’t care about the GHE theory because it is too simplistic to be taken seriously. If you look at what he’s saying, it’s that a cooler body radiating to a warmer body is not unusual. No one is arguing that. The argument is about a warmer body warming a cooler body and the cooler body back-radiating energy to the warmer body so as to warm it to a higher temperature than it was when it warmed the cooler body. That’s what the tipping point theory, as well as the AGW theory is based on.
The flaw in both theories is that energy losses are not taken into account, and surface radiation, GHG back-radiation, and solar radiation, are taken as independent quantities of energy that can be arbitrarily summed to produce a net positive energy. The only independent energy source is solar radiation. It produces the surface radiation which produces the GHG back-radiation, with losses of energy between the latter two. In fact, the solar energy loses a significant amount of its energy coming through the atmosphere, and it’s IR portion warms GHG’s on the way in.
It strikes me as a being a complex mess that has been highly simplified.
Gordon,
you are seriously wasting your time trying to get “Eli Rabbet” (the psuedonym for “Joshua Halpern, a chemist at Howard University with connections to NASA” according to Chris Horner, and who (Eli) encites people to violence on other fora) to answer a serious question on AGW – he does not and will not answer such questions with anything other than abuse, if he answers at all. Like much in AGW, the answers are always “it’s obvious” or “everyone knows” etc etc, but never any actual evidence. Unless you “believe” in AGW, you are a “denier” or “oil company shill” etc. Of course, true believers are exempt from any mention of their own funding arrangements (eg. Al Gore, who turned $3M into $100M with help from his “award winning documentary” on the “climate crisis”; the Real Climate blog, funded by Fenton Communications, the PR firm that perpetrated the “algar on apples” scam on Americans amongst other such “scare campaigns”), as it may simply “confuse” people if they know that those promoting the “solution” to this “problem” have a financial interest in the “solution” – they’d much rather you focused on the “problem” (and dumped some of your hard earned right in their pocket – thanks for caring!).
And just for the record: I am agnostic on AGW. That is to say, I have not yet seen compelling evidence from *either* side that proves (or refutes, as the case may be) that anthropogenic CO2 will take us all to hell in a hand basket. It’s therefore my view that it is *way* too early in the piece to focus on “doing something” about it, when we know so little. Of course, the PR experts from the AGW side will no doubt tell me we should do something “just in case”, or that there are “other, good reasons” for doing what they suggest; yet they never seem to argue those other “good reasons” and then suggest “Oh, and if AGW is correct, that’s another good reason to do it” – funny that!
McLean isn’t dead yet;
http://landshape.org/enm/comment-on-mclean-submitted/
But eli is terminal I’m afraid; the nonsense about the bulk of the atmosphere being warmed by collisional transfer from CO2 defies logic; the N2 and O2 mass are heated by conduction with the surface and within the surface parcels of air when CO2 absorbs parts of Sg [upward IR] a LTE occurs with no internal transfer of energy because the internal air of an LTE is thermalised and no energy gradient exists; that discrete parcel rises to the CEL [characteristic emission layer] where the internal temperature of the LTE equalises with the surrounding air and the CO2 emits; the isotropic direction of the emission is constrained by the opaqueness underneath [another severe constraint to back radiation]; since the rising parcel of air has cooled as it rose it now sinks to repeat the process.
The amount of collisional induced absorption by N2 and O2 is tiny because it requires high pressure.
Neil, what a rational and sensible opinion you have expressed above. It amazes me that alarm bells have not been ringing in sensible peoples heads about both the certainty of AGW and the obvious self interest, lies, exagerations and misrepresentation of “science”. Politics is so clearly dominating so much of it. I have no doubt that many / most of the scientists who believe in AGW, do so honestly. But when you set out to prove something it is easy to be blinded by your goal and your biases.
I still think the over riding question should be, if its happening can we do anything about it and if so what will the cost be. Then we can decide if we should act or not.
There is clearly nothing significant that can be done, given current technology and the developing worlds need for fossil fuels.
I also think it is obvious that politics has been guiding this bus for a long time as well. People that say well we’ve done that, garnaut and stern have done the cost/ benefit analysis…clearly don t understand the politics driving their papers!
People that say we “sceptics” ( in reality i think most of sceptics are really agnostic on the science but not the politics or the possibility of playing god) are in the pay of oil etc shoot themselves in the foot. The amount of money proving AGW so vastly outweighs the money spent by oil companies.
“Like much in AGW, the answers are always “it’s obvious” ”
I don’t think there is anything ‘obvious’ about AGW. The science behind it is quite complex and reading and understanding the IPCC reports and papers on the topic is difficult for me. The problem is that most of the science is too complex for most people to understand without spending a lot of time on the matter.
Coho – sorry was that a little squeak on some UNPUBLISHED backwater blog? McLean et al is buried and you ought know better.
Toby do you really think about anything you write “in reality i think most of sceptics are really agnostic on the science but not the politics or the possibility of playing god” – mate – really – if you can’t see the political stamp you’re blind ! Just look at the collection of ongoing anti-AGW comments on here !
Tell us Toby – how many GRL or JC papers have you read in the last 6 months ?
Actually Cohers – says who about the whole last load of radiative opinion. References pls.
“The amount of collisional induced absorption by N2 and O2 is tiny because it requires high pressure.” – says who?
“says who”; eli. He taught me everything I know. And by the way David’s comment on McLean has been submitted to JGR.
C’mon Luke, you have never published
Eli:
Just a minor correction about a often repeated misconception in books about meteorology or climate change.
The Intensity of the Planck spectrum of a surface with 5000 K and a surface with 300 K have full overlap in the following respect. The intensity from a 5000 K blackbody is higher at each wavelength then the intensity from a 300K blackbody. The incoming radiation from the sun and the outgoing radiation from the earth overlap at three micron at the earth orbit because of Gauss’ law. Intensity is proportional to the inverse of the squared radius
Eli:
A thought experiment about back radiation:
Let us consider our favorite reference state, a rock earth with an albedo of 0.3 and O2/N2 atmosphere with the standard lapse rate. Sun insolation about 240 W/m2. Surface temperature at 255 K slightly warmer as surface air temperature.
Now let us swap the O2/N2 atmosphere to CO2 with the same pressure and temperature distribution in the same instant as we switch off the sun. Do you really think that back radiation is warming the surface and obeying the laws of physics by doing so?
I don’t think so.
Neil, you can get some of the information you want from this “old” paper
http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ppv/RPViewDoc?issn=1480-3291&volume=52&issue=8&startPage=1436
which is a pretty good introduction to the kinetics of the energy transfer process. I think the numbers are reasonable, although, of course, more recent measurements probably will differ slightly.
The radiative lifetime for CO2 is pretty long, mostly because the radiation rate scales as the frequency to the third power, so out at 700 cm-1 the rates are slow (I don’t have a # offhand, but it is orders of magnitude slower than the collisional energy transfer at atmospheric pressures (~2 E19 molecules/cm3)
More later. This has lead me to some interesting stuff
“in reality i think most sceptics are really agnostic on the science but not the politics or the possibility of playing god” – mate – really – if you can’t see the political stamp you’re blind ! Just look at the collection of ongoing anti-AGW comments on here !
luke I see the politics all over the AGW side, and I see mostly common sense on the side of the “sceptics”…so shoot me.
Here at my school I have been vocal about AGW and an ETS for the last 5 years, and for a long time I have just been given the cold shoulder and been called a fruitcake etc…now even the environmental science teachers are telling me an ETS sux, and how politics is dominating everything and even…yes…..the science is still questionable. I would reckon 90% of them vote labour.
So your point is ….I think that you believe all sceptics on this blog are right wing and its our politics that makes us see AGW and its impending doom as probably bollox?…mate there are sceptics everywhere you go. The labour party has many of them as well…only in the labour party they dont allow you to have an opinion of your own, or the right to vote freely, unless its a conscience vote…doesnt say much for them i reckon.
Luke, do you think given current technology that there is anything that can be done about future warming if co2 is the culprit?
Do you think an ETS of any form will accomplish its goal of reducing temperature?
Do you support wasting huge sums on “clean coal”..do you even think it could really be viable?
Deep down i am sure you know the answer is no to those questions….so its clearly political and you should really be speaking out against it, not continually supporting all the bullshit that you must know is being spoken by labour, green and liberal.
Yep indeed – combination of new nuclear, CO2 sequestration, solar and efficiency.
And we don’t take your defeatist attitude with human disease do we?
A global ETS would be worth it if all in. Not a unilateral Aussie only.
Last point Toby – probably 70% of the population doesn’t care about this stuff one way or another – they’re watching the footy.
Luke I agree that there is a lot of potential in nuclear to cut emissions…but the politics wont allow us to even have that debate. Even if they said go today, it wouldnt do anything for 10 years or so, but I have no issue with doing this because I see benefits wHether AGW is real or not…peak oil is coming at some time after all. I doubt co2 sequestration will work. Solar still needs work and yes plenty of room for efficiency..but not driven by an ets ….AND efficency will not actually cut co2 globally…only locally, too many people still trying to get out of poverty. But I bet everybody on this blog would agree with making efficiency gains..and probably most agree with using nuclear…brings us back to politics doesnt it!?
With disease we actually know we have a problem, its identifiable and quantifiable. AND importantly most of the research is privately funded with the goal of making a profit. I think your example is apples and oranges.
I agree 70% of the population don t care and thats why surveys so far show them being in favour of it because they are too stupid to think about the consequences of an ETS…when some lose their jobs, inflation rises, electricty prices shoot up, economic growth is limited and blackouts start occuring….then they will care.
SEEMS TO ME WE AGREE ON MANY THINGS I THINK…INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THE POLITICS IS DRIVING DECISION MAKING…NOT REAL SCIENCE…so is it time for you to speak up and shout for some common sense on this topic?
Eli wrote:
Thanks Eli – seems I had it backward; my bad.
Toby wrote:
Indeed
Especially given that China has already stated that it has no intention of limiting CO2 if it means curtailing economic growth. Since they have recently become the worlds largest emitter, and that their stated path will see them doubling CO2 output by 2050 at the latest, it seems crazy for us to go down the low emissions route on our own bat.
Eli, since you are in a “giving” mood, have you found a validation study on climate models? I asked you in another thread but you didn’t answer.
Yes Neil even Martin fergurson the Minister for Resources and Energy has pointed that the chinese are building so many new coal plants that ntg we do including turning of everything, will be negated within months…..but of course being part of labour he was not allowed to really say what he meant, you have to read between the lines.
In a target rich environment, the bunny shoots the cripples first, but around here there are so many cripples that it’s gonna take some time
Luke, quoting Cohers
“The amount of collisional induced absorption by N2 and O2 is tiny because it requires high pressure.” – says who?
Cohers
“says who”; eli. He taught me everything I know.
Frightening. Well yes, the amount of collision induced absorption by N2 and O2 is small, on the other hand, the amount of vibrational energy transfer from CO2 and H2O to translational energy in the atmosphere is not small. The difference is that collision induced absorption occurs when two molecules are very close to each other and their electrons interact to form a collision complex (a fleeting event that occurs only for picoseconds) which then can absorb a photon.
In vibrational energy transfer, a molecule such as CO2 absorbs a photon to become vibrationally excited. That energy can be transferred to translational energy by collision with other molecules. At atmospheric temperature and pressure that might take a few thousand collisions, and something like 10-100 microseconds. Since the radiative lifetime is much longer than that, most greenhouse molecules that absorb photons turn their vibrational energy into thermal motion.
OTOH, they greenhouse gas molecules can be excited vibrationally by collision. The net of all this is that there is a local thermodynamic equilibrium with about 5% of the CO2 molecules vibrationally excited. Of course, which ones are excited keeps changing rapidly as they lose and gain vibrational energy by collision. That is what accounts for the emission.
Cohers is talking about one thing and meaning the other, insofar as he actually understands anything.
Elirodent:
“In a target rich environment, the bunny shoots the cripples first, but around here there are so many cripples that it’s gonna take some time”
You arrogant prick! No wonder nobody respects you!
By the way, rodent, your misunderstanding of reality is emphasized by the fact that bunnies don’t shoot anything, they GET shot. LOL. Your little discourse seems correct, as far as it goes, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the price of tea in China (or the Global Warming Scam). Yeah, CO2 radiates energy. So does HOH, rocks, humans, etc., etc., etc. Why don’t you address the elephant in the room: http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=754 ??
Having just returned from Canberra and a successful protest against the vibrational grotesquery of the CPRS what do I find; some snark from eli who must be related to little will in as much as they are both devoid of the irony gene.
And one thing I do understand is despite eli’s recherche hubris he has no evidence; eli’s exposition on collision/vibration must be defeated by other atmospheric process; as described by Chilingar, Khilyuk and Sorokhtin perhaps; I won’t give the link, eli will know it and I suspect sleeps with a copy under his bunny pillow.