It Is The Sun

[choff]

Ernst Beck gathered direct atmospheric data from over 20 scientists 1800 to present. There were ample data sets showing CO2 levels higher than today, I remember reading one of 700ppm over Greenland. Modern climatologists cherry picked a couple of data sets that showed low numbers conforming the AGW theory. What Becks data collection shows is that there is nothing unusual about todays CO2 levels compared to recent preindustrial.

http://drtimball.com/2011/ernst-georg-b ... deceivers/

[tomclarke]

I'm indebted to skeptical science for the material I paraphrase here, which is relevant to Beck's stuff as linked in the last post. The psychology of belief is a source of continual interest to me and there is no stronger medium for the propagation of politically-oriented beliefs about science than the internet....

Fred Singer is a well-known climate contrarian whose views on the politics of climate science I strongly disagree with. Also, he has many ideas about the errors in climate science which are (provably) wrong. However, he does at least have the consistency to call out many of the egregious science myths put forward by deniers. You might say that emotionally he just likes debunking this. He is a climate contrarian because it is always more attractive to debunk authority, but he can't resist (it is so so easy) debunking deniers as well...

Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics—i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.

Then there is another group of deniers who accept the existence of the greenhouse effect but argue about the cause and effect of the observed increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. One subgroup holds that CO2 levels were much higher in the 19th century, so there really hasn’t been a long-term increase from human activities. They even believe in a conspiracy to suppress these facts. Another subgroup accepts that CO2 levels are increasing in the 20th century but claims that the source is release of dissolved CO2 from the warming ocean. In other words, they argue that oceans warm first, which then causes the CO2 increase. In fact, such a phenomenon is observed in the ice-core record, where sudden temperature increases precede increases in CO2. While this fact is a good argument against the story put forth by Al Gore, it does not apply to the 20th century: isotopic and other evidence destroys their case.

Another subgroup simply says that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is so small that they can’t see how it could possibly change global temperature. But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly. Another subgroup says that natural annual additions to atmospheric CO2 are many times greater than any human source; they ignore the natural sinks that have kept CO2 reasonably constant before humans started burning fossil fuels. Finally, there are the claims that major volcanic eruptions produce the equivalent of many years of human emission from fossil-fuel burning. To which I reply: OK, but show me a step increase in measured atmospheric CO2 related to a volcanic eruption.

It is difficult to know whether we should laugh or cry. TV weatherman Joe Bastardi recently opined:

CO2 cannot cause global warming. I’ll tell you why. It doesn’t mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot — it literally cannot cause global warming.

The idea that CO2 doesn't mix well with the atmosphere is so way out you'd think NASA could use it for extrasolar missions...

Singer seems to have lost patience with both “sides”:

I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced warmistas and probably even less with true deniers. So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out.

In view of the last sentence, and whilst the abandonment of a number of contrarian myths is an encouraging sign, it is odd that the piece finishes with five supposed quotes. Let's take one of them and examine it in detail:

"“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” —Sir John Houghton, First Chairman of the IPCC"


A Google of that reveals it has been copied and pasted far and wide across the Internet echo-chamber. So: where did it originate? Peter Hadfield wanted to know that whilst studying some of Christopher Monckton's output, and this is what he found. Its first appearance in that form was in an Australian Sunday Telegraph article in November, 2006.

But is that really what Houghton said? The original goes back to an interview with him in the UK Daily Telegraph on September 10, 1995:

If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we'll have to have a disaster. It's like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there's been an accident.

But how did the error with the quote occur? The journalist who used it in the Australian Sunday Telegraph stated that he obtained the first sentence without the explanatory second and third. He then "tidied up" the first sentence into a more dramatic, but less true, form, which, given the missing context, completely misrepresents Houghton's stated views.

OK. That sort of thing happens in the blogosphere. So that's it, then, is it? Not quite: six years later, we still have Singer and others repeating the misquote without question. From the beginning of Singer's article:

"We try to repeat or independently derive what we read in publications—just to make sure that no mistakes have been made."

-----------------------

My point here is that I'm all for people being skeptical of both sides. What I'm, not happy about is a pseudo-skepticism that starts with the belief that climate scientists must be wrong or political and then extracts snippets, and egregiously stupid ideas to support this belief.

I'd say nearly all of the material posted on these three threads is of this pseudo-skeptic type: and those posting it should maybe check the (easy) rebuttals and then ask themselves why they accept it so readily?

Now, since a lot of the criticism here is about AOGCMs and what the IPCC says about then, I'd be expecting a comprehensive critique of Chapter 8 of the latest IPCC report which is about evaluation of climate models. Let me just give you a few quotes to start the ball rolling.

MSimon above suggests that the AOGCMs have no predictive skill because they are tuned. Actually, whether they show predictive skill depends on how many adjustable parameters are tuned, and how predictive are the models after tuning. Tuning on one set of data, and test on a different (independent) set of data is another way to estimate skill because over-fitting to the first data set will result in bad correspondence with the second. I'm waiting for him to make a more quantitative argument here, or reference somone else who has done this. I'd be interested.

Systematic biases have been found in most models’
simulation of the Southern Ocean. Since the Southern
Ocean is important for ocean heat uptake, this results in
some uncertainty in transient climate response.

Progress in the simulation of important modes of climate
variability has increased the overall confi dence in the
models’ representation of important climate processes.
As a result of steady progress, some AOGCMs can now
simulate important aspects of the El Niño-Southern
Oscillation (ENSO). Simulation of the Madden-Julian
Oscillation (MJO) remains unsatisfactory.

A few climate models have been tested for (and shown)
capability in initial value predictions, on time scales from
weather forecasting (a few days) to seasonal forecasting
(annual). The capability demonstrated by models under these
conditions increases confi dence that they simulate some of the
key processes and teleconnections in the climate system.

What is meant by climate model evaluation?
A specific prediction based on a model can often be
demonstrated to be right or wrong, but the model itself should
always be viewed critically. This is true for both weather
prediction and climate prediction. Weather forecasts are
produced on a regular basis, and can be quickly tested against
what actually happened. Over time, statistics can be accumulated
that give information on the performance of a particular model
or forecast system. In climate change simulations, on the other
hand, models are used to make projections of possible future
changes over time scales of many decades and for which there
are no precise past analogues. Confidence in a model can be
gained through simulations of the historical record, or of
palaeoclimate, but such opportunities are much more limited
than are those available through weather prediction. These and
other approaches are discussed below.

A specific prediction based on a model can often be
demonstrated to be right or wrong, but the model itself should
always be viewed critically. This is true for both weather
prediction and climate prediction. Weather forecasts are
produced on a regular basis, and can be quickly tested against
what actually happened. Over time, statistics can be accumulated
that give information on the performance of a particular model
or forecast system. In climate change simulations, on the other
hand, models are used to make projections of possible future
changes over time scales of many decades and for which there
are no precise past analogues. Confidence in a model can be
gained through simulations of the historical record, or of
palaeoclimate, but such opportunities are much more limited
than are those available through weather prediction. These and
other approaches are discussed below.

Differences between model and observations should be
considered insignificant if they are within:
1. unpredictable internal variability (e.g., the observational
period contained an unusual number of El Niño events);
2. expected differences in forcing (e.g., observations for the
1990s compared with a ‘pre-industrial’ model control run);
or
3. uncertainties in the observed fields.

[choff]

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014 ... t-the-co2/

I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2.

[tomclarke]

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014 ... t-the-co2/

I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2.

Here we go...

The way that CO2 increases earth temperature is really interesting. And complex. It seems there are a few IR astronomers who know the basic IR bit but don't bother with the complex bit. That is like a lot of climate science: you have to look beyond the initial "its obvious" ideas to see the whole picture.

Luckily, in this case the complexity can be understood by everyone here.

First look at the observational evidence:
Harries 2001: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 355a0.html
Griggs 2004: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.o ... eid=849920
Chen 2007: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/su ... 1.131.3867
All these compare satellite spectra of radiation from the earth as seen from space.
Harries compares IRIS and IMG satellite data for spectral differences between 1970 and 1997 and finds less radiation from earth atmosphere in wavelengths dominated by CO2 absorption.
The others add newer comparisons from AIRS and AURA at later dates.
All find changes in emission spectra matching those expected due to rising CO2.

Evans 2006: http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/te ... 100737.htm

Has measured downward IR radiation from the atmosphere to the surface and by looking at very detailed spectrum has identified how much of this comes from which GHG. the results again show the expected contribution from CO2.

So the empirical facts say that increasing CO2 reduces emission from the earth at some wavelengths.

How is it that this IR spectrometry guy gets it wrong? Well, he is going outside his field and instead of taking the time to read the literature, as I'd hope he normally would, he is jumping to conclusions. He is in good company. Arrhenius 1896 agreed with his argument!

It is true that the increase in temperature with increasing CO2 concentration is roughly logarithmic - not linear. So we know something more complex is going on.

Here is what he is arguing, and why it does not work theoretically:

• CO2 absorbs nearly all the Infrared (heat) radiation leaving the Earth's surface that it can absorb. True!
  Therefore adding more CO2 won't absorb much more IR radiation at the surface. True!
  Therefore adding more CO2 can't cause more warming. FALSE!!!

If the air is only absorbing heat from the surface then the air should just keep getting hotter and hotter. By now the Earth should be a cinder from all that absorbed heat. But not too surprisingly, it isn't! What are we missing?

The air doesn't just absorb heat, it also loses it as well! The atmosphere isn't just absorbing IR Radiation (heat) from the surface. It is also radiating IR Radiation (heat) to Space. If these two heat flows are in balance, the atmosphere doesn't warm or cool - it stays the same.

Lets think about a simple analogy:

We have a water tank. A pump is adding water to the tank at, perhaps, 100 litres per minute. And an outlet pipe is letting water drain out of the tank at 100 litres per minute. What is happening to the water level in the tank? It is remaining steady because the flows into and out of the tank are the same. In our analogy the pump adding water is the absorption of heat by the atmosphere; the water flowing from the outlet pipe is the heat being radiated out to space. And the volume of water inside the tank is the amount of heat in the atmosphere.

What might we do to increase the water level in the tank?

We might increase the speed of the pump that is adding water to the tank. That would raise the water level. But if the pump is already running at nearly its top speed, I can't add water any faster. That would fit the 'It's Saturated' claim: the pump can't run much faster just as the atmosphere can't absorb the Sun's heat any faster

But what if we restricted the outlet, so that it was harder for water to get out of the tank? The same amount of water is flowing in but less is flowing out. So the water level in the tank will rise. We can change the water level in our tank without changing how much water is flowing in, by changing how much water is flowing out.

Similarly we can change how much heat there is in the atmosphere by restricting how much heat leaves the atmosphere rather than by increasing how much is being absorbed by the atmosphere.

This is how the Greenhouse Effect works. The Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapour absorb most of the heat radiation leaving the Earth's surface. Then their concentration determines how much heat escapes from the top of the atmosphere to space. It is the change in what happens at the top of the atmosphere that matters, not what happens down here near the surface.

So how does changing the concentration of a Greenhouse gas change how much heat escapes from the upper atmosphere? As we climb higher in the atmosphere the air gets thinner. There is less of all gases, including the greenhouse gases. Eventually the air becomes thin enough that any heat radiated by the air can escape all the way to Space. How much heat escapes to space from this altitude then depends on how cold the air is at that height. The colder the air, the less heat it radiates.

So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space. So this can only happen higher in the atmosphere. Where it is colder. So the amount of heat escaping is reduced.

By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push 'the action' higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further.

I'm indebted to skeptical science for collecting the facts together above.

The second part of the IR guys argument is that H2O is the main GHG. He is right. It is the main GHG. But its not the only GHG.


You can see that while H2O dominates most of the spectrum, CO2 dominates parts. But that is not enough. In fact it does not itself prove anything!

You need also to factor in how much H2O there is in the atmosphere relative to CO2, and where is the H2O relative to the CO2. H2O concentration varies with temperature (obviously) so it is mainly in the lower layers of the atmosphere. At the TOA CO2 will dominate.

Working out the relative effects of H2O and CO2 theoretically you need the temperature profile and RH profile of the atmosphere - maybe you can to first approximation assume constant RH. You need the absorption (and therefore emission) spectra of H2O and CO2. You then solve the radiative balance equations. If keen you then make convective corrections as well.

All this has been done, many times over, by climate scientists over the last 50 years.

But not, it seems, by one retired IR astronomy guy, who knows from long experience H2O dominates over CO2 in IR absorption through the total atmosphere (which it does overall) and that CO2 absorption is saturated (which it is).

[MSimon]

The pause is going to be followed by a large drop. CO2 doesn't explain that. In 5 years the CO2 theory of climate will be dead. (Well you might still have faith) Your difficulty Tom is that you lack the patience to allow events to unfold.

In any case when the drop is well confirmed we will get deeper looks into PV=nRT. Solar TSI. Solar magnetism. Cosmic rays. etc.

It doesn't matter how pretty your theory is (and it is VERY pretty) if it has no predictive power.

[tomclarke]

The pause is going to be followed by a large drop. CO2 doesn't explain that. In 5 years the CO2 theory of climate will be dead. (Well you might still have faith) Your difficulty Tom is that you lack the patience to allow events to unfold.

In any case when the drop is well confirmed we will get deeper looks into PV=nRT. Solar TSI. Solar magnetism. Cosmic rays. etc.

It doesn't matter how pretty your theory is (and it is VERY pretty) if it has no predictive power.

Your hypothesis that there will shortly be a significant drop in temperatures has not only no theory, but no evidence. We have on these threads gone through quite a lot of ideas about this, none of which even remotely hold together.

So faith is a wonderful thing and we all need faith in something - but to have faith in a particular scientific hypothesis seems to me a bit dangerous.

[MSimon]

So faith is a wonderful thing and we all need faith in something - but to have faith in a particular scientific hypothesis seems to me a bit dangerous.

I have evidence of a de Vries Cycle. Add in a negative PDO and a negative AMO and not much faith is required. And you are correct. The evidence so far is inconclusive. But you will see it get more definitive in the coming years. Patience. Climate doesn't happen in a day.

I have come to the conclusion that CO2 has zero effect on the Earth climate. Solar + ocean cycles explains it all.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/17/s ... -the-past/

The present “stagnation” of global temperature ( Fig. 5 ) is essentially due to the AMO/PDO: the solar de Vries cycle is presently at its maximum, around which it changes negligibly. The AMO/PDO is presently beyond its maximum, corresponding to the small decrease of global temperature. Its next minimum will be 2035. Due to the de Vries cycle the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the “little ice age” of 1870.

The article gives a slight nod to CO2. I give none.

[tomclarke]

You have on these threads advanced a number of ideas which claim CO2 has no effect, all of which I've shown to be bust.

You have suggested that a 200 yr solar cycle explains all (or most) temperature change ove rthe last 150 years, which does not well fit the facts.

You have not explained why the (complex in all detail but basic physics) forcimng effect of CO2 (1C/doubling) does not exist. If you have neutral feedbacks you have to explain what caused the large needed negative feedback to balance the known H2O positive.

You are intellectually up shot creek without a paddle on this one. Correlation is not causation and the only evidence you have is very weak correlation. With such a level of correlation you can prove anything.

Whereas the evidence for CO2 influence is much more substantial than an "unknown effect" post hoc correlation.

So faith is a wonderful thing and we all need faith in something - but to have faith in a particular scientific hypothesis seems to me a bit dangerous.

I have evidence of a de Vries Cycle. Add in a negative PDO and a negative AMO and not much faith is required. And you are correct. The evidence so far is inconclusive. But you will see it get more definitive in the coming years. Patience. Climate doesn't happen in a day.

I have come to the conclusion that CO2 has zero effect on the Earth climate. Solar + ocean cycles explains it all.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/17/s ... -the-past/

The present “stagnation” of global temperature ( Fig. 5 ) is essentially due to the AMO/PDO: the solar de Vries cycle is presently at its maximum, around which it changes negligibly. The AMO/PDO is presently beyond its maximum, corresponding to the small decrease of global temperature. Its next minimum will be 2035. Due to the de Vries cycle the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the “little ice age” of 1870.

The article gives a slight nod to CO2. I give none.

[choff]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/07/t ... new-paper/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/n ... ter-vapor/

Table 2. Change of OLR by layer from water vapor and from CO2 from 1990 to 2001.
The calculations show that the cooling effect of the water vapor changes on OLR is 16 times greater than the warming effect of CO2 during this 11-year period. The cooling effect of the two upper layers is 5.8 times greater than the warming effect of the lowest layer.

The Tropical Hot Spot

The models predict a distinctive pattern of warming – a “hot-spot” of enhanced warming in the upper atmosphere at 8 km to 13 km over the tropics, shown as the large red spot in Figure 8. The temperature at this “hot-spot” is projected to increase at a rate of two to three times faster than at the surface. However, the Hadley Centre’s real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations from weather balloons shown below does not show the projected hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. If it was there it would have been easily detected.

The hot-spot is forecast in climate models due to the theory that the water vapor profile in the tropics is dominated by the moist adiabatic lapse rate, which requires that water vapor increases in the upper atmosphere with warming. The moist adiabatic lapse rate describes how the temperature of a parcel of water-saturated air changes as it move up in the atmosphere by convection such as within a thunder cloud. A graph here shows two lapse rate profiles with a larger temperature difference in the upper atmosphere than at the surface. The projected water vapor increase creates the hot-spot and is responsible for half to two-thirds of the surface warming in the IPCC climate models.

Conclusion

Climate models predict upper atmosphere moistening which triples the greenhouse effect from man-made carbon dioxide emissions. The new satellite data from the NASA water vapor project shows declining upper atmosphere water vapor during the period 1988 to 2001. It is the best available data for water vapor because it has global coverage. Calculations by a line-by-line radiative code show that upper atmosphere water vapor changes at 500 mb to 300 mb have 29 times greater effect on OLR and temperatures than the same change near the surface. The cooling effect of the water vapor changes on OLR is 16 times greater than the warming effect of CO2 during the 1990 to 2001 period. Radiosonde data shows that upper atmosphere water vapor declines with warming. The IPCC dismisses the radiosonde data as the decline is inconsistent with theory. During the 1990 to 2001 period, upper atmosphere water vapor from satellite data declines more than that from radiosonde data, so there is no reason to dismiss the radiosonde data. Changes in water vapor are linked to temperature trends in the upper atmosphere. Both satellite data and radiosonde data confirm the absence of any tropical upper atmosphere temperature amplification, contrary to IPCC theory. Four independent data sets demonstrate that the IPCC theory is wrong. CO2 does not cause significant global warming.


The early 1960's astronauts were sujected to rigorous psychological evalutaion prior to acceptance into the NASA programs, so we can reasonably dismiss any suggestion that as deniers they are confused in some way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 18017.html

[williatw]

Despite that trend, winters in the Northern Hemisphere have grown colder and more extreme in southern Canada, the eastern United States, and much of northern Eurasia, with England's record-setting cold spell in December 2010 as a case in point.

2013/14 needs to be added to 2010/11.

And warming causes cooling. 'There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.' - George Orwell

This in: looks like we are in for another cold winter...just test started my snow blower it is good to go I hope. Well more "proof" of global warming, more cooling.

Alaska storm brings frigid weather to swath of US

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - A massive storm fueled by the remnants of Typhoon Nuri did not do much damage in Alaska’s sparsely populated Aleutian Islands, but forecasters say it’s anchoring a system that will push a frigid blast of air into the mainland United States and send temperatures plunging early this week.

Parts of the lower 48 states could see temperatures between 20 and 40 degrees below average, the National Weather Service said Sunday.

.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -lower-us/

[choff]

The new Scopes Monkey Trial for the 21st Century.


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... g-is-toast


They're having a climate march in Vancouver, sometimes I feel like I'm number six stuck in the village.

[MSimon]

The new Scopes Monkey Trial for the 21st Century.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... g-is-toast

They're having a climate march in Vancouver, sometimes I feel like I'm number six stuck in the village. :oops:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1003/steyn092903.asp

[Diogenes]

D@mn. I shoulda known better. I thought Simon was posting a link about Global Warming or something.




Nope. It's about pot.

[choff]

In all fairness, Vancouverites who smoke pot are more likely to believe in global warming.

http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/healt ... et-eng.php

[ladajo]

Of course they are. Another study shows pot smokers have lower IQs.

It is not a myth