Unthreaded #25

Continuation of Unthreaded #24

804 Comments

  1. TonyN
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 2:57 PM | Permalink

    TonyN says:

    I’ve been having a little fun at RC here but just don’t know quite what to post next other than the dictionary definition of irony. Any suggestions?

    For anyone who hasn’t come across ‘Warm Words’ , its a spin doctor’s manual for convincing the public that they face a climate catastrophe, but without the inconvenience of having to use anything like robust scientific evidence. It’s truly spine-chilling in its blatant cynicism, but even worse, it was commissioned by the UK government and seems to be used by them as the template for all communications on this subject.

  2. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 3:14 PM | Permalink

    1
    According to their Acknowledgements section, they are shills of at least one Oil Company!

  3. Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 3:18 PM | Permalink

    # 2

    Craig Loehle,

    I’ve also received not quite small tomatoes here some unthreads ago; don’t worry, tomatoes are constructive; they make great bouillabaisses, especially when CA analysts throw them (it does include me) with no other purpose than making us to boost our works. :)

    Congratulations, Graig!

  4. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 3:22 PM | Permalink

    I’ve been having a little fun at RC here but just don’t know quite what to post next other than the dictionary definition of irony. Any suggestions?

    Isn’t irony something like silvery or coppery? Like in “The anvil was delicious, but irony.”

  5. Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 3:24 PM | Permalink

    # 3

    Pat Keating,

    Which clearly demonstrates that oil companies moves on two-way roads… heh! ;)

  6. TonyN
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 3:25 PM | Permalink

    Re #3

    Nice one Pat. Thanks – its on its way.

  7. Dan Evens
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 3:25 PM | Permalink

    I have a question regarding temperature reconstructions based on various proxies.

    Has anbody actually done one correctly? That is, has anybody done one, used methods that are reported, supportable, make sense, and are standard statistical methods, archived their data, and used only proxies that pretty much everybody agrees are useful for the task. And if they have, what were their results?

  8. Dan Evens
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    Oops! Sorry, I see somebody already answered my question in another thread.

  9. TonyN
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    Re: 5

    It probably would be on the island if Mike told them so.

  10. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 3:49 PM | Permalink

    573 on UT #24
    Re the ab-“normal” distributions you showed, it reminded me of a statistician friend who pointed out that the average number of testicles for the population of the US was very close to 1.0!

  11. Ross Nixon
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

    And even more scary, the average person has less than two legs!

  12. DharmaHunter
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 4:12 PM | Permalink

    FYI

    One of the NASA images of the day I saw a while back was interesting WRT the UHI effect. Compare the 1979 and 2003 Landsat images of Guangzhou and the Pearl River Delta:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17735

    Compare the trend from 1980 onwards and the before and after Landsat images:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=205592870002&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    IIRC the GISS temps on the web are the post-production version with the UHI adjustment. My question is whether there the “correction” is adjusted over time to account for urban growth, or whether each individual station gets one correction applied to the whole time series?

  13. Bernie
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 4:36 PM | Permalink

    Tony’s #1’s post lured me over to RC. In reading the comments, I believe Gavin said that 2007 is shaping up to be the 2nd warmest year on record. It certainly has been a mild Fall in Boston. NOAA currently says 3rd …but is there a recent “audited” assessment on this data source?

  14. Larry
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 4:42 PM | Permalink

    11, I think that’s what they call “unphysical”. Except for a certain German dictator in the 1930s, anyway.

  15. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 4:55 PM | Permalink

    RE: #14 – I’ve lived it. (Well, at least the past 20 or so odd years of it)

  16. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 5:00 PM | Permalink

    Sorry, I meant #12.

  17. Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 5:28 PM | Permalink

    @Pat– there is no 573 on #24.

    Do you mean these:
    ?

    I’m using the case Tamino recently examined to teach myself some R. (I can’t guess what answers I’ll get for the hypothesis test, but I am a bit curious at this point.)

    R really does have some nice features for doing this.

    (Comment on T’s hypothesis test. It may be that all the post processing Tamino did ultimately resulted in data that looked more normally distributed. I suspect the annual average temperatures will approach normal. I’m not sure about the seasonal ones– but they may. Still, if I were analyzing data, on seeing this, I’d make a mental note to always check to see if the data ultimately used in a hypothesis test look at all normal. For all I know, T did so. )

  18. Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 5:32 PM | Permalink

    Bernie: It is darn warm in Chicago. I’ve got pepper plants that aren’t dead! My tomato plants are alive — but the tomatoes themselves are just green and lingering. It’s an eyesore, but I am marveling at how long they are staying alive.

    It’s definitely not like the late seventies.

  19. Ross Nixon
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 5:52 PM | Permalink

    Well we are having Global Cooling in New Zealand.
    I’m all for Global Warming, but not sure if there’s anything I can do to contribute.

  20. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 5:55 PM | Permalink

    17 lucia

    Pat– there is no 573 on #24.

    Not any more. I guess Steve moved the Craig Loehle posts to a new thread.
    Yes, that was what I was referring to.

  21. Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 6:07 PM | Permalink

    Anyone know if any tree ring studies have been done in the southern hemisphere? I see all this analysis on trees in the Northern hemisphere but nothing in the southern.

  22. Ross Nixon
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 6:23 PM | Permalink

    I had a quick glance, and there are some studies on the NZ Kauri tree.
    Some of the PDFs aren’t free, but you should find something useful.
    A complicating factor is the El Nino Southern Oscillation which I assume affects countries with a small land mass, more than larger countries. Might be worth checking Australia then?

  23. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 8:14 PM | Permalink

    In Australia tree growth sensitivity seems to be to precipitation, unsurprising really.

    http://www.fz-juelich.de/icg/icg-5/documents/Heinrich-PhD-Abstract.pdf

  24. jae
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 8:41 PM | Permalink

    I’ve been reviewing the literature concerning water vapor feedback (such as it is), and i have to admit that I don’t understand the climate models enough to fully understand the articles. But I have learned some things. Now I am certain that both the water vapor feedback “estimate” and the subsequent derivation of a “best guess” estimate of a 2.5 degree increase in temperature for 2 x CO2 are simply and purely products of climate models, not any type of arguments from first principles. And I do understand one other very important thing so far: all climate computer models ASSUME that relative humidity stays constant as temperature increases. And this basic important assumption is clearly false, based on empirical evidence shown here. I cannot assess how important this assumption is (help, Gerald, Bender and others that understand models!), but I’ll bet it has a very strong effect on the estimation of temperature increases due to doubling CO2. Combined with the empirical evidence that water vapor actually is NEGATIVE, I think the foundation of the climate models and the whole AGW hypothesis are on extremely shaky grounds. I will soon show even more clearly how relative humidity varies (negatively) with temperatures, contrary to a fundamental basic assumption of the climate computer models.

  25. Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 8:55 PM | Permalink

    Just finished reading “The Chilling Stars”. A good read and it appears at first galnce to make some sense. Any comments?

  26. David Smith
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 9:14 PM | Permalink

    Re #24 jae I think that the key water vapor increase for AGW amplification is that which occurs in the upper tropical troposphere. Increases in the water vapor near-earth don’t have nearly the amplification impact as increases far above the tropics.

    The key assumption in the models, as you note, is that relative humidity stays the same regardless of temperature. If there’s a physical basis for this assumption, I haven’t seen it. My impression is that it is untrue in the case of the upper troposphere and that the evidence presented in the recent IPCC report is shaky at best.

  27. jae
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 9:30 PM | Permalink

    26: Good point. I am looking only at the surface, since there appears to be little or no data for higher altitudes. However, I don’t see how relative humidity all of a sudden changes so as to be constant at a higher altitude. That water has to be accounted for in some manner, and they have not done that. The climate modelers have evidently made an assumption that cannot be proven (or disproven, perhaps, which is why this crap has gone on so long). If so, I have no faith in the models. Especially when you have to “model” the water vapor amounts and then put this modeled result into almost the same model to “model” the temperature increase. It is completely circular reasoning and subject to a great deal of doubt. Way too much doubt.

  28. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 10:13 PM | Permalink

    RE: #27 – They assumed that the Horse Latitudes Highs would get bigger and move poleward instead of running faster and denser (but not moving and expanding). They assumed that the moisture converging at the ITCZ would “overflow” and fan out all over the place in the tropical upper troposphere and beyond. They assumed that heat that converges at the ITCZ would not puncture the tropopause (via CuNim) the way it actually does. They assumed that the deserts would expand instead of contract. They assumed that lots of heat from the tropics would move poleward instead of curving back around (via the Horse Latitudes Highs) and land in the subtropical deserts where it then flies out into space at night. Etc, etc, etc.

  29. aurbo
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 11:01 PM | Permalink

    Re #13:

    As you may know, Gavin Schmidt is a charter member of the Hockey Team. This group may weel designate 2007 as the “2nd warmest” of the past n years, but if they do it would be a demonstrable travesty. In the view of the agw proponents,”Global” refers almost exclusively to the Northern Hemisphere. One of the most anomalously warm regions of the NH has been in portions of the US. Thus, the comments of #13 are understandable as is the comment of #19. The facts are that almost the enitre Southern Hemisphere is having a below normal year. It was one of the coldest winters of the past 50 years in many portions of Australia, Africa and South America, not to mention the large area of below normal SSTs this year. In the NH, along with the Central and parts of the Eastern US, above normal temps were observed across much of the Arctic regions and including Alaska. However, Europe is undergoing one of its coldest Novembers in many years and large areas of the North Pacific Ocean SSTs are below normal and gettng colder.

    The Hadley contingent of the Hocky Team went out on a limb as early as last March predicting that this year, 2007, would be among the warmest on record. They will nowdo everything they can to see that this forecast verifies. These methods include using reconstructed data bases that arbitrarily adjust raw observations upward to account for UHI effects regardless of whether the station is is urban or rural.

    This group has become shameless in their disregard for using raw data to justify their results. They continue to keep the Hockey Stick alive by having such acolytes as Lonnie Thompson provide a new representation of the Hockey stick based on the same data that MBH used. Naturally, none of this data is available for external review.

    There is a scandal here which has been ongoing for a few years now and for which no investigative agency, public or private, has seen fit to examine.

  30. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 11:03 PM | Permalink

    Re # 21 dscott

    The Australian Greenhouse Office has a general publication with several relevant references.

    http://www.uow.edu.au/conferences/canberra/Palaeo_Report_Advanced%20Adraft.pdf

    I think it fair to say that several of its authors are pro-AGW.

    Regarding dendrothermometry, the following passage has a depressingly similar ring about it.

    Eucalypt species other than those at high-altitudes have also been investigated, however due to significant variation in their growth patterns, have proved too problematic, thus far, to pursue (Argent et al. 2004). The longest and most comprehensive records have been derived from populations of Lagarostrobos franklinii, which is a long-lived species endemic to Tasmania. To date, published tree ring records from this species extend back continuously to 572 BC from low altitude sites and 3,700 years from a high elevation site (Buckley et al. 1997). In addition, there are several floating records: a 4,000 year linked record extending back from around 3520 cal BP (Barbetti 1999); an overlapping record from 7,500 to 8,800 cal BP; another spanning from 9,000 to 9,500 cal BP; an overlapping record from 9,600 to 10,400 cal BP; and several pre-Holocene (>10,000 cal BP) records, including logs dated as greater than 38,000 years old (Barbetti 1999). There is a potentially continuous 10,000 year record from Mt Read (Buckley et al. 1997; Anker et al. 2001). The Huon pine tree ring sequences obtained from high elevation sites (>700 m asl2) record strong responses to temperature for most growing season months, thus providing reliable records of past temperatures between November and April (Buckley et al. 1997). Sequences from lower altitude sites
    exhibit a more complex relationship, with a weak response to growing-season temperature and a strong inverse relationship with temperature of the previous season of growth (Buckley et al. 1997). Indeed, the response parameters of the lowland tree records appear to vary through time, with temperature, sunlight and atmospheric CO2 concentrations all having different effects at different times.
    Australian dendrochronological records have been used to investigate climate change and variability over the last 10,000 years (Buckley et al. 1997; Cook et al. 2000; Allen et al. 2001), past fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 levels (Hua et al. 2003; Hua and Barbetti 2004), 14C offsets between the northern and southern hemispheres through time (Barbetti et al. 2004), and the relationships between climatic variables and atmospheric and land surface processes (Cook et al. 2000).

    The problems of the NH such as the need to cherry-pick locations and species, the variations of patterns with altitude, sunlight, etc are not simply problems for the NH. I’m off to read Buckley in more detail, especially on temperature measurement. Others might find the NH/SH work of Barbetti et al 2004 interesting. There are more dendro publications, easy to search.

  31. DharmaHunter
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 12:46 AM | Permalink

    Bernie #13:

    It wasn’t Gavin, but Michael Mann in an article on RC, “El Nino, Global Warming, and Anomalous U.S. Winter Warmth” posted on 8 Jan 2007. He did not make a prediction, but essentially agreed with the reasoning:

    “…(the warming is one or two tenths of a degree C for a moderate to strong El Nino). It is precisely for this reason that some scientists are already concluding, with some justification, that 2007 stands a good chance of being the warmest year on record for the globe.”

    The article he linked from the 4 Jan WaPo has the following:

    “‘Even a moderate (El Nino) warming event is enough to push the global temperatures over the top,’ said Phil Jones…

    …There is a 60 percent chance that the average global temperature for 2007 will match or break the record, Britain’s Meteorological Office said Thursday. The consequences of the high temperatures could be felt worldwide.”

    His reasoning was fairly sound. The “record” according to the “global” lower troposhperic anomalies as reported by Mears and Wentz from RSS was +0.59 C for 1998. At the end of 2006, the global (-70S to 82.5N) anomaly was running about 0.3 to 0.35, close to the statistical ties for second place, namely 2002, 2003, and 2005. With a small El Nino ongoing, there was a decent chance of setting the record.

    Earlier in the year there was a small skirmish sparked by Hansen’s comment in an email of a manuscript, “We suggest that an El Nino is likely to originate in 2006 and that there is a good chance it will be a “super El Nino”, rivaling the 1983 and 1997-1998 El Ninos, which were successively labeled the “El Nino of the century” as they were of unprecedented strength in the previous 100 years.”

    At another place email he says, “Present version should make clear that what we are saying is: Global warming has increased the east-west equatorial temperature gradient and that should increase the probability of a super El Nino. It is still a crap shoot, so it requires many rolls of the dice for empirical verification. Even in the last 30 years there have been only two super El Ninos.” (See Prometheus, “Out on a Limb with a Super El Niño Prediction” by R. Pielke, Jr., April 06, 2006)

    Because of the attention, the published manuscript (PNAS,September 26, 2006) muted a prediction of a super-El Nino starting in 1996 to a vaguer “more frequent” which will take years to verify.

    Nevertheless, I suspect that among the academics, the hunches and guesses were probably toward a stronger El Nino. Although much has been learned about El Nino/La Nina, there is much more to be learned, and any forecast should be taken with a healthy amount of skepticism.

    With regard to the current temperature trend, the mean anomaly for 2007 is ~0.2 C. The anomalies are reported in degrees C with the reference period from Jan 1979 through Dec 1998. The coverage is from -70S to 82.5N. The monthly anomalies from the RSS are as follows:

    Month……………….Anomaly

    2007Jan……………0.428
    2007Feb…………..0.265
    2007Mar…………..0.26
    2007Apr…………..0.178
    2007May………….0.091
    2007Jun…………..0.139
    2007Jul…………….0.223
    2007Aug…………..0.224
    2007Sep…………..0.123
    2007Oct…………..0.091

    Obviously, without the super-El Nino and with the establishment of La Nina (expected to persist well into Spring), the global temperature has decreased and it looks as if the average will be the lowest since 2000-2001.

    I have become convinced that it will take another 10 years of observations to collect enough high quality temperature data (i.e. well scrutinized satellite data) to begin to attribute the recent (since the ’70s) warming to the various known and unknown causes.

  32. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 2:47 AM | Permalink

    Well it’s certainly colder now in W-Europe than it was last year. Ski pistes in the Alpes are open one month earlier. December last year story was not to invest in the ski industry anymore.

  33. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 2:49 AM | Permalink

    Europe is being widespread hit since some day by a early winter cold snap.
    Sub-zero temperatures and snowfalls are recorded in much part of the continent, even on the coasts of Medietrranean, and places like Scandinavia, Finland, Baltic States, Belarus and Russia are sub-zero even by day.
    Snow cover is very large for this period of the year, likely to be the major continental snow cover for mid November in a decade (just because I cannot see precise data before 1998).
    Exceptional November snowfalls, since 30 to 55 years, have been recorded in Switzerland, Austria and Germany, where north air flow impacting with the Alps makes snow to fall heavy (they saw up to 2m of snow at mid-high altitude in a few days).

  34. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 2:54 AM | Permalink

    #32: we wrote right in the same moment :-)
    From that picture, you can well see air flow impacting on the Alps, making snow falling on the northern ridge and along the watershed, while on Italian Alps and northern plains we had mostly just Sun and wind, with some light snowfall in places, and sub-zero minimae (down to -5°C this morning in Turin, Bolzano and Vicenza).

  35. MarkR
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 3:06 AM | Permalink

    First frosty morning of the year in Surrey, England. Haven’t had a proper frost here for years AFAIK.

  36. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 3:41 AM | Permalink

    Several interesting posts over at Icecap, including one on how S. America is having the longest coldest winter in many years. Our winter here in Perth Western Australia was unusually long, but the switch to our hot dry summer pattern was unusually rapid.

  37. AlexS
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 3:55 AM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre,
    I don’t know if this is the best place to post this, but I wanted to point out that several of the entries under “Favourite Posts” do not display properly (eg “Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science”, http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66). In particular apostrophes become a long line of junk characters.

    I’m using Mozilla FireFox, but this also occurs with IE7.

  38. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 4:20 AM | Permalink

    Vienna is seeing the heaviest snowfall for November since 40 years.
    More than 20cm (8″) of snow already fell on the city.
    Last night 5,000 cars were blocked in the snow.

    PS: it is strange…one may (rightly) think Austria should be better organised and used to snow than Northern Italy…but in the last years we saw many snowfalls with more than 15cm (0.5ft) of snow in a few hours (January 2006 up to 60cm/2ft of snow near Milan, 40cm/1ft4″ in the city) and we had almost no matter for traffic since December 2001 blizzard (unless 28th-29th February 2004 power supply line disruption on lower Po watercourse due to badly mantained old lines).

  39. DocMartyn
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 6:34 AM | Permalink

    I have an abedo question. The planets abedo is widely quoted for the total incoming solar spectrum. However, has anyone got the numbers for the abedo of “CO2 induced” IR radiation?
    Moreover, has anyone modeled the heating of sea water using both the incoming solar spectrum vs. the incoming solar spectrum + the “CO2 induced” IR radiation? My guess is that the long the wavelength used to heat the sea, the deeper the heating goes, but I haven’t modeled it. Anyone have the data to hand?

  40. JP
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 6:40 AM | Permalink

    #31
    If memory serves me correctly, I think most long range forecasters believed the weak El Nino episode would continue through 2007. However, thier forecasts were still hot off the presses when ENSO became El Nino neutral, and few forecasted a La Nina episode. One large thing that seems to be overlooked by many long term forecasters is the chance that the PDO may have gone negative this year in the same manner it went positive in 1976. If that indeed is the case, the world may not see another intense El Nino event until the 2040-2050 time frame.

  41. EW
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 6:48 AM | Permalink

    #38

    Here in Czechia we have also snow and cold. Of course, the press ascribes it to the process of global warming and the experts mutter darkly about the necessity of getting used to weather extremes in the course of the said process.

  42. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 7:04 AM | Permalink

    #41: I hoped that at least in Czech Republic Havel was listened :-(
    Anyway, a Russian scientist couls tell us this is just the beginning of Eurasia glaciation they forecasted. A British one that this is the sign of weakening Gulf Current and incoming European cooling (even if North Atlantic has in these days a positive SST anomaly which strengthen a blocking anticyclone – but this positive anomaly at sea is causing a negative anomaly at land etc.). Etc.

  43. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 7:04 AM | Permalink

    #41: I hoped that at least in Czech Republic Havel was listened :-( nemo propheta in patria!
    Anyway, a Russian scientist couls tell us this is just the beginning of Eurasia glaciation they forecasted. A British one that this is the sign of weakening Gulf Current and incoming European cooling (even if North Atlantic has in these days a positive SST anomaly which strengthen a blocking anticyclone – but this positive anomaly at sea is causing a negative anomaly at land etc.). Etc.

  44. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 7:33 AM | Permalink

    Sorry for double-posting.

    The snow cover on Zugspitze (Bavarian Alps, 2970m, South Germany) is today 245cm. In the past, we have to go back to 1974 (but then after a record cold October) to find an higher snow cover:

    16 nov 2006: 87 cm
    16 nov 2005: 5 cm
    16 nov 2004: 75 cm
    16 nov 2003: 75 cm
    16 nov 2002: 105 cm
    16 nov 2001: 110 cm
    16 nov 2000: 45 cm
    16 nov 1999: 75 cm
    16 nov 1998: 190 cm
    16 nov 1997: 60 cm
    16 nov 1996: 145 cm
    16 nov 1995: 130 cm
    16 nov 1994: 72 cm
    16 nov 1993: 100 cm
    16 nov 1992: 115 cm
    16 nov 1991: 75 cm
    16 nov 1990: 115 cm
    16 nov 1989: 100 cm
    16 nov 1988: 85 cm
    16 nov 1987: 42 cm
    16 nov 1986: 35 cm
    16 nov 1985: 63 cm
    16 nov 1984: 65 cm
    16 nov 1983: 8 cm
    16 nov 1982: 35 cm
    16 nov 1981: 220 cm
    16 nov 1980: 85 cm
    16 nov 1979: 180 cm
    16 nov 1978: 175 cm
    16 nov 1977: 85 cm
    16 nov 1976: 80 cm
    16 nov 1975: 60 cm
    16 nov 1974: 330 cm
    16 nov 1973: 135 cm
    16 nov 1972: 148 cm
    16 nov 1971: 38 cm
    16 nov 1970: 175 cm

  45. Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 8:24 AM | Permalink

    @bender– I’m trying to teach myself R, but also do a little reading about filtering out the mean using a fit based on harmonics, and dicussed by Tamino here. (I don’t have any issues with his doing it– I think that’s a useful thing. But, I want to read up a bit to get a sense of the tradeoffs involved in overfitting or underfitting the mean behavior.)

    So, in that vein:

    Off hand,
    a)do you know which functions in R might simplify getting harmonics– particularly with some missing data and
    b) can you provide me any references that might discuss statistical issues to attend to when doing this.

  46. Bernie
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 8:34 AM | Permalink

    DharmaHunter #31
    Many thanks for the details in your reply. I am still interested in how the NOAA/NCDC data is put together and how reliable it is.

    Aurbo #29
    I guess what I am most interested in is how NCDC data ties into the GISS data which many here have spent significant amounts of time dissecting and understanding. Some type of flow chart of data sources and adjustments would help – especially when so much can be made of a few hundredths of a degree.

    As for the mild temperatures in NE USA – my carbon footprint is dramatically lower – though my fuel bill is the same.

  47. Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 8:41 AM | Permalink

    @ 24 jae says:And I do understand one other very important thing so far: all climate computer models ASSUME that relative humidity stays constant as temperature increases.

    I very much doubt this assumption is made in all GCMs. As stated, I doubt that assumption is made in any.

    I would believe they assume it rains at some specified high level of relative humidity level in a grid box. (Example: if the grid box says 90% humidity on average over an area the size of a county, assume some of the water condenses and it rains. That would be a very, very simple model for rain, but it could be reasonable to leading order. A value of 90% would be estimated based on some external analysis, but since it can be adjusted, that value could be ‘tuned”.

    Cloud models and all issues regarding transport of water vapor do affect GCM results. That’s why the DOE funded ARM. Teams of people are taking data day and night. One goal is to provide a continuous set of data collected over decadal scales.

  48. Larry
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 8:48 AM | Permalink

    47, which is problematic, because RH can actually exceed 100% if there is no condensation nuclei. I’m sure they have no way to model the presense and effect of condensation nuclei. In fact, this is the whole idea behind the Svensmark theory (and cloud seeding).

  49. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 8:49 AM | Permalink

    #24 and #47: since relative humidity can be modeled as a logarithmic function depending on both temperature and absolute humidity, and in fact decreasing for increasing temperature at a costant humidity level, it is more likely that models show (erroneously) that humidity has to increase less or no more than temperature, leading to low relative humidity levels, and so underestimating low clouds and rainfalls (as already happening).

  50. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 9:00 AM | Permalink

    18 lucia says:
    November 15th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
    Bernie: It is darn warm in Chicago. I’ve got pepper plants that aren’t dead! My tomato plants are alive — but the tomatoes themselves are just green and lingering. It’s an eyesore, but I am marveling at how long they are staying alive.

    It’s definitely not like the late seventies.

    (Smile) You just haven’t been on the planet long enough to witness the repeated cycles of such changes. The late 1970s is when the general climate swung from a cold period into a warm period, just as it had done so before earlier in the 20th Century. Hang around a few more years, and you’ll be witness to some of the coldest and bitterest winters experienced by Chicago in the past two hundred yers or longer. You’ll be having wistful memories of the days when you could see green tomato vines in November.

  51. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 9:08 AM | Permalink

    47 lucia
    I believe that you are more or less correct, although I suspect that it has to reach 100%. There is precious little in Hansen et al 1983 on precipitation. I found this: “….it leaves the atmosphere saturated, large-scale precipitation and associated heating increase, leading to net warming of lower layers.”
    jae may find that sentence troubling.

  52. Duane Johnson
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 9:20 AM | Permalink

    18 lucia says:
    November 15th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
    Bernie: It is darn warm in Chicago. I’ve got pepper plants that aren’t dead! My tomato plants are alive — but the tomatoes themselves are just green and lingering. It’s an eyesore, but I am marveling at how long they are staying alive.

    November 16th, 2007 as 10:31 am. I live about 130 miles ESE of Chicago in a rural area. We had a hard freeze last night, and my tomato and pepper plants have been dead for some time. Do you suppose Chicago might have an Urban Heat Island effect?

  53. Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 9:35 AM | Permalink

    @ D. Patterson I agree that I will not live long enough to experience the full variability of climate. The guests at my-in-laws’ wedding milled around in their shirt sleeves during their wedding reception. The reception took place in December in Joliet Illinois and occurred sometime during the ’50s.

    I am saying that you do have to admit, it IS warm in Chicago. On the other hand, this summer seemed unusually mild. We didn’t have one of our grass-killing droughts and we had our semi-regular 15 year, “If the rivers rises another 6 inches, we’ll reach the 100 year flood” flood on the Des Plains. I’m not good enough at integrating weather data in my head, so until someone does it, I won’t really know if the year was warm or cold.

    Nevertheless, when incoming data tends to confirm a theory, people do give that weight. (FWIW, I’m looking at Tamino’s numbers– which I suspect were communicated in a tendentious manner. I strongly suspect he screwed that analysis up and Tamino should have had more patience, and done what appears to be a Swiss cheese of an analysis. I know he only posted it at a blog, but analyses that prompt the question “what about that hole?” just aren’t useful.)

    That said, I suspect that in 10 more years, if AGW is true (and I think it probably is true ) data comparing the upcoming decade to a baseline consisting of 1900-1950 will consistently show warming to the 95% confidence level, even when simple analyses are performed.

    Of course, if average global temperatures drops, no-one will be talking about this. (And yes, I will miss my basil surviving until November. I like warm weather.)

  54. Murray Duffin
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 9:37 AM | Permalink

    From: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf Just below middle of left column, page 6

    As one example,
    1881 – 2004 temperature data from Europe reveal a warming rate
    of 0.67°/century for urban meteorological stations as opposed to
    0.37°/century for rural stations (Janssens, 2007).

    Does anyone have access to Janssens 2007? I have been unable to find it.
    CA seems to have dropped (temporarily??) the analysis of European surface instrument temperature averages. IIn that context this reference could be very interesting. Murray

  55. bender
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    Re #54 That’s not a published paper. Why does it indicate 2007 as a year of publication?

  56. Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 9:53 AM | Permalink

    @Duane: I’m in Lisle.

    The tomato/pepper status has changed as of yesterday. The tomatoes are now fully dead; one pepper is still alive. My tomatoes, and most peppers experienced the “planted by the side of the house effect” and also benefited from the “threw a blanket over them before I figured out the green tomatoes weren’t going to ripen even if the plants survive effect”. I did not throw the blanket over them last night.

    The surviving pepper is experiencing the “planted in a container placed on a paver patio next to the house and well watered to ensure the local area is buffered by water which freezes at 0C.

    No one would call it a healthy pepper plant, but I’m leaving it there to see when it finally succumbs. (BTW. The surface of water in the bucket I place outside for the squirrels is frozen. This is less than 2 feet from the pepper plant.)

    I also still have some living basil that is benefiting from the “placed under a polyethylene green house I bought at Wannamakers effect”.

    Nevertheless, this isn’t like the late 70 or early 80s. I lived in Urbana from ’82-90. During November, my husband and I would joke that freezing rain was the state bird of Illinois. Winter was hell. March varied between glorious and hell.

  57. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 9:55 AM | Permalink

    #43 Filippo, don’t you mean Klaus, Vaclav or is the
    former president also a “contrarian”??
    #44 Filippo again Was WEATHER ONLINE the source??

    Weather not climate: From WOL Last year Nov 16
    9 Asian stations reported -30C or colder…-37 being
    the coldest…this year 41 stations reported -30C or
    colder …-46 being the coldest (Tompo) These are
    minimum temps GWS…

  58. Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    @Duane: BTW, I have confirmed by use of the sensitive “leave the Dahlia tubors in the ground until Thanksgiving” method , that the soild temperature less than 10 feet from my foundation remains many degrees warmer than an open field in Dekalb. :)

  59. Murray Duffin
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 10:23 AM | Permalink

    Re 55
    Bender, do you have any more information? Murray

  60. Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 10:26 AM | Permalink

    @Bender: Citing draft publications papers is not uncommon in research literature. The citations list would indicate “to be published”, or “submitted” or something.

    It can be pesky, but it’s done.

  61. Scott-in-WA
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

    At the risk of invoking the “t” word, I have a question for Nasif and others who would like to respond.

    An environmental science professor from Washington State University, George Mount, gave a lecture in our area last night on the topic of AGW. He said, “There is little debate that the climate is warming”, saying that the Earth has warmed about “three degrees” since 1850.

    Mount also said, “Research shows water vapor represents 60 percent of greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide is second at 28 percent.” Prof. Mount is obviousy referring to the relative efficiency of energy entrapment by the two most prominent GHG’s, not to their average distribution within the atmosphere.

    My question for Nasif is this: Do the AGW alarmist and the AGW skeptic camps both agree on the validity this very basic assumption concerning the relative heat-trapping efficiencies of water vapor and carbon dioxide; i.e., water vapor represents 60 percent of greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide is second at 28 percent?

  62. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

    60 Lucia
    Yes that is very common. But the author is, at least morally, committed to provide a preprint of the ‘to be published’ paper to anyone who requests it.

  63. jae
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

    47, Lucia: I should not have said that ALL the models assume this, because I do not know this. My bad. I as specifically referring to Isacc Held’s often-quoted paper on water vapor feedback. It appears that this assumption IS made in that famous paper, and I think it is a very questionable assumption. On the surface relative humidity varies greatly according to both latitude and temperature, and I can see no reason it should be otherwise at the magic 5 km level, where “the effective temperature of emission occurs in the mid-troposphere.” I’m still looking, but there seems to be very little support for the water-vapor feedback, besides this paper and one by Soden which discusses the cooling caused by Mt. Pinatubo and applies a similar model. An interesting quote in the Soden, et. al. paper is “Despite the importance of water vapor feedback in determining the sensitivity of Earth’s climate, the fidelity of its representation in climate models has remained a topic of debate for more than a decade.”

  64. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    63 jae
    The water-vapor feedback issue is almost synonymous with the “what is the value of climate sensitivity” issue, which has a thread all of its own here. The positive feedback from water-vapor is built into that CS value because of the way the models are set up.
    BTW Did you see #51?

  65. Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 11:16 AM | Permalink

    “Despite the importance of water vapor feedback in determining the sensitivity of Earth’s climate, the fidelity of its representation in climate models has remained a topic of debate for more than a decade.”

    Yes. It is a topic of great debate. So much debate that the DOE has funded an expensive, long term program to improve the models. It is called ARM. Last November, I knit a sweater for Munchin, who I call “The Global Climate Change Dog”.

    I like unthreaded. I get to show how cute Munchkin is!

  66. Doug
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 11:21 AM | Permalink

    One of the reasons Austria lost the bid for the 2014 Winter Olympics was that IOC members felt Central Europe would not be getting much snow anymore by then. The economic costs of poor science continue.

  67. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 11:28 AM | Permalink

    53 lucia says:

    November 16th, 2007 at 9:35 am

    That said, I suspect that in 10 more years, if AGW is true (and I think it probably is true ) data comparing the upcoming decade to a baseline consisting of 1900-1950 will consistently show warming to the 95% confidence level, even when simple analyses are performed.

    Why do you say, “AGW…I think it probably is true.”? Why do you not say, “I think I do not know if it is or is not true”? Why do you not say, “Until there is a preponderance of validated scientific evidence to confirm its existence, I must assume AGW is an unproven or disproven idea”?

  68. jae
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 12:18 PM | Permalink

    64, Pat: I saw it but do not understand it.

  69. Larry
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 12:29 PM | Permalink

    67, there’s a more basic question than that. The question should be phrased, what percentage of warming should be attributed to the CO2 greenhouse effect (or CH4, or soot effect on albedo, or whatever), and then what are the real ramifications of that? Both sides make it an “either-or” proposition, when it’s almost impossible that there’s zero effect. But the other side of that coin is that IPCC SPM notwithstanding, it’s rather unlikely that it’s 90+% anthropogenic, either.

    I think one real problem in thie issue is posing the question in a way that, to use Einstein’s words, is “simpler than possible”.

  70. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 12:51 PM | Permalink

    68
    No, I didn’t either. I associate rainfall with cooling at the surface and low altitudes. Perhaps someone like Nasif or Jerry can shed some light……

  71. Bruce
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

    AGW is a crock.

    If there is any warming, it is caused by the record level of solar energy over the last 70 years.

  72. Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

    I was asked:

    Why do you say, “AGW…I think it probably is true.”? Why do you not say, “I think I do not know if it is or is not true”? Why do you not say, “Until there is a preponderance of validated scientific evidence to confirm its existence, I must assume AGW is an unproven or disproven idea”?

    I say what I do because as a factual matter AGW either “is true” or “is not true”. I have a hunch based on things I do know. However, I would hardly make the claim that my hunch is based on any preponderance of validated scientific evidence. I don’t know enough to say any such thing.

    With regard to your formulating a statement of opinion as a statistical hypothesis test: Assuming a hypothesis is unproven is important to doing statistics correctly. It’s also important to science.

    But it is not a fundamental law of the universe or logic. In my personal and political judgments of what is probable, I don’t need to use that principle (and even if I used it, I could set my confidence level low. Say Alpha= 50.00001% instead of 95%?)

    To make an analogy, I applaud “innocent until proven guilty” as a principle of law, but in my daily life, I would avoid getting in business deals with a man who had 57 indictments with no convictions and I might say “I think he is probably a criminal”.

    I think AGW is probable.

  73. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 1:12 PM | Permalink

    re: #52

    What my father used to do back in the 50s in Ohio was when a hard freeze was forcast get some wooden boxes and pick the full-grown green tomatoes and stack tem separated into two or three layers and with cardboard between layers and then put them in the cellar in a dark room where we stored potatoes over winter too. The tomatoes would ripen slowly and keeping the tomatoes separated kept one bad tomato from spreading. Anyway we’d have ripe tomatoes most of the winter. He’d look for pink ones and put them on a windowsill to finish ripening.

  74. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 1:28 PM | Permalink

    re: 72

    I think AGW is probable.

    I also think some AGW is probable, but probably only about 1/3 of what warming has been observed. We had a runthrough of what % of observed warming was from CO2 a while back among regulars here and it ran from 0 to 50% or so. I think most were in the 30-50 range. Of course total AGW is probably higher because of land use and albedo changes.

  75. Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 2:04 PM | Permalink

    @Bender (or anyone)

    Here’s a scatter plot of temperatures from VaexJoe, Sweden. Say I wanted to fit Harmonics to this data using R, do you have any tips? (Ideally, I’d like to do a “best fit” sort of harmonic taking leading order terms.)

    This is mostly for fun (after all, the climate of VaexJoe is one city etc. But, I want to learn R, so I’m using the city Tamino picked to do hypothesis tests. I’m tempted to set this up at a blog whose title would be “more about the climate of VaexJoe than anyone could want to know.)

  76. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 3:12 PM | Permalink

    #75 …Test…Växjö…

  77. Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 3:19 PM | Permalink

    @Staffan, My father-in-law Göran Gustav James Liljegren would be happy to see the correct spelling. :)

  78. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 3:44 PM | Permalink

    72 lucia says:
    November 16th, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    I think AGW is probable.

    Thank you for being forthright in response. It is too often a rare response these days.

    What key factors can you identify as being most responsible for persuading you that “AGW is probable”?

  79. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 3:57 PM | Permalink

    DocMartyn #39,

    The albedo of the Earth in the thermal IR band (4 to 50 micrometers) is low. The Archer interface to MODTRAN 3 uses an emissivity of ~0.92 for thermal IR from the surface implying an albedo (reflectivity) of 0.08. Land albedo should be a little higher and ocean albedo a little lower. As far as the absorption of incoming solar energy by the ocean, you have it backwards. Penetration depth is inversely proportional to wavelength. That’s why deep water looks blue. The red end of the spectrum is absorbed and some of the blue end is scattered back to the surface. The penetration depth in water of the thermal IR is measured in micrometers, IIRC.

  80. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 4:10 PM | Permalink

    72
    From your other posts, I would have expected more precision. The question is not whether there is AGW, but how much. It is highly improbable that the man-made portion is absolutely zero — or 100%. It’s most certainly somewhere in between.

    The question, I think, is where in that range do you think it lies?

  81. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 4:11 PM | Permalink

    ARGGG Steffan and Liljegren.

    Lucia, Lilgegren is Swedish right?

    Steffan perhaps we make Lucia a member of the “my life as a dog” club.

    I posted some Black Flag You tube for you from the early moshpit days.

    How is life in the Tundra? Just kidding.

  82. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

    RE 75. If you want to twist taminos twins in a knot, then I would look at the
    DTR of the city.

    ok… look at TMAX on a daily basis and TMIN on a daily basis AND THEN look at TMAX-TMIN

    The diurnal range. THEN regress diurnal range ( TMAX-TMIN) verus population

    When a city grows the Urban Heat Island INCREASES the night time temps ( animal heat etc )

    TMAX happens in the day. TMIN early morning or midle of the night ( depends on the heat storage dynamics blah blah)

    So as a city grows TMAX-TMIN narrows. Population grows. Diurnal narrows.

  83. Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

    @DPatterson: I am most persuaded by three things taken together:

    1) Knowledge that we are pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.
    2) The measurements of CO2 out in the middle of the Pacific.
    3) The predictions expected based on 2 dimensional dynamical modeling of the atmosphere performed with and without CO2.

    After that, the general warming trend we have seen appears to confirm the (3).

  84. James
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 4:46 PM | Permalink

    Re: #83

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2378#comment-162188

    Lucia,

    Could you comment on the magnitude of the likely AGW effect that you think is occurring?

    FWIW…my impression is that many (though not all) accept that increasing CO2 “traps” additional energy. The bitter disconnect occurs over the various feedbacks and the magnitude of the net effect. I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

  85. Larry
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 4:46 PM | Permalink

    83, you left out feedback. Without feedback, a doubling of CO2 raises global mean temperatures by about 1C. That much we can be reasonably certain of. But it’s not very scary. And that’s where the atmospheric models come in.

  86. Gerald Browning
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 4:49 PM | Permalink

    lucia (#83),

    The atmosphere is not 2D and the lateral and vertical interconnections are
    extremely important to the dynamics and physics.

    Jerry

  87. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 5:07 PM | Permalink

    #75,76…Test…Vaexjoe…(ae=a with two dots above, oe
    =o with 2 dots above…Perhaps this will be corrected,
    but I´ve also seen the opposite…Anyhow Lucia “VaexJoe”
    is the home town of the world’s at the moment best
    hepatlon athlete, Carolina Klueft…(the ue in the middle
    is a “German Y”(u with 2 dots above) as we say in Sweden but many young people
    don’t know how to write it with a computer…How hard can
    it be to teach “diacritical” signs in school, I mean that
    they exist…Yes I fell for Munchkin…Gotta to cut
    here RAM exhaustion…512 MB ONLY…

  88. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 5:17 PM | Permalink

    83 lucia says:

    November 16th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
    @DPatterson: I am most persuaded by three things taken together:

    1) Knowledge that we are pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Why do you assume the human emissions of CO2 are a significant contribution to the atmospheric concentration of CO2? Why do you not consider it probable or even a certainty that the human contribution of CO2 is too insignificant to change the natural trend in global climate? Do you know what the absolute amount and percentage of the change in global CO2 is contributed from anthropogenic or human sources?

    2) The measurements of CO2 out in the middle of the Pacific.

    Why do you assume measurements of carbon dioxide at the site of one of the world’s most prolific sources of natural carbon dioxide emissions, the Mauna Loa volcano and its volcanic fields, has any scientific validity for representing worldwide atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide? Isn’t such a scheme biased to produce grossly erroneous results favoring a false increase?

    3) The predictions expected based on 2 dimensional dynamical modeling of the atmosphere performed with and without CO2.

    I do not believe anyone here has ever heard of a GCM (Global Climate Model) which has ever demonstrated the ability to predict the climate with any skill at all. To the best of my knowledge, they have all been failures at best, and mostly gross failures. The IPCC even goes so far as to deny making any predictions or forecasts of future climate predictions at all. Instead, the IPCC describes its pronouncements as “scenarios” which may or may not come true in the future. So, what predictions are you relying upon to make your judgement and conclusion that human emissions of CO2 are principally responsible for causing unacceptable levels of global warming?

    After that, the general warming trend we have seen appears to confirm the (3).

    I can demonstrate innumerable warming trends in the past equal to and greater than the current warming trend which occurred without any significant human contributions and without any human presence whatsoever. Why and how do you assume a warming trend can occur only with a human contribution as the significant contribution to such an event?

  89. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 5:53 PM | Permalink

    #82 Mosh, Björn Lomborg had a debating article about
    UHIE in today’s “Dagens Nyheter” paper version NTS it
    was translated from Danish, not even Danish children
    understands what their parents are saying…But that perhaps
    is universal, but in the case of Hamletmaschine Denmark
    it’s due to phonetics…So insisting of eating middle-sized
    hot potatoes unsliced leads to this horrible result, horrible
    AOW Anthropocentric Oral Warming…ANYHOW BL writes about
    how to cool cities through planting trees and bushes and
    use white/reflective paints…But that temperatures
    are 10C degrees warmer in the day are of course not true
    officially, as temps are taken in Central Park or “here” in
    Stockholm on Observatory Hill [Observatoriekullen] but
    down in the street these temperature differences are real!
    I think I’ve seen some heat photo of a parking lot in Atlanta
    GA showing air temps of 60-65C correct me somebody if I err…

  90. Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 6:08 PM | Permalink

    @Pat in 80– sometimes, precision is not possible. I am precise in certain things and not others. I admit when I’m not precise. But sometimes, when you are deciding which way you lean, you don’t expect precision. My “probably” isn’t “almost certainly”, and it’s not “I’d be very surprised if I’m wrong”. (I think my pepper plant will probably be dead tomorrow morning– but heck, I expected it to be dead by now!)

    @Steven in 81 My father-in-law as born in Malmo, Sweden. I am, by heredity, mostly Irish, and named after a Cuban grandmother. I now have the most Swedish sounding female name possible.

    In 82: the data set I found doesn’t include both Tmin and Tmax, so I can’t do that. Right now, I’m trying to figure out “R”. But, I posted a really trivial post here. I’ll post more, along with not very profound observations when I figure some stuff out. If you know R, stop by, as that is now a good forum to help me figure out how to deal with that beast of a stats package.

    @James in 85– I don’t know the relative magnitude and don’t know enough to speculate.

    @Larry in 85 — I agree feed back is important. Lucky Munchkin is at the Southern Great Plains site helping them collect data to test models for water vapor.

    @Jerry– yes, I know 3 D effects matter a lot. But I’m more convinced by models that leave out huge amounts of physics than those with a huge number of knobs you can turn. The 2-D models are, in a sense, purely qualitative, but suggestive. They also have fewer knobs. :)

    @D Patterson: 2D models aren’t anything like GCMs– hence Jerry’s comment. I don’t rely on GCM’s. I’m all for people playing with GCM’s but the thought of basing any decisions on their output gives me the heebee jeebees. (I use that in it’s strictest technical sense.)

    I read your other questions, I’m not answering… partly because I’m going to my dance class, and partly because I want to fiddle with R when I get back, and partly because the answer is long. But as to the CO2 generally: I’m not saying anything with great certainty, but I’m not worried about the CO2 from the volcano itself. That would show. The answer to a lot of the “do you know” questions is: “No. I don’t know.” Someone else may, but no, I don’t. On, the “Why and how do you assume a warming trend can occur only with a human contribution as the significant contribution to such an event?”, I don’t assume that.
    If I assumed that, I wouldn’t say “probably” when I posted earlier.

  91. DocMartyn
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 6:22 PM | Permalink

    ” DeWitt Payne says:
    November 16th, 2007 at 3:57 pm

    DocMartyn #39,

    The albedo of the Earth in the thermal IR band (4 to 50 micrometers) is low………………..you have it backwards. Penetration depth is inversely proportional to wavelength. That’s why deep water looks blue. The red end of the spectrum is absorbed and some of the blue end is scattered back to the surface. The penetration depth in water of the thermal IR is measured in micrometers, IIRC.”

    Sorry DeWitt, I did actually know why swimming pools are blue, but I typed my question backwards. I thank you for the albedo data.

    I will now rephrase my question. Is there any difference in the heating of a body of salt water, at 15 degrees centigrade, when we shine IR light oor white visible ligat on it, using the same amount of energy (4 w/m2 for instance).
    Would the IR radiation have more effect on the rate of evaporation compared with deeper penetrating white light (use Sun light as the source)?
    Does white light cause more heating of the water at greater debths?

  92. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 16, 2007 at 6:28 PM | Permalink

    RE 90. Ha Irish! Some day I tell you a funny story about my first day in Dublin, best damn
    city in the whole damn world. My grandma Johnson was named Irma. She was 100% so, that
    makes me a quarter swede. Steffan and I regularly exchange random rantings, even though
    he mispells our given name.

    On R. I have to get back to it. I downloaded a while back and languages come very easily
    to me ( formal langauges not human junk speak) ONCE a while back some guy came onto CA
    and offered up a wiki on R… a place you could go to learn

    Search on “wiki R” in the search box… select CA.. St. Mac knows him if that fails.

  93. Ross Nixon
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 1:37 AM | Permalink

    And now for something completely different…
    If the earths lower atmosphere was warming, this heat would gradually raise the temperature of the upper atmosphere (at a wild guess). Would the temperature difference with space on the night side of the earth mean increased infra-red leakage to space, thus ameliorating some of the temperature rise?
    I’m no scientist, but someone may like to chime in with a slightly scientific answer.

  94. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:03 AM | Permalink

    Re # 72 Lucia

    Permit me to say please that your analogy is not correct and that your approach is not scientific. The bypassing of science in favour of intuition is a major impediment to the scientific progress of our times, especially as taught in schools.

    Using your criminal person analogy, the decision that you arrive at is that the person is probably a criminal. But you asked the wrong question. The question should have been, did this person commit the crime of which he/she is accused, according to standards of proof and evidence accepted by the legal profession?

    In Australia we are proud to have 2 Nobel Laureate doctors of medicine who showed that many stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterium, not by stress or diet or lifestyle, and that a proper choice of antibiotics could cure. They had to endure years of accusations that they were “probably fraudulent” or similar, in much the same way as you jump to the conclusion that the innocent man was “probably a criminal”.

    There is a scientific method of problem solving. Why not learn it and stick to it?

  95. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:13 AM | Permalink

    Re # 80 Pat Keating

    The question, I think, is where in that range do you think it lies?

    Permit a disagreement. “The question is, where in that range has it been proven to lie, within the limits of scientific knowledge”. The rider is, if the knowledge is incomplete or being argued, adopt no position as it would be a guess. Guessing had a limited utility in scientific analysis, even by highly-qualified guessers.

  96. Stephen Richards
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 4:51 AM | Permalink

    This IPCC chart shows the medievil warm period. The BBC still does mention it though in their summary. Strange that!!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457037/html/default.stm

  97. Andrey Levin
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 5:51 AM | Permalink

    Re#61:
    Prof. Mount is sloppy on all three counts.

    Climate stopped warming for about 8 years, after 25 years of warming trend.

    Instrumental temperature reconstructions from 1850 are not existed. The only reconstructions swinging back to 19 century began at 1880, and both of them (GHCN and HadCRUT) indicate warming of about 1 degree C to the present.

    Even approximate distribution of GHG effect between CO2 and water vapors is not established, let alone with precision of 1% (28% for CO2?!). The numbers I’ve seen are between 80 and 95% for water vapor. It does not matter much, because it is not even remotely known how much heat energy from Earth surface is dissipated by radiation, and how much is convected (with water vapor evaporation/condensation heat lift) directly to upper troposphere, by-passing GHG layers. Plus mostly unknown effects on emitted IR, visible light, UV, solar IR by clouds, particulates, aerosols, ground-level ozone, etc.

    In a nutshell, every single number and every single effect of Earth heat balance is not somehow definitely established, let alone agreed upon by any single scientist active in the field. Division between “alarmist” and “skeptics” is in the area of politics, or whether we are facing catastrophic meltdown as of tomorrow or not. For any particular issue there are as many opinions as there are atmosphere physics scientists.

  98. Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 7:19 AM | Permalink

    @Geoff–
    I think I can safely say I am familiar with the scientific method. :)

    I don’t see how saying “I think something is probably true” cases any difficulties for the scientific method provided I don’t claim my judgement is based on “the preponderance of scientific evidence”. If everyone had to do that before taking a stab at what they thought was “probably” true, the world would be stuck in beta error limbo forever.

    Even science permits that no individual needs to forget about hunches, or forming provisional judgments which can be based on factors other than empiricism.

    An individual can perfectly well
    a) formulate a hypothesis which they think is probably true,
    b) write a proposal to a funding agency, stating it’s an interesting hypothesis and that the person writing the proposal thinks it’s true
    c) request funds to run experiments test the hypothesis against data and
    d) do any required experiments and statistical hypothesis tests.

    Who would get all excited about any new unproven idea if there literally was a rule saying no one can think an as yet unproven idea is probably true? What science does not permit if for you to run around claiming you opinion is supported by empirical evidence to the 95% confidence interval until after you have done the experiments, and the data support your opinion. Luckily, funding agency can decide they believe the hypothesis is probably true, and pay for the experiment. No one anywhere says this is unscientific.

  99. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 8:00 AM | Permalink

    90 lucia says:
    November 16th, 2007 at 6:08 pm

    Is it accurate and fair then to describe the four or five key factors you listed as unproven hypotheses in which you place the most faith in making you judgement in favor of a probable existence of AGW (using the AGW in the sense of being the dominant factor for global warming)?

  100. kim
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 8:15 AM | Permalink

    A small point; people were cured of ulcers with antibiotics long before the FDA approved the use.
    ============================================================

  101. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 8:28 AM | Permalink

    95 Geoff
    You can disagree, of course. I would maintain that most significant advances in scientific theory are made through guesswork and intuition. The gathering of empirical data is a different matter…..

  102. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 9:02 AM | Permalink

    97:

    Even approximate distribution of GHG effect between CO2 and water vapors is not established, let alone with precision of 1% (28% for CO2?!). The numbers I’ve seen are between 80 and 95% for water vapor. It does not matter much, because it is not even remotely known how much heat energy from Earth surface is dissipated by radiation, and how much is convected (with water vapor evaporation/condensation heat lift) directly to upper troposphere, by-passing GHG layers. Plus mostly unknown effects on emitted IR, visible light, UV, solar IR by clouds, particulates, aerosols, ground-level ozone, etc.

    I agree. I think too much emphasis is placed on radiation and not enough on convection. One does not need to consider radiation at all to explain the “greenhouse effect.” You can explain it by simple heat storage by the atmosphere and surface (especially water). CO2 adds to this storage, but not much, IMHO. All these comparisons with greenhouses and insulation blankets don’t make sense, due to convection. I don’t see how it’s possible to have any type of insulation without controlling convection with a physical barrier (like a true greenhouse or the insulation in your home). I think that is the fundamental flaw of the global climate models’ assumption of a special layer at about 5 km that supposedly controls the temperature. Of course, if I could prove this, it would be really cool. :)

  103. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

    I just realized that I don’t even know how average global temperatures are calculated! Surely it’s via a gridbox method?

  104. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:14 AM | Permalink

    102 jae
    Your post made me think — and to suggest that, in a sense, there may be a barrier to convection.

    I am not an expert on this, but I understand that it is only at the top of the troposphere that GHG effects really matter (below that, the energy doesn’t get out, it is just ‘passed around’). I also understand that there is very little convection near the top of the troposphere.
    IOW, there is plenty of transport of energy by both radiative and convective effects at lower levels, but they don’t contribute much to energy loss from the earth’s atmosphere. That takes place at greater altitudes, where convection is minimal.
    I could be wrong on this and would be very interested in anyone with expertise who could correct me, if so.

  105. Larry
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

    104, at any arbitrarily chosen elevation, you can define a sphere, and energy has to cross that sphere. So the question isn’t whether or not the net energy crosses the sphere; it has to be what it is. The question is, what’s the lapse rate (dT/dz)? It doesn’t do any good to look at the heat flux, that’s fixed. What ends up changing is the lapse rate, and the temperature profile. So of course, the energy gets out. If it didn’t, it would be mighty hot here.

    So the net effect of convection in the troposphere is to reduce (or bypass) the greenhouse effect in the troposphere. The question is simply by how much? It seems to me that you could shine some light on these questions by fitting models to actual atmospheric temperatures, rather than performing the models based on the theory, which don’t produce anything close to reality.

  106. Mhaze
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    lucia says:
    November 16th, 2007 at 8:41 am

    @ 24 jae says:And I do understand one other very important thing so far: all climate computer models ASSUME that relative humidity stays constant as temperature increases.

    I very much doubt this assumption is made in all GCMs. As stated, I doubt that assumption is made in any.

    I would believe they assume it rains at some specified high level of relative humidity level in a grid box. (Example: if the grid box says 90% humidity on average over an area the size of a county, assume some of the water condenses and it rains. That would be a very, very simple model for rain, but it could be reasonable to leading order. A value of 90% would be estimated based on some external analysis, but since it can be adjusted, that value could be ‘tuned”.

    Cloud models and all issues regarding transport of water vapor do affect GCM results. That’s why the DOE funded ARM. Teams of people are taking data day and night. One goal is to provide a continuous set of data collected over decadal scales.

    Where, if anywhere, might one find a summary of what is parametrized in the various GCMs?

  107. Larry
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    103, I remember something about Hansen chopping the surface of the earth up into 80 cells. How you fit squares on the surface of a sphere, I don’t know. I seem to recall some fakeyness involved.

  108. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:50 AM | Permalink

    104, Pat: The radiation calculations used for the models indicate that the critical elevation is about 5 km; radiation leaves the planet from that level (I guess it’s some sort of average height). Having spent quite a bit of time on 14,000 ft. peaks, which is not far below that 5 km level, I can assure you that there is a LOT of convection going on at that level, all the time. It is almost always windy at that level.

  109. Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

    # 104

    Pat Keating,

    What you say would transform the Earth into a thermos. Earth is not a closed system. Convection at the higher layer of the troposphere is lesser important than radiation, but it occurs anyway. This mode of heat transfer (convection) is not important in the stratosphere because the streams go there mainly horizontally and the vertical switch of air volumes is extremely small. Then the importance of water vapor becomes highly important for the trade of energy at the higher layers of the troposphere and the lower layer of the stratosphere. Carbon dioxide density diminishes with altitude, what happens with water vapor density?

  110. kim
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:56 AM | Permalink

    Is G&T a joke as some thermodynamacists claim, or mistaken, as others do? Surely they were attempting some of these calculations.
    ===================

  111. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 11:12 AM | Permalink

    107, 109
    In the well-known model II by Hansen et al the gridding is done with 8 deg x 10 deg cells of latitude and longitude. They are thus close to equal area (would be equal for a perfect sphere).

  112. kim
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 11:12 AM | Permalink

    Gerlich and Tscheuschner.

    Thanks, A, for the reminder that the 4th report comes out today.
    =======================================

  113. Larry
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 11:20 AM | Permalink

    115, I don’t know of any serious physicists who take that seriously. It’s got a few intriguing thoughts, but it’s as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.

    There are some more serious [t-word] criticisms, such as the one over the physicality of mean temperatures, but I don’t want to rattle that cage.

  114. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

    108 jae
    I agree that there is convection at 5 km (c. 16,000 ft) and above, though most of it is lower than that. If that is indeed the correct critical altitude, then I am wrong. However, I thought it was higher than that, more like 50,000 ft, where there is little convection. I will check.

    105 Larry 110 Nasif
    I wasn’t claiming that it was a closed system, just that I understood that radiation outwards from lower levels does not escape until it gets to the top of the troposphere (then it does). I read that somewhere but don’t know whether it is true.

    The lapse rate reverses at the top of the troposphere, so convection would end, anyway.

  115. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

    110 Nasif
    I understand that there is very little water vapor above the troposphere/stratosphere boundary.

  116. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

    116, Larry:

    115, I don’t know of any serious physicists who take that seriously. It’s got a few intriguing thoughts, but it’s as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.

    Have you indeed seen any commentaries on that work by physicists? If so, can you point to them?

  117. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 11:56 AM | Permalink

    117, Pat, Here, bottom of p. 446. And I doubt convection is higher at lower altitudes. As I said, the wind almost ALWAYS blows at 14,000 feet elev. And the Jet Streams are at 7-16 km. Can’t get much more convection than that!

  118. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 11:57 AM | Permalink

    BTW, if the partial pressure of CO2 increases, the partial pressure of something else must decrease. Water vapor?

  119. Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 12:27 PM | Permalink

    # 118

    Pat Keating,

    Yeah, your deduction is correct. Consequently, the energy flows almost unscathed to the ozonosphere, where it is absorbed by ozone, and from there it escapes to the outer space. If air rarifies with altitude, the transmittance of the atmosphere increases also, that is, its capability to intercept the energy decreases, so the energy can go out from Earth without a considerable interruption. If it not was thus, then the Earth had been scorched millions of years ago.

    # 121

    Jae,

    It has not been determined yet. Some environmentalists think that the Pp of CO2 increases to the detriment of oxygen Pp. It is an obscured issue that AGWists have not wished to touch, something like the anomaly of the incoming interstellar cosmic radiation; it has been detected and confirmed, but nobody wants to touch the issue. Why? I suspect because there is something very important in relation with climate that they don’t want to make public by obvious reasons. Which reasons? Well… the sand castle they have constructed would fall down in a microsecond.

  120. Stephen Richards
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 12:30 PM | Permalink

    Steve Mc you get a mention here. Not very complimentary but then it is the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7095968.stm

  121. Larry
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 12:32 PM | Permalink

    121

    BTW, if the partial pressure of CO2 increases, the partial pressure of something else must decrease. Water vapor?

    Please look at the actual numbers. CO2 is ~380 ppm. That’s 0.038%, or 1 part in 2630. The actual displacement of anything else is trivial. There’s nothing that says that O2 is exactly 20.8%, and N2 is exactly 79%, etc.

    I’m sorry to be blunt, but that’s a really dumb question.

  122. kim
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

    #123, Richard Black’s article about the ‘Cosmic Connection’ lays out the scenario ahead very elegantly.
    =====================================

  123. Anna Lang
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 12:51 PM | Permalink

    RE: 54, Murray Duffin:

    If the reference you are looking for is, Janssens, J. (2007) Climate evolution in Europe (1881-2004) online, then you might want to try this link:

    http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engaarde.html#Europe

  124. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

    120 jae
    Ok, that ref gives one viewpoint. Perhaps you will allow me to look at other sources.
    You are confusing winds (ie., horizontal flow of air) with convection (vertical flow of air). Winds are not convection. There is plenty of the former, but little of the latter at high altitudes.

  125. Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

    # 124

    Larry,

    I agree on the triviality of the dislodgment of other gases Pp; however, I don’t think it’s a trivial or “dumb” question. The recent measurements of Pp of atmospheric CO2 at 1 atm-m of total atmospheric pressure currently are 0.00034 atm-m. Pp is very important to determine the absorptivity-emissivity of gases in the atmosphere and the hydrosphere. It is the reason by which CO2 is not as good GHG as the IPCC team argues. Experiments and observation say a very different thing about. If you wish, I can develop the issue.

  126. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 1:33 PM | Permalink

    118 Pat Keating says:
    November 17th, 2007 at 11:47 am

    Heat transport by convection begins at the surface, planetary boundary layer (PBL) or mixing layer. As the bubble or parcel of air ascends through the colder surrounding air mass, the work performed by the pressure resistance disipates the heat energy from the parcel of air and conducts the energy into the surrounding air mass. This loss of heat energy continues until the air parcel heat energy equalizes with the surrounding air mass or the parcel reaches the tropopause separating the upper troposphere and the lower stratosphere. The lower stratosphere is warmer than the rising parcel of air underneath because of the presence of energy absobing ozone, so the lower stratosphere serves as an inversion layer and barrier to further ascension of the air parcel. However, this barrier is penetrable by an ascending parcel of air in a number of ways.

    Gravity waves and other motions of the atmospheric mass facilitate some degree of diffusion from the tropopause into the lower stratosphere. The presence of this heat ransport in the air parcels becomes involved in the formation of jet streams, frontal air masses, severe vertical convection in thunderstorm and tornado activity, and the great thermal engines of tropical storms, hurricanes, and typhoons. Particularly in the latter cases, vast quantities of heat undergo transport with water vapor into the stratosphere by major breaches of the thermal inversion layer at the troposphere.

    Heat energy in the strotosphere is strongly stratified by temperature and winds, with the heat energy being dissipated by ice formation, adiabatic cooling, and gaseous diffusion.

    Height of the tropopause varies considerably by climate cycles, seasons, regional climates, current weather, gravity waves, and realtive position to the plantetary poles. Nominal heights can range from around 8 km at a pole to around 16 km at the equator. Wind speeds and air temperatures vary, of course, with respect to air mass, jet streams, polar fronts, and major convective systems such as tropical storms and hurricanes.

  127. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 1:36 PM | Permalink

    122 Nasif

    If air rarifies with altitude, the transmittance of the atmosphere increases also, that is, its capability to intercept the energy decreases, so the energy can go out from Earth without a considerable interruption.

    Yes, indeed. Do you know at what altitude, the probability of an infra-red photon passing unscathed to the stratosphere is, say, greater than 50%. (i.e., below that it is more likely to be either (re)absorbed, scattered, or is travelling horizontally or downward.)

  128. Larry
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 1:40 PM | Permalink

    127, technically, it’s all convection, it’s just that vertical convection transfers heat upward (in competition with radiation), whereas horizontal convection doesn’t. Horizontal convection can still be important though, because it can move heat from the tropics to the poles, where it’s drier, and the heat can escape more easily because there isn’t as much of a water greenhouse effect. Either one reduces climate sensitivity, although vertical does it more.

  129. trevor
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 1:51 PM | Permalink

    Re #114: Pat Keating – you say:

    In the well-known model II by Hansen et al the gridding is done with 8 deg x 10 deg cells of latitude and longitude. They are thus close to equal area (would be equal for a perfect sphere).

    Are you sure that is true?? How many square km is a cell of 8 deg Lat and 10 deg Long at a latitude of +80 to +88 degrees compared with a cell of 8 deg Lat and 10 deg Long at a latitude of 0 to +8 degrees??

  130. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    124, Larry:

    I’m sorry to be blunt, but that’s a really dumb question.

    It wasn’t a question. I’m sorry to be blunt, but that’s the way physics works.

  131. Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 1:58 PM | Permalink

    @Mhaze in 106

    Where, if anywhere, might one find a summary of what is parametrized in the various GCMs?
    I have no idea. In principle, amy paper describing the results of a model should mention all parameterizations or make them fairly easy for a reader to trace. I have downloaded a few papers from links, noticed they aren’t quite a thorough in summarizing as I might expect from engineering literature. They send you to other papers (although not always being quite clear.) I get them… and so one.

    I principle, there could be laboratory publications.

    In practice, I haven’t found them. This may mean little, because I haven’t dug more than 2 layers. Still there appears to be more digging than normally required.

    In nuclear safety applications, forcing the reviewer to dig would not be tolerated because of safety issues. Similar issues apply in many fields where one needs to be certain no one will die if you are wrong, or one wants to use a model to convince a regulatory agency to give approval for something. (In those areas, you generally find that the lab publications exist but journal articles don’t because once you spend money on the lab report, you don’t have time or funds to write the journal article!)

    With regard to the relative humidity issue as discussed above, my impression about what might be done in GCM’s actually comes from dinner table conversations for my husband who worked on DOE’s ARM program for years. I very much doubt GMS’s assume the relatively humidity of water in air is a constant. There is no reason for them to do such a thing.

  132. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

    127: I agree with 131. Whenever air moves there is convection, by definition.

  133. Larry
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:04 PM | Permalink

    133, That’s not the way mass balances work. It’s simple. Assume 1,000,000 parts.

    Before:

    CO2: 280
    Balance: 999,720

    After:

    CO2: 380
    Balance: 999,620

    Percent change in balance:

    100×100/999720 = 0.01%. That change gets apportioned among all of the gasses; N2, O2, Ar, H2O, etc. That’s a trivial change wrt the greenhouse effect.

    It’s not even physics, it’s arithmetic.

  134. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:04 PM | Permalink

    134, Lucia:

    I very much doubt GMS’s assume the relatively humidity of water in air is a constant. There is no reason for them to do such a thing.

    I don’t think anyone said RH in air was constant; what I said is that at least some of the radiation/convection models assume that RH does not vary with temperature. See the ref. I provided in 120, p 444, second to bottom paragraph.

  135. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:08 PM | Permalink

    It’s not even physics, it’s arithmetic.

    It’s both :) And maybe not so trivial if water is displaced, but who knows?

  136. Paul Linsay
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:17 PM | Permalink

    #134 and previous.

    Apparently, the GCMs do assume constant relative humidity. See Douglas Hoyt’s discussion here .

  137. Larry
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

    139, Hmm. I wonder if there are any balloon studies that give any kind of indication of what the real 3D profile of humidity looks like. That is definitely in the category of “simpler than possible”. I also think it’s fair to say that heterogeneities in water vapor concentration will always have the effect of reducing greenhouse efficacy, because you will get, in effect, dry channels through the wet atmosphere.

  138. Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:32 PM | Permalink

    jae: in 24 you said:

    And I do understand one other very important thing so far: all climate computer models ASSUME that relative humidity stays constant as temperature increases. And this basic important assumption is clearly false, based on empirical evidence shown here.

    So yes, someone typed the sentences that introduced this idea into this thread.

    I realize that this was not quite what you meant to say, but the conversation went off in a few directions, and mhaze was asking something following the thread the followed this idea.

  139. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:35 PM | Permalink

    From the link in 139:

    “NASA’s UARS satellite was used to measure water vapor on a global scale and with unprecedented accuracy in the upper troposphere. Humidity levels in this part of the atmosphere, especially in the tropics, are important for global climate, because this is where the water vapor has the strongest impact as a greenhouse gas.”

    I really question this. The humidity levels in the tropics are already maxed out, in general, which is why there is so much rain. And the temperature levels in the tropics are also maxed out, because at about 35 C, the absolute humidity becomes so high that it has to rain (the data I have shows that you cannot increase temperature without increasing absolute humidity, which makes sense, since the water surface has to be in equilibrium with the air at that surface). Find me a spot in the tropics where the average temperature is above 33 degrees (maybe there is one, I’m looking and would appreciate the help).

  140. Larry
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:35 PM | Permalink

    139, This is quite interesting, and ties in with some of the things discussed on the exponential growth thread:

    According to Ramanathan, the carbon dioxide doubling will increase the surface radiation flux by 1 W/m2. However, I would like to point out that 600 ppm of water vapor when summed up over the globe represents a considerable tonnage. This mass must be lifted an average of about 5 kilometers and replaced weekly. To accomplish this lifting cycle requires slightly more than 1 W/m2. It is my conclusion that the water vapor feedback loop is energetically impossible. It appears that the modelers are neglecting the gravitational energy flux. Including gravitational energy in this feedback loop will reduce its strength by more than 90%. In brief, the water vapor feedback loop is impossible as presently formulated. There is simply not enough energy available to accomplish the reported warming, reported evaporation and reported altitude rise in water vapor.”

    Once again, they seem to be ignoring hydrostatic effects, and the law of conservation of energy. I’m getting used to astonishment from what isn’t in these models, but this seems a bit crass.

  141. Larry
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:40 PM | Permalink

    about 35 C, the absolute humidity becomes so high that it has to rain

    Linky???

  142. Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:41 PM | Permalink

    @Larry — 140
    There have been balloon studies of water vapor in the atmosphere. Definitely.
    See http://www.arm.gov/science/research/content.php?id=OQ== :)

  143. bender
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:42 PM | Permalink

    I’ll have to look up the date when I first called for an audit of the GCMs. I sense it’s a blog unto itself.

  144. Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

    I see the UN has realesed it’s latest report and it’s worse than they thought. Better hurry up and reach some conclusions here folks cause time is running out. Temperatures are unprecedented….again.

  145. Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 3:08 PM | Permalink

    # 130

    Pat,

    Yes, I do. When the air Pa is 473.51 hPa and its Relative Density is 45% the air has difficulties to intercept photons. I’m not sure, but it would start at an altitude of 5 to 6 Km. Thus the atmosphere is far from a perfect radiative equilibrium.

    # 140

    Larry,

    Here.

  146. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 3:24 PM | Permalink

    129 D. Patterson

    Thank you — pretty much what I expected. I hadn’t thought of the occasional breeches of the inversion at the top of the troposphere, but that is not surprising. It sounds like most of the storm breeches would be in the tropics.

    Can you shed any light on the question posed in 130?

  147. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 3:29 PM | Permalink

    132
    You’re right, my bad. I was thinking of the angle between the radii, but that is something different from longitude.

  148. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 3:39 PM | Permalink

    131, 135
    Strictly and pedantically speaking, you are correct, and I was being semantically imprecise. Along with common practice, I was referring, of course, to what is more precisely known as “natural convective heat transfer” (due to boyancy) — and I believe so were you, jae.

  149. Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

    Re: 151

    I was being sarcstic. I am fully aware of the political nature of this report but it is lead story here in NZ this morning and given what I see on this site and other info I just don’t understand why the media just accpet all this IPCC/UN nonsense without question. The cap and trade here in NZ is pushing companies offshore to China and elsewhere and pushing up food prices already. NIWA are claiming the 12 largest galciers in NZ have shrunk by 11% over the last 20 years and unless we see global cooling they will not reverse. Our Climate Change Minster here claims that the work of both Mann and Jones has been independently verified.

  150. Larry
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 3:57 PM | Permalink

    153

    Our Climate Change Minster here claims that the work of both Mann and Jones has been independently verified.

    By Gore and Thompson?

  151. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

    149 Pat Keating says:
    November 17th, 2007 at 3:24 pm

    Sorry, no. I can only refer you to the usual suspects: radiative transfer models, Trenberth et al, classical equations.

    I suspect the satellite imagery for infra-red detection of ballistic missile and nuclear detonation events will have some information from which to derive that information. However, everything I see so far is seemingly devoted to the ususal radiative transfer modeling for atmospheric transmissivity and heat budgets. These models may be useful for certain tasks, but I strongly suspect they do not accurately model the real world variances due to nacreous clouds, tropical storm transport of massive quantities of water vapor and heat into the stratosphere, and numerous other confounding variables. It will certainly be interesting to see some empirical evidence on this subject to compare with the typical radiative transfer models.

  152. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 6:29 PM | Permalink

    144: Here’s a linky for ya. See here, USAcomparisons5.xls If you plot the saturation curve, you will see that it is very close to the actual curve. In fact, I don’t think you can exceed about 30 C in the tropics over water. In fact, the Earth’s average temperature could never exceed 30 C, as long as there is water.

  153. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 6:32 PM | Permalink

    143: This agrees with what I have been saying for a long time. There cannot be a positive water vapor feedback, and the empirical evidence shows this.

  154. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 6:48 PM | Permalink

    Re # 129 D Patterson

    You quote Pat Keating in # 118

    Heat transport by convection begins at the surface, planetary boundary layer (PBL) or mixing layer. As the bubble or parcel of air ascends through the colder surrounding air mass, the work performed by the pressure resistance disipates the heat energy from the parcel of air and conducts the energy into the surrounding air mass. This loss of heat energy continues until the air parcel heat energy equalizes with the surrounding air mass or the parcel reaches the tropopause separating the upper troposphere and the lower stratosphere. The lower stratosphere is warmer than the rising parcel of air underneath because of the presence of energy absobing ozone, so the lower stratosphere serves as an inversion layer and barrier to further ascension of the air parcel.

    I ask the following because I genuinely do not know the answers. Maybe it is important in establishing of there is indeed global warming, because we concentrate on the tropopause, the last commonly mentioned structure where heat leaves the global system.

    First, I cannot find a precise physical definition of the tropopause. Briefly, some say rough air below and calm air above. Others place it where ozone reaches a defined concentration. Others say negative temp gradient below, pos above. Some say it is a calm boundary, others say there can be substantial upwellings of hotter gases. So my first question is, why is there a feature named the tropopause and not merely a gradual density reduction into space?

    Question 2 asks (from the above quote) what mechanism controls the distribution of ozone and its importance relative to other gases?

    Question 3, has ozone heat physics become a settled science or is it still an ensemble of theoretical chemical equations simulated in the lab?

    Question 4, why does turbulence decrease at the tropopause, if indeed it does?

    Question 5, we have heat from the sun heading towards the tropopause and in the other direction, we have a cooling solid earth sending heat outwards. If we have warmth from above meeting warmth from below, why is it so cold in the middle? The tropopause is about minus 80 deg C. (Try explaining this to children).

    Question 5, what is the relative amount of outward heat transfer through the tropopause from (a) convection and (b) radiation?

  155. Larry
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 6:55 PM | Permalink

    156, you’re backpeddling. Saying that the temperature can’t get over 30 isn’t the same thing a saying that there’s a such thing as absolute humidity.

  156. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 7:14 PM | Permalink

    158 Geoff

    The boundary is called the tropopause and is usually thought of as the altitude at which the lapse rate goes to zero and changes sign. The official definition (by the WMO) is where the lapse rate drops to 2C/km or less.

  157. Larry
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 7:17 PM | Permalink

    And with the reversal of the lapse rate, the stratosphere becomes stable, which is why you usually don’t run into turbulence up there.

  158. Steve Huntwork
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 7:19 PM | Permalink

    #387 Nasif Nahle:

    Good God, during the first Gulf War, the DMSP data was encrypted. I had a military guard protecting the decoding hardware 24 hours a day.

    I had to laugh, because without a radiosond balloon launched from Bagdad, the satellite data was rather useless to the military. It was VITAL that a radiosond be launched so that the MSU/SSI satellite data could be calibrated.

    Today, the DMSP MSU/SSI data is now considered to be the standard?

    That does make me want to cry……..

  159. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 7:19 PM | Permalink

    158 Geoff

    The biggest reason that things quiet down is that the atmosphere is unstable when cold air lies above warmer air (below the tropopause) but stable after the reversal, when cold air is below warmer air.

  160. Steve Huntwork
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 7:22 PM | Permalink

    “But could you try to get them inserted into the appropriate thread?”

    Absolutly, but I do not know what thread to put my comments into.

    Sometimes, when I have something important to say, the current thread may get someone’s attention.

    That is all that I ask.

  161. Larry
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 7:31 PM | Permalink

    Susann, those algorithms are actually pretty simple, they operate off of a list of phrases which have gender scores assigned to them. The scores were generated using an automated analysis of a number of lengthy texts by known authors of both sexes. It is more reliable than dice, and always more reliable if you apply it to longer texts, but since it also is driven by the writing idiosyncrasies the authors, it’s not terribly accurate under the best of circumstances.

    Like most attempts at artificial intelligence, it leaves a bit to be desired.

  162. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 7:33 PM | Permalink

    159, Larry:

    156, you’re backpeddling. Saying that the temperature can’t get over 30 isn’t the same thing a saying that there’s a such thing as absolute humidity

    ???? Say what?

  163. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 7:43 PM | Permalink

    158 Geoff

    The reason the temperature drops off with altitude is energy conservation.
    If a mass of air is lifted adiabatically (no energy exchange with the outside) against gravity it gains potential energy. Since energy is conserved, it loses internal kinetic energy, which is temperature.

    An alternate, equivalent* way to look at it is, for an adiabatic ideal gas transition PV=RT and PV^gamma = const. Since gamma > 1, T does down as P goes down.
    *(It is equivalent because the pressure difference is due to gravitation).

  164. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 8:03 PM | Permalink

    Anyway, I think the climate modelers cannot defend the assumption that relative humidity remains constant as temperature changes, as assumed by some (most? all?) of the climate models. If I am correct, that, alone, invalidates the climate models. They need to establish this, and I suspect strongly that they can’t. Again, maybe the answer is right, but the method is wrong, which means bad science. Seems to be a common theme (illness) in climate science.

  165. DocMartyn
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 8:30 PM | Permalink

    ” jae says:
    November 17th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    144: Here’s a linky for ya. See here, USAcomparisons5.xls If you plot the saturation curve, you will see that it is very close to the actual curve. In fact, I don’t think you can exceed about 30 C in the tropics over water. In fact, the Earth’s average temperature could never exceed 30 C, as long as there is water.”

    You know that in Iwo Jima the temperature has got up to 34 °C, and 32 °C is not at all uncommon, Tarawa’s record is 35.3 °C and Enewetak has gotten up to 37.8 °C (bits did get a little hotter during the bombs tests).

    Forgive me saying this but you can’t get land much closer to being in the ocean than Enewetak, and 35 °C is not a problem.

  166. Ross Nixon
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 8:37 PM | Permalink

    The side-linked FAQ (http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=1002) shows some “garbled text” in Firefox. Is is corrupted, or do I need a special font to view it properly?

  167. Richard Hill
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 8:41 PM | Permalink

    jae and others.
    re. tropical humidity max temps etc
    Has anyone already referred you to this book by William Kininmonth?
    Climate Change: A Natural Hazard
    pub November 2004.
    It has extensive coverage of this very issue.

  168. Murray Duffin
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 8:53 PM | Permalink

    Just came across this interesting paper.

    http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf

    From which on page 90 I find:

    Exact science is going to be replaced by a sociological methodology involving
    a statistical field analysis and by “democratic” rules of order. This is in harmony with the
    de nition of science advocated by the “scientific” website RealClimate.org that has integrated
    inflammatory statements, personal attacks and offenses against authors as a part of their
    “scientific” work

    Which I thought quite a few of y’all would like. Interesting paper. Probably deserves a thread. Murray

    ow.

  169. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 8:56 PM | Permalink

    178, DocMartyn: Thank you. I’ve been looking for maximums. Remember that I am looking for daily AVERAGES, not maximums. The maximums in the deserts are way above 50 C, but the averages are around 32 degrees. Revise my average estimate up a little, maybe 32 degrees then. Whatever. The fact is that water vapor limits the upper temperature that is possible on Earth, as long as water is available. When the air becomes too saturated, it rains and cools things off, period. The Earth has a maximum temperature which is limited by WATER, that’s all I’m saying. And the tropics are very close, if not equal, to that maximum. AGW cannot heat the tropics any more, IMHO. It can, of course, heat other portions of the globe, but not via “water vapor feedback.”

  170. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 9:05 PM | Permalink

    173 jae

    I wouldn’t push the claim that the GCMs assume constant RH too much. Read Hansen et al, 1983 (see http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/modeling/gcms.html ).

  171. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 9:07 PM | Permalink

    Sorry, that’s a response to 164.

  172. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 9:39 PM | Permalink

    168 Murray

    That IS a very interesting paper. They claim that there is no such thing as the IR Greenhouse Effect, even in a greenhouse — the warming is merely due to convection cooling being blocked by the glass!

    I don’t know whether their conclusions are correct or not, but in general their Physics is very good, and knowledgeable.

    What a disaster for the Team if it became clear that they are correct!

  173. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 9:51 PM | Permalink

    I don’t know whether their conclusions are correct or not, but in general their Physics is very good, and knowledgeable

    Larry, did you read this? I happen to agree with it. And I’m still waiting for you to cite some physicists who dispute this, especially the “greenhouse” part.

  174. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 9:52 PM | Permalink

    171, 172: You are in definite snippable (sp?) territory here.

  175. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

    173, 174
    I thought you would be interested in this one, with the convective-cooling angle.

    It would be a pity if it were snipped. The paper merits serious consideration. I haven’t studied it long enough to say if it is true, but their sanity and physics knowledge suggests it should be looked at further.
    In particular, they quote an experiment in which Wood constructed two model greenhouses, one with glass and one with NaCl instead (this has good transparency in the near IR, but I haven’t looked into how far out the transparency extends — it may not go far enough to be an effective IR window for 300K emissions).
    Wood found the second ‘greenhouse’ warmed up as well as the first one.

  176. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:13 PM | Permalink

    175

    I have looked up the IR transmission range for NaCl, and it extends out to 25u, which is well past the most important CO2 and H2O bands.

    The Woods experiment needs to be repeated under highly-controlled conditions.

  177. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:21 PM | Permalink

    I’ve asked on several occasions that this paper not be discussed here until there has been an adequate discussion of mainstream articles.

  178. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:28 PM | Permalink

    Sorry, Steve. I had no knowledge of your prior comments on this article, and would not have latched onto Duffin’s post if I had known.

    As a well-qualified physicist, I felt that there was enough solidity to the physics for further consideration. I will suspend all further comments,

    My apologies, again. Ignorance is no defence….

  179. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:36 PM | Permalink

    It’s not that it isn’t worth discussing at some point; however I want the priority of this blog to focus on mainstream science.

  180. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 10:39 PM | Permalink

    OK, I won’t mention it again here. Feel free to erase my comments (but of course you don’t need my permission, anyway).

  181. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 11:01 PM | Permalink

    I think that it’s very impolite for John V to participate here, where I’ve treated him cordially and then go and bad mouth me at Tamino accusing me of bad faith:

    At least some of the blame for the lack of transparency belongs with sites like CA that do not review the data and methods in good faith. They dig for little problems and amplify them. They seem to think that not being perfectly right implies being perfectly wrong.

    I try to be careful with how I express things. John V, show me some examples where I’ve gone a bridge too far. And if you think that I have, don’t you think that you should have raised the issue with me here before making accusations like this over at another blog?

    And if we’re talking about thing like the hockey stick and proxy reconstructions, the problems aren’t all that “little” and I’d say that the problems have been exacerbated by the total inability of the Team to seemingly even understand the problems.

  182. jae
    Posted Nov 17, 2007 at 11:42 PM | Permalink

    And if we’re talking about thing like the hockey stick and proxy reconstructions, the problems aren’t all that “little” and I’d say that the problems have been exacerbated by the total inability of the Team to seemingly even understand the problems.

    For the new folks here, here’s a perfect statement of “where we are on November 17, 2007.”

  183. DharmaHunter
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 1:14 AM | Permalink

    Bernie@46 “I am still interested in how the NOAA/NCDC data is put together and how reliable it is.”

    The data I quoted is from the RSS analysis of satellite data. As time has gone by, the RSS and Christy & Spencer data have converged (not that they were far apart to begin with). The determination of “temperature” from satellites is not a trivial matter. However, since Christy first described the technique in the early 90’s, there have been several corrections as the subtleties of the technique has come to light. Because of the relative independence of the analyses along with good old scientific competition (there are some other groups that put out a satellite product), I think that the satellite data are about as good as you will get in terms of determining long term atmospheric temperature trends. My confidence is bolstered by the pretty good correlations between “global temperature” and the ENSO, Mt Pinatubo eruption, and the rate of CO2 accumulation.

    Interpretation of the data is another story. First, the data is noisy. Even when the monthly mean anomalies are averaged over a year, the difference of the mean anomalies from year to year can often be >0.2 C, when the slope is ~0.18 C/decade. With just less than 30 yrs of data and a dynamic, non-linear system, I think that it is premature to attribute a specific cause for the warming…Just my opinion.

    The other temperature packages have their own problems…just browse some of the older posts. Steve M also has some interesting posts from the very beginning on determining whether a trend is significant (I just found them). Unfortunately, there is no “user’s guide” to exactly how all of the temperature packages are put together: you have to dig, dig, dig. Reliability is a different matter. There are numerous posts here about data collection methods for surface temperature. See the Anthony Watts link for the land data. I do not even want to think about relying on sailors in the South Pacific taking temperature with buckets and hand held thermometers.

    JP@40 — I looked back over the discussions for the ENSO during that time. Certainly, the NOAA/CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER/NCEP analyst was much more muted than early statements of Hansen WRT the super-El Nino. I don’t think that anyone can reliably predict what the PDO is going to do. For all that I can see, the PDO has only recently gone cool, but a few data points does not make a trend. However, I would not be at all surprised if it does go cold for a while with its associated dampening of El Nino events.

    I must praise the individual meteorologists at NOAA who actually put out the predictions. I am most familiar with the work from the Hurricane Center. They are careful and put out a high quality package. When Max Mayfield called the local governments prior to Katrina, they knew it wasn’t chicken little on the line.

    Thanks for reminding me about the PDO, I had not updated my graphs for a while.

  184. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 4:02 AM | Permalink

    Re # 98 Lucia

    We continue to differ. You state

    If I had a 3 year old child, I would not hire a babysitter who I suspected of having molested any child. From my point of view, the correct question is “How can I minimize the likelihood my child would be harmed.”

    In terms of scientific evidence (and probably in legal evidence) your statement “suspected of having molested” carries no meaning in your effort to “minimise harm”. One scientific approach, perhaps the first, would be to assume that all babysitters are capable of child molestation. You would then devise a test to find a babysitter with minimal probability of causing harm, so far as that is possible.

    In this climate debate, to paraphrase your thinking, “methane is suspected of causing global warming” and hence we need to “minimise harm”. One scientific approach would be to keep an open mind on all events that could affect climate and to devise tests as to which events do.

    It is not enough to base your science on suspicions of this or that. Science is based on evidence. I could perfectly understand your wish to minimise harm if the cause of harm was actual rather than a suspicion. If the babysitter had been proven to have molested others, that would be proof and we are as one. Lacking that, the word “paranoia” starts to creep in.

    You will find many, many others on this Weblog who agree that the implication of methane (in this example) in global climate has not been scientifically demonstrated above suspicion to a level of acceptable proof. Therefore, the (drastic) need to minimise harm is reduced accordingly.

    Most of us who write here simply want to replace belief-driven science with evidence-based science. Suspicion = belief.

  185. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 4:29 AM | Permalink

    re # 163 Pat Keating

    Please keep plugging away at these answers, I appreciate that. You say

    The reason the temperature drops off with altitude is energy conservation.
    If a mass of air is lifted adiabatically (no energy exchange with the outside) against gravity it gains potential energy. Since energy is conserved, it loses internal kinetic energy, which is temperature.

    What is the reason for a mass of air to be lifted adiabatically, against gravity, or at all?

    For each mass that is lifted, is there not a compensating mass that moves down and heats?

    These questions are along a path that says “If we have global warming, then we must have a reduction in heat flow through the tropopause” all other things being equal for the purpose of this sentence.

  186. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 4:39 AM | Permalink

    Re #110 Kim

    Is G&T a joke as some thermodynamacists claim, or mistaken, as others do? Surely they were attempting some of these calculations.

    Having read this paper carefully, I find it has the same equations as we were taught in Physics in the 1960s. This does not mean that they are now to be discarded. To the contrary, budding climatologists should thoroughly familiarise themselves with this paper because it places certain mental restraints on what can and cannot be properly included in a model. It includes the proper setting for raising T to the power of 4, a step which I have seen badly confused in blogs.

    It also has a delightful exposition on why “greenhouse” is entirely inappropriate a word in climate models. All done with a stationary car, a thermometer and a sheet of glass.

  187. DocMartyn
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 7:21 AM | Permalink

    ” Pat Keating says:
    November 17th, 2007 at 10:13 pm

    I have looked up the IR transmission range for NaCl, and it extends out to 25u, which is well past the most important CO2 and H2O bands.

    The Woods experiment needs to be repeated under highly-controlled conditions.”

    Wood’s knew the IR spectrum of NaCl, as he had been following the spat between Arrhenius and Ångström. He states that he used Rock salt, not table salt. Rock salt is mostly KCl and transparent in the IR.
    I do agree that the experiment need to be redone.

  188. Larry
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 8:56 AM | Permalink

    I don’t think that anyone on RC would disagree that “greenhouse” is a poor analogy, so there’s nothing novel there. IIRC, that goes back to Fourier in the mid-1800s, and was an attempt to compare it with something familiar. It was never supposed to be a perfect analogy.

    As far as the rest of the paper goes, you can throw around a lot of correct equations without arguing a coherent point. The correctness of the equations doesn’t mean anything by itself.

    I’d steer clear of that one.

  189. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

    185 Geoff

    What is the reason for a mass of air to be lifted adiabatically, against gravity, or at all?

    How did it get up there? No one turned off gravity as it was getting there. The adiabaticity is an approximation, but fairly good, because the test air is surrounded by other air at the same temperature.

    For each mass that is lifted, is there not a compensating mass that moves down and heats?

    Sure, and that’s one reason why the air is warmer near the surface.

  190. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 9:46 AM | Permalink

    187 Martyn

    1. Rock salt is not mostly KCl. It is mostly NaCl, with a very little KCl.

    2. NaCl is also transparent in the IR, almost as good as KCl.

  191. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 10:03 AM | Permalink

    188
    I have told Steve M. that I won’t discuss the G&T paper brought up by Durkin further here.

    As far as the IR Greenhouse analogy goes, I don’t think that most people realize its falsity. Instead, the extreme aspects of the GHG hypothesis gain credibility from its association with something people are familiar with from their everyday lives.

    If the Woods experiment is now accepted, there is no need to repeat it, except perhaps to educate the masses.

  192. pochas
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 11:24 AM | Permalink

    #191 Pat Keeting:

    If the Woods experiment is now accepted, there is no need to repeat it,

    I disagree. The Woods experiment needs to be reconciled with theory. Did the glass plate installed above the salt plate ruin the experiment?

  193. jae
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

    Did the glass plate installed above the salt plate ruin the experiment?

    No. You have to do that to block incoming IR, because the KCl greenhouse would let it pass, whereas the glass one would not, making the KCl greenhouse hotter.

  194. Larry
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

    1. It’s not KCl.

    2. What, exactly, is the problem with the Woods experiment? He seemed to confirm the obvious; that greenhouses block convection, and are a poor analogy for the “greenhouse effect”.

  195. jae
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 12:54 PM | Permalink

    Larry, he dispelled the common (incorrect) wisdom that says that a greenhouse works by TRAPPING IR.

  196. Larry
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

    Okay. Now it starts to make more sense, why Fourier called it that. It wasn’t that he didn’t understand the greenhouse effect, it’s that he didn’t understand how glass greenhouses work. Either way, it’s poorly named.

  197. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 1:21 PM | Permalink

    195,196

    I contend that this urban myth gives unwarranted credibility to the GHG hypothesis, by connecting a complex abstruse radiative issue falsely to a common everyday phenomenon that everyone can relate to.

  198. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 3:35 PM | Permalink

    154 Geoff Sherrington says:

    November 17th, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    Re # 129 D Patterson

    You quote Pat Keating in # 118

    Heat transport by convection begins at the surface, planetary boundary layer (PBL) or mixing layer. As the bubble or parcel of air ascends through the colder surrounding air mass, the work performed by the pressure resistance dissipates the heat energy from the parcel of air and conducts the energy into the surrounding air mass. This loss of heat energy continues until the air parcel heat energy equalizes with the surrounding air mass or the parcel reaches the tropopause separating the upper troposphere and the lower stratosphere. The lower stratosphere is warmer than the rising parcel of air underneath because of the presence of energy absobing ozone, so the lower stratosphere serves as an inversion layer and barrier to further ascension of the air parcel.

    I ask the following because I genuinely do not know the answers. Maybe it is important in establishing of there is indeed global warming, because we concentrate on the tropopause, the last commonly mentioned structure where heat leaves the global system.

    First, I cannot find a precise physical definition of the tropopause. Briefly, some say rough air below and calm air above. Others place it where ozone reaches a defined concentration. Others say negative temp gradient below, pos above. Some say it is a calm boundary, others say there can be substantial upwellings of hotter gases. So my first question is, why is there a feature named the tropopause and not merely a gradual density reduction into space?

    The nomenclature reflects the nature of the zone in which the environmental conditions typical of the troposphere come to a pause or end, and different environmental conditions begin in the stratosphere above. This major change in environment is due to a number of related conditions. As solar radiation enters the Earth’s atmosphere it begins to encounter atomic and molecular oxygen. Because oxygen is relatively more active in forming molecular bonds, the solar radiation tends to facilitate the formation of molecular oxygen in the form of ozone (O3). The structure of ozone is particularly good at absorbing many of the electromagnetic frequencies of ultraviolet light energy. When the ozone absorbs the ultraviolet light, the absorbed energy tends to break the molecular bonds and reduces the ozone back into atomic oxygen and a lot of kinetic energy. The high state of kinetic energy of the atomic oxygen then causes the atomic oxygen to reform the molecule of ozone, so the process can recycle so long as the solar radiation and highly excited atomic oxygen remains available. The frequency of this reaction between the ultraviolet light of the solar radiation and the oxygen and ozone increases as the atmospheric density increases at the lower altitudes. When the atmospheric density becomes massive enough, the ozone absorbs nearly all of the most important wavelengths of ultraviolet light. It is at this level of the atmosphere that the heating of the atmosphere by ultraviolet makes the air mass warmer than the air masses in the underlying troposphere, and the critical frequencies of ultraviolet light have been nearly all absorbed to the point at which it is no longer a significant cause of diabatic heating of ozone and oxygen below that level.

    Since the atmosphere above the troposphere has effectively removed the ultraviolet light which generates and warms ozone, the upper tropospheric air masses remain colder. Since they remain colder than the air masses above, the upper tropospheric masses are normally denser, heavier, and less buoyant than the lower stratospheric air mass immediately above. When an air parcel is heated by contact with the planetary surface or by other diabatic processes, gravity causes the neighboring colder and heavier air parcels to sink and thereby displaces the warmer, less dense, and lighter weight air parcel upwards through the troposphere somewhat like a balloon. Also like a balloon, the vertical motion imparted by the buoyancy imparts a certain amount of kinetic momentum. The kinetic heat content of the parcel of air is progressively depleted and the air temperature of the air parcel declines as the parcel of air conducts this kinetic energy to the neighboring air parcels and as it loses its density as the air pressure falls at higher altitudes.

    When the depletion of the air parcel’s kinetic heat energy has depleted to the same state as the surrounding air parcels, the air parcel reaches an equilibrium level (EL). However, the air parcel will typically continue rising above its equilibrium level due to the remaining vertical kinetic momentum imparted by its vertical motion. The altitude at which an air parcel rises is described as its Maximum Parcel Level (MPL). Once the energy of its vertical kinetic momentum is disspipated, the air parcel may sink back to its equilibrium level or level of neutral buoyancy, unless other forces have intervened while the air parcel was at its Maximum Parcel Level. Because of the warmer and less dense atmosphere of the lower stratosphere caused by the heating of ozone by ultraviolet light, the highest altitude Maximum Parcel Level is normally going to be just below the altitude at which the ultraviolet light has been absorbed and is no longer present to continue the effect into any lower altitudes. When flying in a jet aircraft at the high altitudes of the lower stratosphere, you can often easily see the tropopause by noticing how all clouds except the nacreous clouds have reached their maximum cloud heights at comparable altitudes.

    In exceptional circumstances, however, severe atmospheric convection can impart such strong kinetic motions to a parcel of air, the parcel of air can each speeds like 100 miles per hour that are great enough to propel the air parcel vertically well beyond the normal Maximum Parcel Level and well into the lower stratosphere. This is commonly seen when the vertical convective updrafts propel a parcel of air to the higher altitudes and meets the lower stratosphere. If the air parcel remains too cold and lacks the necessary momentum, it will not have enough heat and buoyancy to rise through the warm air of the lower stratosphere. Instead, the air parcel and perhaps the water droplets in the air parcel’s cloud will spread along the tropopause and the base of the stratosphere. This is seen by an observer on the ground as the anvil head of a thunderstorm, because the thunderstorm clouds are pulled by the winds across the base of the warmer, thinner, and more buoyant layer of stratospheric air above. Such an event provides the ground observer a visual reference to the location of the tropopause. Whenever the thunderstorm does heat the air parcel to an equal of greater air temperature than the lower stratosphere and/or the thunderstorm imparts enough kinetic energy to push the air parcel into the lower stratosphere, the air parcel from the troposphere is then able to pass through the tropopause and intrude into the stratosphere. Such intrusions of a tropospheric cloud mass is described as an overshooting top. An overshooting top can be identified as the dome like cloud which protrudes above the anvil head of a thunderstorm cloud.

    The tropopause is therefore defined by a major change in atmospheric conditions due to the interaction of ultraviolet light with ozone. The removal of oxygen and ozone from the atmosphere would then result in the elimination of the current form of tropopause. This observation then prompts the question of what may have happened to ultraviolet light radiation, its effect upon ozone, the tropopause, troposphere, and the biosphere during the periods in which the Earth’s magnetic field collapsed while it changed polarity from North to South to North again and again?

    Question 2 asks (from the above quote) what mechanism controls the distribution of ozone and its importance relative to other gases?

    Atmospheric density and atmospheric concentrations of oxygen sufficient to absorb virtually all of the critical wavelengths of ultraviolet light radiation from the Sun determines the altitude at which there is no longer enough such ultraviolet light radiation to significantly heat an air mass composed of oxygen and other gasses.

    Question 3, has ozone heat physics become a settled science or is it still an ensemble of theoretical chemical equations simulated in the lab?

    Although I don’t recall any details, I do recall reading something in the past which described some laboratory experiments concerning the oxygen to ozone to oxygen reactions. Due diligence standards of inquiry would suggest this is a good topic for confirmation.

    Question 4, why does turbulence decrease at the tropopause, if indeed it does?

    A variety of adiabatic and diabatic processes balance to result in the depletion of energy in a parcel of air to a level which defines its maximum parcel level. In the absence of more severe convective activity in the form of strong vertical cloud formations, tornadoes, tropical storms, frontal convective activity, and so forth, turbulence decreases as kinetic energy is dissipated by the various diabatic and adiabatic processes involved with the ascension of a buoyant air parcel. Turbulence above the tropopause is minimal relative to the troposphere, because the atmospheric conditions and solar radiation environment are substantially different. The troposphere in particular is subject to surface conditions and related diabatic conditions not present above the tropopause, and the troposphere is not subject to the same solar radiation conditions present above the tropopause.

    Question 5, we have heat from the sun heading towards the tropopause and in the other direction, we have a cooling solid earth sending heat outwards. If we have warmth from above meeting warmth from below, why is it so cold in the middle? The tropopause is about minus 80 deg C. (Try explaining this to children).

    It’s not so difficult once you introduce the water cycle. The water cycle is a voracious consumer of heat energy. Melting water molecules from their state as ice into liquid water removes a great amount of heat energy from the surrounding atmosphere. Freezing water molecules from their state as liquid water into ice releases a great amount of heat energy from the surrounding atmosphere. More importantly, however, is the huge difference in the heat energy required to evaporate and then condense water molecules between a liquid state and a gaseous state. It takes – 7.5 times – as much energy when evaporating and condensing water molecules between liquid water and gaseous water vapor.

    In the denser air of the lower troposphere, the evaporation of liquid water removes 7.5 times more heat energy from the atmosphere that melting ice into liquid water does. The evaporated water molecules are carried aloft by the convection of a buoyant parcel of air. As the air parcel ascends from the lower troposphere into the upper troposphere due to the forces of gravity, the air parcel and water molecules undergo adiabatic cooling due to significant changes in air pressure. The cooling of the air parcel occurs as heat from the warm and ascending air parcels to the colder and descending air parcels exerting molecular pressure upon each other. As the ascending air parcel cools, the gaseous water molecules reach an air temperature where they begin to condense into liquid water droplets. The process of condensing the gaseous water molecules into liquid water molecules releases 7.5 times more heat energy into the ascending air parcel than would the melting of water ice into liquid water. The release of the heat energy into the air parcel mitigates the adiabatic cooling and assists the air parcel to ascend to higher altitudes, lower atmospheric densities and air pressures, increasing releases of heat energy.

    So, why then does all of this heat energy being transported on a water cycle conveyor belt into the upper troposphere permit the upper troposphere to be colder rather than hotter? It would not be if the upper troposphere had the same atmospheric density and the same mass as the lower troposphere. The upper troposphere, however, has far less atmospheric density and far less mass than the lower troposphere. Lacking the densities and mass necessary to prevent a diminishing conduction of heat energy between atoms and molecules within the air parcel/s, the heat energy emissions are increasingly lost from the air parcels by radiative emissions into outer space. It is for this reason that the upper troposphere and tropopause are the source for a considerable portion of the Earth’s radiative emissions of heat energy into space. They contain the most atmospheric mass, the most mass of water molecules, and the most latent heat energy. Like a sheet of red hot iron, the heat radiated from the heated sheet of iron to your skin was reduced and inhibited very little by the insignificant amount of atmospheric conduction and absorption existing between the red hot sheet of iron and your skin.

    As the heat energyof the troposphere and tropopause is radiated into space, the air parcel is cooled until it reaches temperatures considerably colder than the even less dense and less massive air undergoing diabatic heating by the interaction of ultraviolet light with ozone and oxygen in the stratosphere above. The higher air temeprature of the lower stratosphere is not an overall impediment to the radiative emission of heat energy from the upper troposphere and tropopause, because the lower air densities, air pressures, and mass do not permit enough conduction of heat energy from the lower stratosphere to the upper troposphere to be a significant factor.

    For example, the air temperature for a parcel of pure oxygen in Earth’s exosphere in the vicinity of the International Space Station (ISS) and the Space Shuttle (STS) can be something like 2,500 degrees Celsius. However, if this parcel of oxygen were to come into contact with your bare skin, you would be unharmed and probably wouldn’t notice coming into contact with it. The number of atoms and molecules would be so few, so diffuse, so lacking in density and lacking in mass, there would be too little heat energy to be conducted and too little conduction of the heat energy that did exist for it to have any significant influence.

    Likewise at the tropopause, the atmospheric densities and masses involved do not permit enough conduction of heat energy to permit the lower stratosphere to approach coming into a thermal equilibrium with the underlying troposphere.

    Question 5, what is the relative amount of outward heat transfer through the tropopause from (a) convection and (b) radiation?

    Obviously, virtually all transmission of heat energy into outer space is by radiative transfer, because the virtual vacuum of space does not permit heat conduction to occur. The amount of heat transferred through the tropopause by conduction is insignificant in comparison to the dominating diabatic changes and the radiative transfers of heat energy, otherwise the tropopause could not continue in existence.

  199. Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

    Dr Vincent Gray has just been on talkback radio here in NZ disputing the statements of Dr Jim Slinger of NIWA who has gone on record as stating that New Zealand glaciers have been receading since the 1970’s. Dr Gray states that in fact since 2006 the glaciers have been growing and further states that last months NZ temperatures were 0.5 C below average. All this coming about as a result of the latest IPCC diatribe yet again telling us this is our last chance to stop the warming……or else what we told you would happen ten years ago will happen you know….it will…..really……..it will and you’ll be sorry.

  200. Larry
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 3:47 PM | Permalink

    198, that was quite good. Thank you. That answered a number of questions that I had.

  201. trevor
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 4:37 PM | Permalink

    Re #198 and #200:

    D Patterson, you probably realise that it is important to caibrate compliments. In some circles – British gentry, some youth cultures – “quite good” is as good as it gets, and can be interpreted as “excellent”, which epiphet I would apply to your post.

    Thank you for your clear explanation of quite complex material.

  202. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 4:51 PM | Permalink

    154, 198

    That’s a pretty full explanation of what goes on in the troposphere and above it.

    However, it is erroneous in one respect: it explains the temperature drop-off (lapse rate) as due to water. That is incorrect. The drop-off is a feature of perfectly dry air, and the source is described in #163. The mechanisms discussed in 198 only modify the existing (dry-air) lapse rate, and then only where the air is close to saturation.

  203. Larry
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

    But it’s enhanced by water, dramatically. Latent heat is 3 orders of magnitude greater than sensible heat for water. With water, there’s a LOT more heat transfered.

  204. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 5:10 PM | Permalink

    203 Larry

    But it’s enhanced by water, dramatically.

    Hardly dramatic. A change from about 5.5F/1000 ft to about 5.0F/1000 ft isn’t dramatic in my book.
    Moreover, this change occurs only in that part of the troposphere where the clouds are (e.g., at 50% RH, you get the dry-air lapse rate).

  205. Larry
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 5:14 PM | Permalink

    I was talking about the heat flux.

  206. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 5:21 PM | Permalink

    202 Pat Keating says:
    November 18th, 2007 at 4:51 pm

    Any impression you may have gained from my post regarding lapse rates being mentioned or not mentioned are unintentional. Although I was trying to convey the often overlooked or under appreciated importance of water in the conveyance of heat energy from the lower troposphere to where it could be radiativly transmitted off-planet from the upper troposphere, I intended to include all of the other relevant processes for heat transfer by use of the diabatic process and adiabatic process terms of phrase. I was trying to make an inevitably longer post more brief by relying on the readers to understand all of what may be subsumed under those processes.

    Suffice it to say, there is a complex interplay betwen the diabatic processes and adiabatic proceses taking place in a parcel of air which results in a final balance determined by the variable inputs to those processes. One of the major faults of the Genral Circulation Models (GCM) is their failure to factor in the influence of the water molecules in clouds. Due to the substantial differential in the ability of dry air and moist air to transport latent heat to an altitude where radiative transfer is substantially more important than atmospheric conduction, it seemed important to give such a process closer attention. It also seemed important to highlight why the dry air of the stratosphere exists and is significant in comparison to the much more moist and turbulent troposphere.

    Perhaps you and others can elaborate in more detail on the diabatic and adiabatic processes and their relation to the ultimate radiative transfers to outer space?

  207. kim
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 5:29 PM | Permalink

    I think I’ve never heard so loud
    The quiet message in a cloud.

    Thank you, DP. Is the flaw in the GCM’s why 25% of IPCC greenhouse warming is supposed to be from water vapor?
    ================================================

  208. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 5:49 PM | Permalink

    207 kim says:
    November 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pm

    Is the flaw in the GCM’s why 25% of IPCC greenhouse warming is supposed to be from water vapor?

    I cannot comment on the quantitative values. What I can do is observe how the IPCC says that “clouds…cannot be properly modelled,” so the IPCC uses “parameterizations” which do not and cannot satisfy their own criterion for uncertainty for a regional projection.

    As the investigations continue, we can see that such parameterizations leave something to be desired from the point of view of the IPCC, and probably far more so as an understatement of many independent investigators and critics of the IPCC.
    It also makes you wonder why the more extremist environmental movements would champion the use of automobiles which use hydrogen fuel to burn with atmospheric oxygen to produce water vapor as a emissions as a byproduct?

  209. Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 5:57 PM | Permalink

    Scott-in-WA,

    At the risk of invoking the “t” word, I have a
    question for Nasif and others who would like to
    respond.

    An environmental science professor from Washington
    State University, George Mount, gave a lecture in our
    area last night on the topic of AGW. He said, “There
    is little debate that the climate is warming”, saying
    that the Earth has warmed about “three degrees” since
    1850.
    Mount also said, “Research shows water vapor
    represents 60 percent of greenhouse gases, and carbon
    dioxide is second at 28 percent.” Prof. Mount is
    obviousy referring to the relative efficiency of
    energy entrapment by the two most prominent GHG’s, not
    to their average distribution within the atmosphere.

    My question for Nasif is this: Do the AGW alarmist and
    the AGW skeptic camps both agree on the validity this
    very basic assumption concerning the relative
    heat-trapping efficiencies of water vapor and carbon
    dioxide; i.e., water vapor represents 60 percent of
    greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide is second at 28
    percent?

    My answer is: No, AGW alarmists did take inflated values. GHG represents the 9.2 percent of the atmosphere. The standard percentage of water vapor in the whole mixture of air is 3%, and the percentage or index of CO2 is 0.036% (the value has been changed up to 0.04%, but it is a very low percentage compared with WV, anyway). Now, WV represents 32.6% from the total index of GHG, and CO2 represents 0.4% from the total amount of atmospheric GHG.

    WV = 32.6%, alpha = 0.75, MW = 18.02 g/mol
    CO2 = 0.4%, alpha = 0.001, MW = 40.01 g/mol

    Relation WV fraction: CO2 fraction = 1:0.012 (relative fraction of CO2 = 1.2%
    Relation alpha WV: alpha CO2 = 1:0.0013 (relative thermal efficiency of CO2 = 2.04%)
    Relation MW WV: MW CO2 = 1:2.22 (Competence of CO2 = 97%)

    Relative percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere considering its real proportion, alpha and MW = 5.47%.
    Relative percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere considering its real proportion, alpha and MW = 35.81%.
    Relative emissivity CO2 g = 0.16
    Relative emissivity H2O g = 0.80

    Actual Total WV% + CO2% = 41.3% (emissivity WV + CO2 = 0.96)
    AGW Total WV% + CO2% = 56% (emissivity WV + CO2 = 0.95)

    The values are given at a Pa of 1 atm and T of 300.15 K.
    The difference between physics emissivity and AGW emissivity of 0.01 seems to be negligible, but if it was real it could cause a “retention” of heat equal to 2.42 W/m^2 that represents a change of temperature of 4.7 °C, all for AGW idea.

    Please, correct me if I’m wrong in any calculation… I’m hungry.

  210. Larry
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 5:57 PM | Permalink

    I presume that was a rhetorical question.

  211. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 6:02 PM | Permalink

    206

    OK.
    I agree with you that the water-vapor heat transport mechanisms need to be better understood and modeled in the GCMs. Of course, the radiative GHG side has a lot of holes in it, too, especially where the ‘water-vapor GHG-feedback’ is concerned.

  212. jae
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 6:19 PM | Permalink

    198, D. Patterson: Great post!

  213. Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 6:38 PM | Permalink

    # 209

    Myself,

    I wrote:

    Relative percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere considering its real proportion, alpha and MW = 5.47%.
    Relative percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere considering its real proportion, alpha and MW = 35.81%.
    Relative emissivity CO2 g = 0.16
    Relative emissivity H2O g = 0.80

    The bold CO2 in the sentence must be changed to H2O. Sorry, I’m still hungry.

  214. David Archibald
    Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 8:55 PM | Permalink

    If anyone knows where I can get some long term US temperature records, please point me in the right direction. The longest I have found at USHCN are from 1835.

  215. Posted Nov 18, 2007 at 10:17 PM | Permalink

    Re #214 David I think I’ve seen temperature records for a few US cities before 1835, given in tables in articles in the Monthly Weather Review archives . You have to use the Advanced Search feature and then thumb through the articles. Again, my recollection is that the data is quite sparse and it was also limited to the eastern US.

  216. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 12:50 AM | Permalink

    Look at this graph. Isotopes of 10Be, 14C, and other cosmogenic nuclides were used for proxies. The graph moves back to year 1611 AD because there are not constant reckons of sunspots before 1600 AD. I hypothesize that Judith Lean et al. did not use dendrochronology (tree rings) for these proxies because it contains many confounding factors.

  217. Hans Erren
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 3:18 AM | Permalink

    Nasif, methinks these are based on sunspots, not isotopes

  218. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 3:43 AM | Permalink

    This from Brian Aldiss in today’s Guardian CiF – very sad.
    A.

  219. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 4:14 AM | Permalink

    Re # 198 D Patterson

    Thankyou for your lengthy dissertation on “tropopause”. I appreciate the effort.

    Greek dictionary don’t help. Tropo = manner, mode, process, method. Pause = halt.

    Your first line is not much help either –

    The nomenclature reflects the nature of the zone in which the environmental conditions typical of the troposphere come to a pause or end, and different environmental conditions begin in the stratosphere above.

    Which we all know.

    It gets more exciting as the chemistry evolves –

    the formation of molecular oxygen in the form of ozone (O3).

    Sorry, but ozone is not a form of molecular oxygen (two different chemicals entirely).

    Next we come to the Holy Grail of Perpetual Motion:

    Because oxygen is relatively more active (THAN WHAT?)in forming molecular bonds, the solar radiation tends to facilitate the formation of molecular oxygen in the form of ozone (O3). The structure of ozone is particularly good at absorbing many of the electromagnetic frequencies of ultraviolet light energy. When the ozone absorbs the ultraviolet light, the absorbed energy tends to break the molecular bonds and reduces the ozone back into atomic oxygen and a lot of kinetic energy. The high state of kinetic energy of the atomic oxygen then causes the atomic oxygen to reform the molecule of ozone, so the process can recycle so long as the solar radiation and highly excited atomic oxygen remains available.

    About here I started to think of a refrigerator. It sits in a warm kitchen. Energy is pumped into it as electrical. A refrigerant fluid is compressed mechanically, then separated from those hot surroundings, then expanded causing adiabatic cooling. This or a fluid cooled by it is circulated through some coils to the food storage area, so we have a cold region despite heat input all around. Note, though, that the process generates heat that ends up on your electricity bill. I think that most of your subsequent description fits more or less into this analogy.

    Sp planet earth can act like a fridge? It’s not a bad analogy in the broad sense, but it’s different in detail. I’m worried about why the ozone hangs around the tropopause. It’s a heavy gas, why does it not sink?

    I’m also worried about the overall heat balance. Using the refrigerator analogy, if we want to cool the food less, we use less electricity. This means that the whole unit warms the room less (or to use the global warming analogy, less heat escapes back to space). Similarly, if the lower Earth atmosphere is warming, surely less heat must be escaping to space because it’s being kept down there. Now, I have read that if the lower atmosphere is warming, this will cause more heat to escape to space because there’s more of it being produced. Which answer is right?

    Maybe the question is wrong. Maybe simply changing the chemistry of the refrigerant will change the temperature in the fridge with no change in energy balance.

    The refrigerator analogy explains why we can have a cold zone between two warm places (sun and earth), but the components of the refrigerator are engineered to keep components in the intended places. The compressor and pumps are mechanically driven by electric motors with somewhat constrained properties. And, eventually, an equilibrium is reached overall.

    What prevents equilibrium in the global system? If it is calm above the tropopause, why can that calmness not gradually extend down to the global surface? (Coriolis forces, I suppose)

    I can’t understand your terminolgy when you state –

    It takes – 7.5 times – as much energy when evaporating and condensing water molecules between liquid water and gaseous water vapor.

    A pool of water will evaporate on its own, endothermic reaction, cools the rest of the water.

    Also can’t understand the mechanism about heat loss just below the tropopause –

    Lacking the densities and mass necessary to prevent a diminishing conduction of heat energy between atoms and molecules within the air parcel/s, the heat energy emissions are increasingly lost from the air parcels by radiative emissions into outer space.

    I read this as hot air rising, then radiating heat into outer space, thus causing cooling to temperatures lower than we have on Earth. Now if you put a satellite next to this packet of air, it would warm up. They put metallised reflector material around instruments to stop them warming well above Earth surface temperature. Why does the air cool and the satellite warm up? Do we have a confusion between heat energy and temperature?

    Sorry, I’m none the wiser. The curse of old age and experience.

  220. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 5:50 AM | Permalink

    Be aware of likely temporary but sudden cooling of Boreal Emisphere in the weeks ahead (out of what can be local weather in your place).
    Sea ice cover has already matched and slightly overunned 2006 level for these days, and it is incresing: Arctic zone temperature anomaly sharply dropped from +3/+4°C to +1°C in a couple of weeks.
    North and South Emisphere are already cooling in the last days: after weeks and months of +0.5/+0.7°C worldwide mean anomaly (with Austral being often just +0.2/+0.3°C and Boreal usually around +1°C) we passed in this mid November to +0.35/+0.4°C worldwide anomaly (NOAA-NCDC raw data).
    Moreover, in the next weeks there likely will be a split in two parts of Polar Vortex: this will mean that very cold air will flow throghout Canada (maybe interesting part of USA) and Russia/Siberia (then likely interesting part of Asia and maybe Europe as well), part of which will hit areas already very cold (e.g. Siberia or Arctic Canada are already below -30°C or -40°C).
    In the end, Nina is pumping cooler air in the tropics, cooling the large central belt of our Planet, and making possible heat waves being less strong.

  221. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 8:12 AM | Permalink

    219 Jerry
    Along with your old age and experience, it seems to me that you are a kind man.

  222. TonyN
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 8:18 AM | Permalink

    Steve M: Is there any chance of a thread for comments on the AR4 Synthesis Report just published? I suspect that if the IPCC were to get the auditors in (come the day) they might identify some rather ‘selective’ accounting.

    The IPCC are dwelling on a continued rapid rise in GHG emissions as a result of human activity.

    Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004 (Figure SPM.3).5 {2.1} (SynRep page 4)

    The media in the UK, particularly the BBC, has really taken this up.

    It is the ambient level of CO2 in the atmosphere that may be contributing to warming, not the rate at which it is being emitted, although there may be a correlation. But is there?

    The SynRep does not seem to use any data for atmospheric CO2 levels later than 2004. Why not?

    The general cut-off date for research to be included in Fourth Assessment Report was during the summer of 2006, although there was provision for accepting important new research after this. So more up-to-date CO2 data could have been included.

    I have heard rumours that atmospheric CO2 levels have been stable or have fallen recently. Also see graph, Carter 2007 (p66) which shows a decline since 1998.

    Does anyone have a link to an authoritative up-to-the-minute data set of atmospheric CO2 levels?

    I also notice that the Synthesis Report says:

    The long-term trend of declining CO2 emissions per unit of energy supplied reversed after 2000. {2.1}’ (SynRep page 4)

    In this case, surely there should be an observed rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 during the last seven years, given the steady increase in energy demand in the developed world and the rocketing increase in the developing world, particularly China and India, which is forcing up fossil fuel prices. And wouldn’t you expect that this to be reflected in rising GMTs rather than the flat lining that has taken place since 1998?

    It would seem very likely that the IPCC are attempting to conceal an inconvenient truth here. This may not come as a surprise to CA readers but, if true, it might even shake confidence in the IPCC process among some of those who don’t ask questions but go with the flow because is easier for them that way. It’s not that I think the above may be an earth shattering discovery, but I do think that the real CA hounds may find the SynRep a happy hunting ground and produce some useful analysis at the end of the day.

  223. TonyN
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 8:25 AM | Permalink

    Re #222

    Woops! Sorry. Link to IPCC Synthisis Report – but the download is pretty hard to access at the moment.

  224. kim
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

    Is there any reconstruction of CO2 levels for the last two millenia?
    ========================================

  225. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 8:38 AM | Permalink

    Re 222 (TonyN):

    I have heard rumours that atmospheric CO2 levels have been stable or have fallen recently. Also see graph, Carter 2007 (p66) which shows a decline since 1998.

    The distinction is between levels and emissions. Current CO2 levels are displayed here. The Carter graph shows a drop in emissions, while the other graph shows that levels have not dropped.

  226. kim
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 8:42 AM | Permalink

    JL, is that seasonal variation because there is more vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere?
    =========================================================

  227. Larry
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 8:57 AM | Permalink

    226, that’s the theory. I don’t know if it’s been studied in any detail. I wouldn’t take to the bank that the science is settled.

  228. TonyN
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 9:00 AM | Permalink

    Re #225

    Jason L: many thanks. That obviously demolishes at least half of my argument but is there any merit in what’s left? Would you expect the new (poitive) long term trend in CO2 emissions per unit of energy to be reflected in the Launa Loa graph, and have you any idea why the IPCC would truncate the emissions data at 2004?

  229. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 9:19 AM | Permalink

    >> Would you expect the new (positive) long term trend in CO2 emissions per unit of energy to be reflected in the Mauna Loa graph?

    I would not. The huge natural flux of the carbonic cycle dwarfs the human contribution.

  230. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 9:34 AM | Permalink

    Kim/226: I read an explanation a while back that the seasonal variations are due to the asymmetry in the land/ocean areas. I’d guess that vegetation is a significant part of it.

  231. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 9:38 AM | Permalink

    While we are looking at CO2 history, I’d love to see some follow up about this posting at warwickhughes.com. Figures 1A, 1B, and 2 are interesting.

  232. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

    # 217

    Hans,

    Dr. Judith Lean, the author of the article says that she and her team based their reconstruction on isotopes. Lean et al considered cosmogenic 10Be, 14C and Ca II:

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

    Sometimes the sunspots are used to callibrate proxies in the assumption that there is a direct correlation between sunspots and solar magnetic field. For example, here:

    Reconstruction of Past Solar Irradiance.

  233. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

    Caveat emptor. Reading JEG’s homepage and his sweet mouthing after his “faux-pas” on Graig Loehle, I’m convinced we have a wolf in sheeps clothes on our forum. JEG showed his real face in a glimpse. “Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense”….

    Will be roaming Real Climate and look for his contributions of the same kind before and in the future, which I very much doubt it will happen.

  234. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 10:58 AM | Permalink

    44 on other thread Stan

    So, your argument is not supported by data.

    Show me your data.

  235. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 11:08 AM | Permalink

    231
    I have a half-a’d theory:
    Ice core data shows the existence of a roughly 800-1000 year lag for CO2 after temperature. Perhaps the rise in CO2 we see in your graphs and elsewhere is due to the Medieval Warm Period warm-up…….

  236. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 12:05 PM | Permalink

    # 235

    Pat Keating,

    Yes, I think also the rise in CO2 is a consequence of GWP.

    I’d like you all to put attention to the graphs on # 231 (by Jason L.). The graph at the left shows the original graph without “tunnings”. The graph at right shows the plot after “tunnings”. There is a lapse of 83 years without data on the original plot, that is, the proxies went up when the atmospheric CO2 formed an almost flat line at the bottom. Wow! It could be real! Then let’s make some “adjustments” so both graphs match. Yeah! The original graph was flawed and the first point was moved 83 years after… This scheme about a comparison between the reconstruction of solar irradiance and the concentration of atmospheric CO2 -published in 23 December 2006- shows the period without changes. It is the sharp slop in 1890 AD. JEG, enjoy it!

  237. Larry
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

    233, I’ll vent here about something he said on the r2 statistic thread, because I don’t want to mess that thread up. He said something to the effect that we auditlings don’t appreciate how hard it is to get good data. Shades of Rabett, and “the @$$ end of nowhere”. It’s more than a little galling to hear someone who choses a field to talk about how hard it is. Watch “dirty jobs” on TV, and then complain about how hard it is to get good samples. Sorry, it comes with the territory. If you didn’t want get dirty, you shouldn’t have chosen the field.

    And what, pray tell, does this have to do with whether or not the data should be published? He seems to be arguing that because it’s such hard work, that the scientist (who’s getting paid) gets to restrict access to just his buddies.

  238. frost
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

    I ran across this reference to Climate Audit& SteveM at Sourcewatch. Since the site is a wiki I’d like to update with some more accurate information.

    I’ve looked thru the categories on the left for any that might have a summary of the goals of CA and SteveM’s publications but didn’t find any. Can anyone provide me with pointers?

    I realize that this is a Politically Correct web site and any changes I make will likely be overwritten, even if strictly factual, but I’d like the satisfaction of proving it to myself.

    Thanks.

  239. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 12:28 PM | Permalink

    It is clear than when we criticize the work of others and we give not a chance to others to expound and support their work at the same forum, we are hiding something dark and/or profoundly wrong. That’s the JEG and Real Climate case. They criticize the works of others arguing against them with invalid arguments and they don’t allow their “arguments” are rebutted. It’s something similar to the religious sermons, if the minister says something wrong one cannot opine against him/her without being lynched by the followers. Any similitude with RC is mere coincidence… hahahaha! ;)

  240. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

    Feebacks. Specifically, marine geochemical ones. The conventional view has been that there will be acidification. But, there is no real evidence for it. Oh sure, there are finagled studies, where a lowering pH is “shown” (that is within the error bars of the measurement technique and the innate seasonal / other variation of the sites). But no real evidence. What of cationic species and their impacts on marine pH and on marine CO2 ingress (and calcareous fixation)? Do human impacts increase or decrease cationic species concentrations in rainfall, run off, ground water and other waters? Is there yet another unaccounted negative feedback?

  241. Andrey Levin
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

    Jason L.

    Be aware that our blog host is very unwelcoming to the discussion of historic CO2 levels. So be ready to get snipped, and do not expect proper follow-up discussion to your questions.

    Tony N:

    Simple eye balling of graphs here:

    http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gwreview_oism150.pdf

    reveals that both carbon dioxide atmospheric level and antropogenic carbon dioxide emissions affect nothing (except, of course, plants productivity).

  242. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 12:41 PM | Permalink

    # 240

    SteveSadlov,

    I only took an article published in Science. The authors say that the oceans acidify by the chemical reactions of CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere placing UV like an external operator.

  243. BarryW
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 1:11 PM | Permalink

    Re 238

    I looked at the site you reference, typical ad hominem using “quote marks”. You can try the FAQ under Pages. Also you may want to read the Wegman report which backs up Steve’s work.

  244. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 1:24 PM | Permalink

    Someone here was bragging about how warm it was in Chi town. Well? What have you got to say now?

  245. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 1:25 PM | Permalink

    RE #216

    My own research into possible correlation between solar irradiance and global warming failed to explain the amount of heating that has been taking place especially since 1980’s. The one aspect of our sun that does seem to correlat is solar plasma heating or joule heating. Unfortunately solar wind data only goes back to late 1994 . Here is what I have found so far. The tables may not transfer clearly .

    Since 1990’s there has been a continuous increase in global average temperatures .The prime cause may not be greenhouse gases but rather the increase in Stratospheric joule heating caused by the increase in solar wind intensity. Here we define the increased solar wind intensity as increased number of days per year with high solar wind velocity of 500 km/sec or more. This has been happening in parallel with the increase in greenhouse gases. Below are some of the numbers in support of the above assertion.

    1996 [SOLAR MINIMUM]
    Number of high velocity solar wind days 37
    Global temperature anomaly [land +ocean 1C] GISS 0.30

    2005[HIGHEST RECORD TEMPERATURE]
    Number of high velocity solar wind days 107
    Number of very high solar wind velocity peaks 700km/s and more 21
    Global temperature anomaly [land + ocean 1C] GISS 0.62

    2007[ALMOST SOLAR MINIMUM]
    Number of high velocity solar wind days 79 (to-date) UP 214% over 1996
    Global temperature anomaly [land +ocean 1C] GISS 0.60(estimate) UP 200% over 1996

    WHAT IS MORE SIGNIFICANT IS THAT MOST GLOBAL MAJOR MONTHLY MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY A HIGH SPIKES IN THE SOLAR WIND VELOCITY.

    For example for high temperature anomalies during the years 2005,2006 and 2007 which may be records, the following explanation can be given:

    YEAR 2006
    DECEMBER TEMPERATURE ANOAMLY GISS [C] 0.81
    This month was almost a continuous high solar wind month with exception of 1 week during Christmas. There were 18 days of high solar wind and 7 major peaks with wind velocities of 727, 794, 866, 702, 761,740, and 650 km/s

    YEAR 2007
    JANUARY TEMPERATURE ANOMALY GISS[C] 1.09
    This month received the high heating from December 2006 and set a new record monthly heating with 12 days and 3 peaks of 737, 724, and 750 km/s

    FEBRUARY TEMPERATURE ANOMALY [C] GISS 0.82
    This month had 8 days of high solar wind and 2 peaks of 753 and 771 km/s

    Typical quiet solar wind is around 250 -300 km/s and the number of peaks is 2 to 3 and the number of days per month is 2 to 6

    YEAR 2005
    MONTHLY # OF DAYS
    TEMP. SOLAR
    MONTH ANOM WIND
    [C] SPIKES
    [HIGH ]

    JAN 0.86 7[6] 19
    FEB 0.77 2[1] 6
    MAR 0.86 3[1] 10
    APRIL 0.78 4[0] 8
    MAY 0.65 2[2] 4
    JUNE 0.72 3[0] 7
    JULY 0.66 4[0] 9
    AUG 0.65 8[3] 13
    SEPT 0.86 4[4] 13
    OCT 0.86 1[1] 4
    NOV 0.76 1 [2] 5
    DEC 0.72 3[2] 9
    ==============================
    YEAR 0.62 42[21] 107

    NOTES
    2007 High velocity solar wind days up to Nov19, 2007.
    High solar wind velocity days are days with wind velocity of 500km/s or more
    This is some what similar to ACE in measuring hurricane intensity or energy during a year.
    Global temperature anomalies per GISS. The 2007 figure is the arithmetic average of the first 10 months.

    Comment
    Stratospheric Joule heating takes place when solar plasma and its associated magnetic fields and electrical currents interact with the region of space between the Stratosphere and Troposphere. The jet streams bring the heat to levels below the Troposphere.
    Joule heating is caused by interactions between the moving particles that form the current [normally electrons) and the atomic ions that make up the body of the conductor. Charged particles in an electric circuit are accelerated by an electric field but give up some of their kinetic energy each time they collide with an ion. The increase in the kinetic or vibrational energy of the ions manifests itself as heat and a rise in the temperature of the conductor [.atmosphere]

    The high velocity solar wind days are analogous to the number of days in a year that our planet’s furnace and fan was on and set on high. The global temperature anomaly is what your thermostat reads as the actual in temperature. Since about 1996 the number of high solar wind days per year and the global temperature anomalies haves both gone up together by about 200% up. The years 2003 and 2005 show where both were at near record or high levels. There are other factors involved but these two measurements seem to be related. Good solar wind data only goes back to early 1990’s, otherwise I would go back earlier to the 1980’s when the so called “manmade global warming” started. I continue to state that that the prime cause [80%] of global warming is the sun. Man made greenhouse gases contribute to the warming but only about 20%..

  246. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 1:45 PM | Permalink

    re #216

    I note that the heading for my YEAR 2005 table did not tranfer as written. Here is what they mean

    The first number is the MONTHLY MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY[C] per GISS
    The second number is the NUMBER OF SOLAR WIND VELOCITY PEAKS PER MONTH[over 500km/s]
    The third number is the NUMBER OF HIGH SOLAR WIND VELOCITY PEAKS PER MONTH [over 700 km/s]
    The fourth number is the NUMBER OF DAYS PER MONTH THAT THE SOLAR WIND WAS OVER 500KM/S

  247. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

    # 245

    matt vooro,

    Since 1990’s there has been a continuous increase in global average temperatures .The prime cause may not be greenhouse gases but rather the increase in Stratospheric joule heating caused by the increase in solar wind intensity. Here we define the increased solar wind intensity as increased number of days per year with high solar wind velocity of 500 km/sec or more. This has been happening in parallel with the increase in greenhouse gases. Below are some of the numbers in support of the above assertion.

    A very interesting work! That’s the correlation that Dr. Nir Shaviv et al found. He concluded that the solar wind blows out the cosmic nucleons and impedes them to come into the Earth’s atmosphere and, consequently, the solar wind slows down or impedes the formation of clouds. On the other hand, Dr. Svensmark demonstrated that the nucleons in cosmic radiation act like nuclei for the accumulation of water droplets to form clouds in the upper troposphere.

  248. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 2:26 PM | Permalink

    NASIF NAHALE

    My own research of the literature and of various scientific research web pages shows that cloud research todate offers no clear case for or explanation for climate warming.

  249. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 2:27 PM | Permalink

    Geoff Sherrington says:
    November 19th, 2007 at 4:14 am
    Re # 198 D Patterson

    Sorry, but ozone is not a form of molecular oxygen (two different chemicals entirely).

    I recognize it is perhaps a custom where you are to only reference O2 as diatomic oxygen or molecular oxygen, and O3 as triatomic ozone. I was not using your convention for such nomenclature. Another convention is to reference ozone as triatomic oxygen instead of triatomic ozone. I regret that you may not agree with using this convention. Nonetheless, the term, molecular oxygen, was used in this instance to mean any molecule which may be composed only from atoms of oxygen: diatomic oxygen, singlet oxygen, triatomic oxygen, or tetraoxygen. I did not intend for this simple blog post to represent a full and precise exposition of the ozone-oxygen cycle, photolysis, or the role of hydroxyls. I’m also averse to pulling out the CRS and engaging in a formal thesis. I used some terminology for the layman who doesn’t know or care about the differences between allotropes, diatomic oxygen and singlet oxygen, or differences in customary terminology. Before you may say it, yes, I already recognize that kind of imprecision may rankle some folks with the advanced experience to recognize it.

    Next we come to the Holy Grail of Perpetual Motion:

    There is no perpetual motion involved at all. A perpetual motion process continues perpetually without the further input of energy into the process. The ozone-oxygen cycle requires a continuing input of energy in the form of ultraviolet light radiation to continue the process, so it cannot be a perpetual motion scheme.

    What I wrote was meant to be a quick, and dirty description for the purpose of outlining the concepts, however imperfectly expressed. My ad hoc description of the ozone-oxygen cycle was flawed, because I did not take a lot of time to make it totally accurate or in the least bulletproof. I’m relying upon the readers to get the correct details, if they are interested enough in the subject. In particular, the readers truly interested in the subject need to read more to gain an understanding of how O2, atomic oxygen, and O3 interact in the ozone-oxygen cycle.

    Sp planet earth can act like a fridge?

    No. My description did not describe a refrigerator analogy, anymore than a greenhouse describes the Earth’s heat budget.

    The ozone formation takes place at an altitude where the air density is too minimal for heat conduction to generate enough turbulence for effective atmospheric mixing to occur with the troposphere. Also, the ozone is destroyed too soon for it to have enough time to settle into the troposphere. The ozone does not “hang around the tropopause.” Ozone is created at every altitude where O2 (diatomic oxygen) can be split by high energy solar radiation long enough for the resultant atomic oxygen to recombine with O2 (diatomic oxygen) to form O3 (ozone, triatomic ozone, or triatomic oxygen as you prefer). Ozone formation continues downwards in altitude until the wavelengths of ultraviolet light required for the formation of O3 have been absorbed and are no longer available to continue the process at lower altitudes in the atmosphere. It is more accurate to observe that the tropopause comes into existence at the level where the ozone-oxygen cycle ends due to deprivation of the ultraviolet light radiation required to continue the reaction process.

    What prevents equilibrium in the global system?

    The Sun.

    Total equilibrium may be reached upon the occurrence of Universal entropy, but I doubt that too. If some of the quantum mechanics hypotheses prove to be correct, it may be that there really is no entropy in any universe.

    If it is calm above the tropopause, why can that calmness not gradually extend down to the global surface? (Coriolis forces, I suppose)

    There isn’t enough air density to permit the amount of heat conduction necessary to develop strong vertical convective activity.

    The solids in the satellite are dense enough for the kinetic heat energy to be conducted between adjacent atoms and molecules increasing a trend towards thermal equilibrium. As the density of the matter decreases and/or other physical properties diminish heat conduction, so does the opportunity for kinetic heat energy to be conducted from one atom or molecule of matter to the other. As the density of the matter decreases, the emissions of infra-red radiation are less often absorbed before they can escape the atmosphere. Increasing convection of thermal energy contained inside air parcels from the denser regions of the lower troposphere into the less dense regions of the upper troposphere increases the rate at which emissions of thermal radiation can avoid being reabsorbed by matter and escape the atmosphere. Warming the troposphere increases atmospheric convection, and the increases in atmospheric convection increases the rate of thermal emissions out of the atmosphere. Cooling the troposphere decreases atmospheric convection, and the decreases in atmospheric convection decreases the rate of thermal emissions out of the atmosphere.

    Sorry, I’m none the wiser. The curse of old age and experience.

    Said the fox…(smile)

  250. jae
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

    As the density of the matter decreases, the emissions of infra-red radiation are less often absorbed before they can escape the atmosphere. Increasing convection of thermal energy contained inside air parcels from the denser regions of the lower troposphere into the less dense regions of the upper troposphere increases the rate at which emissions of thermal radiation can avoid being reabsorbed by matter and escape the atmosphere. Warming the troposphere increases atmospheric convection, and the increases in atmospheric convection increases the rate of thermal emissions out of the atmosphere.

    Exactly. If I read this correctly, that is all there is to it. No magical layer at 5 km, where all of a sudden radiatiton can be released to space. It is a continuum.

  251. Rick Ballard
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 2:44 PM | Permalink

    Someone here was bragging about how warm it was in Chi town. Well? What have you got to say now?

    Steve Sadlov,

    They’ve probably gone to Kitzbuhel for some early skiing. They might be taking a look at the growing glaciers in the Alps (scroll down) while they’re there.

  252. Not sure
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 2:46 PM | Permalink

    Ever seen the Sun with no spots? Cool picture:

    Spotless

  253. jae
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 2:46 PM | Permalink

    250, cont. D. Patterson: is it correct to also say this? Much of the warming of the troposphere involves warming water, which is lower in density than air, and therefore speeds up the convection process, relative to a dry atmosphere.

  254. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 3:02 PM | Permalink

    # 248

    Matt Vooro,

    My own research of the literature and of various scientific research web pages shows that cloud research to date offers no clear case for or explanation for climate warming.

    I agree with you because my research on the increase of Interstellar Cosmic Rays flux (ICRF) and climate shows just the opposite of Dr. Shaviv’s exposition. I cannot talk about my own research here because the rules stablished by the owner of this blog points on it has not been conceived to expose our own theories.

    The inclusion of my graph of Solar Irradiance based on data taken from Judith Lean’s paper obeys to the obvious coincidence between Dr. Craig Loehle’s charts on the reconstruction of temperature variability and the Solar Irradiance plot on proxies derived from other sources diverging from tree rings proxies.

    That correlation could be adapted to your investigation because your finding could give a clear explanation about the abundance of those isotopes used for structuring secular term proxies. Perhaps the abundance of isotopes depends of solar wind intensity-velocity? Mm… I’m giving you some ideas. ;)

    Dr. Craig Loehle,

    This is more material and potential collaborators for a next article.

  255. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 3:05 PM | Permalink

    @Steve: It’s still pretty warm for a Chi town November day but the temperatures are now dropping toward average. My husband is not happy to read that Thursday is expected to be 37F. He’s planning to grill turkey on the bbq.

    If we wanted to enjoy downhill skiing, we would need to leave town. (Of course, that was true even in 1977. We would need Anthropogenic Local Terrain Change to change that.)

  256. Murray Duffin
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 3:05 PM | Permalink

    Re: #245 thanks a million for this data. Could you plot solar wind numbers vs monthly temp anomalies since 1990 to see how well the correlation stands up. You may have to include some lag time for the temperature. Murray

  257. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 3:12 PM | Permalink

    # 256

    Murray Duffin,

    Here.

  258. Larry
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 3:21 PM | Permalink

    255, I though you guys all went skiing on Mt. Prospect.

  259. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 3:49 PM | Permalink

    To clarify a few things about the paper and the underlying assumptions for some of the variables involved:

    Sod, why did you keep bringing up temperature readings in a discussion of temperature proxies? Find us some non-tree ring proxies that go up to right now and link to their raw data. Heck, find some tree ring proxies that go up to right now and link to their raw data.

    Susann, the continued focus on man’s addition of CO2 to the atmosphere totally ignores the problem. The problem is the insufficient understanding of the system and the attributation to one element in it (regardless if that’s black carbon, aerosols, CO2, CH4 or any other one item). Since it’s understood CO2 absorbs IR, and there appears to be a causal connection, boom. The crux of the issue is that if you’re using the past to compare against the present, you need to know the truth. So if everything’s got tree rings to prove the past was different than the present, what about when there aren’t any, how do they match. That the “mainstream community” seems unwilling to remove tree rings from multi-proxy studies; one must ask why.

    We are looking to answer a question. We know BCP are not reliable temperature proxies. How do we check that? Use proxies that are not and compare. That answers the question “Do we know, based upon the published work, what the past was like to a high degree of accuracy?” Contrast and compare.

    What makes the MWP or LIA important? So we can know if now is unique compared to then. Dr. Loehle’s paper is a way to double check the accuracy of the past. None of any of it proves anything one way or the other, but at the goal is not to know if there was anything particular but if what thermometers tell us now is abnormal compared to what has happened in the past. Tree rings say yes. So the goal is then are the tree rings telling us the correct information or not.

    This covers some non-CO2 sources and their radiative forcing, and includes a quote from the IPCC : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates#Radiative_forcing_from_aerosols

    From the TAR: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/237.htm#678

    Others. No focus on CO2? HA! You can’t possibly be serious. Let me illustrate this with one of my favorites:

    Essay:

    “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”

    What the IPCC said:

    Human activities—primarily burning of fossil fuels and changes in land cover—are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents or properties of the surface that absorb or scatter radiant energy. The WGI contribution to the TAR—Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis—found, “In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” Future changes in climate are expected to include additional warming, changes in precipitation patterns and amounts, sea-level rise, and changes in the frequency and intensity of some extreme events.

    Notice what the chopped quote leaves out, and how even the IPCC drops the discussion of the other significant factors (see the wiki or IPCC page where they themselves discuss that they are significant factors) in the conclusion being drawn.

  260. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

    Wonder what Feynman would say today about the AGW discussion. Already in 1974 he described the Cargo Cult Science: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/02/CargoCult.pdf

    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

    In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.

  261. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 4:46 PM | Permalink

    253 jae
    I ran across this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg
    which will probably interest you if you haven’t seen it already. It shows the distribution of the average solar power impinging on a surface normal to the sun’s rays, given the observed cloud cover.

    Since cloud cover and humidity are highly interconnected, it suggests that a lot of the av. temperature correlation with humidity you note is undoubtedly due to variations in average surface insolation.

  262. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 4:51 PM | Permalink

    @Larry,
    I decided to google for ski resorts in Illinois, and was stunned to discover that supposedly, one can ski at Four Lakes, in Lisle, Illinois. That means I drive by this ski slope every time I drive to the grocery store.

    Let me assure you right now there is no snow. There will be snow later this winter.. but… well.

    Still come to think of it, the drop from the top of “Oak Hill” (the subdivision in which I live) to the whatever branch of the Dupage river may well be the largest elevation change in the county!

  263. Susann
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 4:58 PM | Permalink

    Susann, the continued focus on man’s addition of CO2 to the atmosphere totally ignores the problem. The problem is the insufficient understanding of the system and the attributation to one element in it (regardless if that’s black carbon, aerosols, CO2, CH4 or any other one item). Since it’s understood CO2 absorbs IR, and there appears to be a causal connection, boom. The crux of the issue is that if you’re using the past to compare against the present, you need to know the truth. So if everything’s got tree rings to prove the past was different than the present, what about when there aren’t any, how do they match. That the “mainstream community” seems unwilling to remove tree rings from multi-proxy studies; one must ask why.

    Sam, let me ask you what your view is of the Vostok Ice Core data. Do you think it is bogus or valid?

    While reconstructions like Loehle suggest that current warming is not unprecedented (i.e. MWP), ice core data suggests that CO2 levels are unprecedented — for the last 600,000+ years. Why do people focus on CO2? We know that human activity has put huge amounts of CO2 and other GHG into the atmosphere and is responsible for a large proportion of this unprecedented increase. Frankly, I would be shocked if climate scientists did not make a link between current warming and unprecendented anthropogenic CO2 and GHG levels.

    If I’m not mistaken, we do not know what led to the apparent global warming during the MWP. From what I have read, it wasn’t an increase in Co2 since it appears that Co2 only increased marginally during that period. Some other factor was at work. That other factor(s) remains unidentified. It might be at work today as well. It might not. We just don’t know.

    However, given the unprecedented increase in CO2 and other GHG, it seems wise, at least to me, to explore that as a possible cause.

    What we need is good science to uncover the details of past and current warming so we can better understand both and make good decisions regarding current warming.

  264. jae
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 5:04 PM | Permalink

    261, Pat, thanks for that great link. It really shows, indirectly, how dry the Southwest is. The high solar radiation there, due to lack of clouds and humidity, heats the surface intensely. In the cloudier areas, much of the energy is invested in forming and heating water vapor and clouds, which results in less heating of the surface (referencing the same latitudes and altitudes).

  265. Stan Palmer
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 5:07 PM | Permalink

    blockquote>However, given the unprecedented increase in CO2 and other GHG, it seems wise, at least to me, to explore that as a possible cause.

    As another non-specialist, what I gather, from the discussion here and elsewhere, that the validity of current GCMs depend on a direct relationship between global temperature and CO2 concentration. A MWP would mean that these GCMs are incorrect and so all public policy based on the output of these models would be questionable. The science itself, correct or incorrect, is something for only a few specialists to care about. Public policy, if it is misdirected, could cause significant harm

  266. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 5:10 PM | Permalink

    “Frankly, I would be shocked if climate scientists did not make a link between current warming
    and unprecendented anthropogenic CO2 and GHG levels. ”

    deaths from malaria: UP; of USE of DDT, down

    I would be shocked if enviromentalist sceintists did not link the increase in deaths with
    the ban on DDT.

    Simplistic assumptions abound on all side of policy issues. In fact, one recurrent meme here is
    that the science is being tailored and shaded to shape the policy. Witness the recent
    histrionics from the IPCC. Absolutely unfounded, but NOTE THE ACTION LINE OF THE NARRATIVE.
    the action line is this. In order to get Kyotto redux we need to move NOW. So, play the scary
    scary music loud.

  267. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 5:20 PM | Permalink

    253 jae says:
    November 19th, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    250, cont. D. Patterson: is it correct to also say this? Much of the warming of the troposphere involves warming water, which is lower in density than air, and therefore speeds up the convection process, relative to a dry atmosphere.

    …water, which is lower in density than air??? Did you mean higher in density than air?

    Some folks would assume because the upper troposphere is relatively dry, the jet streams are relatively dry, and so forth; that water must be not so important versus dry air. Such an assumption overlooks the reasons why those bodies of air are dryer is because of the relationship between lower air pressures and the changes in dew point, precipitation, and release of thermal energy which result. Also overlooked is the role of of severe convective storms, especially hurricanes and typhoons in the transfer of thermal energy to the upper troposphere where it undergoes a greater proportion of radiative transfer versus convective and conductive transfers at lower altitudes and lower air pressures. Does this imply a continuum? It depends upon what you mean.

    The atmosphere is a continuum in the sense and insofar as there are no intervening vacuums or solid spheres of rock. However, the atmosphere is only a partial continuum in other respects. As any professional or advanced photographer can tell you, UV-A and UV-B bands of ultraviolet light do penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere to reach the surface of the Earth, where it is sometimes necessary to use a UV filter on the camera lens to filter out such light reaching the photographic film. Yet, the UV-C and UV-D bands of UV light are early all absorbed at the altitude of the tropopause. So, with respect to some bands of ultraviolet light radiation, the atmosphere is discontinuous and not a complete continuum, at least with respect to these bands of UV light radiation. Viewing the sky from the surface of the Earth in only those bands of UV radiation would reveal a virtually opaque sky with no visible Sun. This should not be remarkable in one sense when you remember the sky can be partially opaque and the Sun not visible when you have 10/10 overcast of water vapor condensed into thick clouds. Does the inability to see the Sun through condensed water vapor in the clouds mean there is a discontinuity in the atmosphere? The answer depends, of course, upon what kind of continuum and continuity or discontinuity you are trying to find.

    With respect to the atmosphere, it is a non-uniform continuum of gaseous matter in which liquid matter, plasma, and solid matter is suspended in non-uniform distributions. It is the non-uniform distributions of this matter and the non-uniform incidence and transport of energy from solar radiation which creates nonconformities in how convection, conduction, and radiative transmissivity does or will ultimately in the future result in the radiative transfer of energy into outer space in the absence of intervening events. If the Earth were removed from the Sun to the interstellar regions of space, the atmosphere would generally collapse into frozen solids. Ever so slowly, only the gravitational force and stored chemical energies would remain as the planet slowly radiated thermal energy into space by conduction through the solid surface matter, by sublimation of the surface matter, and by lesser exotic reactions. It is the nature of space and the matter itself which prevents everything from collapsing into a uniform state of matter and energy, the ultimate in a continuum. Absent such a hypothetical state of the universe, the behavior of everything is governed by differences and nonconformities in matter and energy characteristics and distributions.

    In the Earth’s atmospheres, there are a number of significant nonconformities which govern the movement of energy into, through, and out of the atmosphere. Besides the troposphere and tropopause, there is also the stratosphere, stratopause, mesosphere, mesopause, thermosphere, thermopause, exosphere, exopause, Polar Cell, Ferrel Cell, Hadley Cell, Polar Front, InterTropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), and Jet Streams, just to name some of the major nonconformities. A nonconformity like the Ozone Layer and the lower stratosphere is influential because of the role they play in governing a non-uniform transfer of thermal energy to outer space. For example, the Earth had very little free oxygen in the atmosphere until the biosphere liberated it from varoius chemical compounds. In the absence oxygen the ultaviolet light radiation from the Sun would not have had the oxygen required to create an ozone layer bounded tropopause. Without the ozone layer bounded tropopause, tropospheric convection would not have encountered a thermal inversion layer and convection barrier at the altitude of the present ozone layer. Perhaps there would have been another type of photolytic reaction in a methane atmosphere to create another type of inversion layer and barrier at another altitude or altitudes? I don’t know. What we do know, however, is that there is a partial barrier to the transport of thermal energy contained in tropospheric air masses, which do not penetrate the tropopause, therefore do not lose more density, and therefore cannot increase the rate of thermal radiation transmission to space. Other barriers and openings for the transport of thermal energy are modulated in accordance with their physical properties by the other types of nonconformities in the atmosphere.

    It’s all of these nonconformities and their complex interactions which finally determines how much thermal energy and at what varying rates that thermal energy can be radiated from the Earth into outer space. Water in all of its differing forms is just one of these differences which may play a role not yet properly accounted for by climate modelers which may in combination with other factors make a dramatic difference in the way thermal energy is transported in the Earth’s heat budget. The differences and their quantitative and qualitative values are the present object of our scientific inquiries in this forum, which is yet another example of a non-uniform continuum?

    Exactly. If I read this correctly, that is all there is to it. No magical layer at 5 km, where all of a sudden radiatiton can be released to space. It is a continuum.

    There is an ozone layer. It is not magical. It is an inversion layer and therefore a nonconformity or nonuniform part of the continuous atmosphere. The layer does change how thermal energy is convected, conducted, and radiated. The presence of water does have a significant effect upon the rates at which thermal energy is transferred through the atmosphere. How much of a difference is attributable to water is a question we are all trying to answer.

    Does this address your questions in some part?

  268. UK John
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 5:26 PM | Permalink

    Human History, Human Archeology, Geology and Geography do not fit with any of these proxies, the ones who believe in proxies are the “Climate Change Deniers”.

    The Climate has changed radically many times in the period, not one of these proxies gives any explanation of “Why”. Climate Science gives no consensus explanation for these changes, they don’t know.

    But Climate Science consensus is that AGW is 90% certain to be the cause of present day Climate Change, but as they don’t know what caused it in the past, where does this certainty come from ?.

  269. Susann
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 5:37 PM | Permalink

    As another non-specialist, what I gather, from the discussion here and elsewhere, that the validity of current GCMs depend on a direct relationship between global temperature and CO2 concentration.

    I think they are more complex than you have suggested, in that there is more to them than just a “direct relationship between global temperature and CO2 concentration” as you claim, but I’d defer to someone with more expertise in climate models.

    A MWP would mean that these GCMs are incorrect

    How so? Please explain how the MWP invalidats GCMs. That is not my understanding, but like you, I am a non-expert in climate science.

    and so all public policy based on the output of these models would be questionable.

    Ah, so this is why the MWP is viewed as so important. If, as you claim, the existence of a global MWP invalidates all GCMs, that would be a significant problem. However, I don’t recall reading this in any of the blogs or papers, but as I have said, I am relatively new to this. Can you or anyone else) point me to any such papers or posts?

    The science itself, correct or incorrect, is something for only a few specialists to care about. Public policy, if it is misdirected, could cause significant harm

    That goes both ways.

    From a risk management perspective, it makes sense to have plans in place to deal with the identified real and potential threats. This means planning for both the low-probability high-impact threats as well as high-probability low impact threats. I don’t think the answers are in yet on what the current warming portends, but it would be foolish in the extreme not to plan for all possibilities, however remote they are. If we did nothing, we could expose ourselves to severe conseqences if the models and their predictions are correct.

    But I will look for references to the MWP and validity of GCM for more insight on this.

  270. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 5:38 PM | Permalink

    263 jae says:
    November 19th, 2007 at 5:04 pm

    261, Pat, thanks for that great link. It really shows, indirectly, how dry the Southwest is. The high solar radiation there, due to lack of clouds and humidity, heats the surface intensely. In the cloudier areas, much of the energy is invested in forming and heating water vapor and clouds, which results in less heating of the surface (referencing the same latitudes and altitudes).

    jae,

    Remember, there is a paradox involved. Deserts mean hot days and cold nights, because the insolation is not moderated with the humidity and clouds being absent, and the nights a cold because the daytime heat accumulation in the atmosphere and the ground are radiated with a barrier into the upper levels of the atmosphere and into space. Humid locales with vegetative groundcovers and extensive cloudcovers result in a smaller range of air temperatures. In other words, the presence of water holds the thermal energy closer to the Earth’s surface until radiation, conduction, and convection have removed it to elsewhere along th surface or to upper atmospheric levels. On the other hand, strong convection of humid air moves considerable amounts of thermal energy into the upper atmosphere. The question is which combination of radiation, convection, and conduction of thermal energy is more effective for dry and wet air?

  271. Dex
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 5:41 PM | Permalink

    Susann, while its true the actual cause of MWP is not yet undestood (or if it really occurred on a global level) the number of possibilities are not endless. You have already eliminated CO2 as a suspect and I believe we can also eliminate orbital fluctuations. Two likely candiates are changes in solar activity and land use changes. If some combination of non CO2 forcings drove the MWP and it can be shown that these factors have contributed and our contributing to todays warming then then role of CO2 is diminished. All of the GCM’s assume that predict +4.5 deg C temp rises in 21st century have built in a high climate sensitivity to CO2, if a large amount of the current warming since 1970 can be shown to be from solar, land use or other forcings, then these models are clearly wrong in this regard. More to the point if CO2 is not 100% responsible for the latest warmings reducing CO2 will likely have a small effect on the future climate.

    The other issue with MWP revolves around the issue of the “ideal climate”. It seems that Kyoto dictated that the perfect climate occured in 1990. If the MWP was actually warmer by a degree or two than what existed in the last several decades of the 20th century and the bioshere did not melt, it means we have more time to deal with the problem (yes rate of change is important but it seems that the temp increase in the last ten years is decelerating, so this seems to be less of a crisis than predicted).

  272. Susann
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 5:42 PM | Permalink

    Simplistic assumptions abound on all side of policy issues. In fact, one recurrent meme here is
    that the science is being tailored and shaded to shape the policy. Witness the recent
    histrionics from the IPCC. Absolutely unfounded, but NOTE THE ACTION LINE OF THE NARRATIVE.
    the action line is this. In order to get Kyotto redux we need to move NOW. So, play the scary
    scary music loud.

    You sound pretty certain of this — pretty convinced that it is all a con or hysteria. Not a skeptic then, I take it?

  273. jae
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 5:52 PM | Permalink

    264, D. Patterson. Yes, and I thank you again. I’ll have to read it five more times to fully appreciate it :). When I referred to water density, I meant water VAPOR density, sorry. What I’m mostly intrigued by is the notion of the climate modelers that there is a “region,” about 5 km high (some type of average), where more radiation is emitted to space than is sent downward. Supposedly, added CO2 raises that height a little, resulting in less loss of heat to space. That is the context in which I referred to a continuum. Perhaps at any given second at any given location there is a point where back-radiation equals outgoing radiation, but that point has to be affected by all sorts of variables (including all of those you mentioned!) and therefore has to be changing continually (my meaning of continuum). I just can’t see how such a hypothetical “region” can be derived. Then to make it even more questionable in my mind, they posit an increased height of a platry 150 m caused by CO2 and then use the lapse rate to calculate the direct temperature increase for 2 X C02 of 1 K, that is (6.5)(.15 km) = 1K. (hope I’m still communicating, here). I’m also puzzled about the assumption in the models that relative humidity remains constant as temperature increases. I can show that this is not true on the surface, and I doubt that it is at just 5 km above the surface.

  274. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 5:56 PM | Permalink

    Well, Susann. The ice cores have a story to tell, as a proxy, and from my trend comparison of Mauna Loa and Law Dome, fairly close. So I have no reason to think it’s accurate now and not then. But, like with tree rings, you have to ask if it’s valid, meaningful.

    You have to remember that from 1830 to 2005 or 175 years, the concentration has gone up about 100 ppmv which is 33% so that means the total has gone from (depending on method) 10% of the total greenhouse effect to 13% Is CO2 the primary driver? Ice, trees, whatever.

    I’ve linked to that before; tell me what’s driving what. I don’t know.

    Depending on the method, CO2 could be at the same percentage as CH4 (9%) and very close to O3 (7%) ModelE shows a somewhat different story, water (36%) carbon dioxide (9%) and ozone (3%) when only considering one of them. And so on.

    What did the IPCC say about the other parts of the system? Here’s one. Read that, and you get an idea of what even they say. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/237.htm

    The data is easy to find. What it means is another story.

  275. jae
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 5:59 PM | Permalink

    265, D. Patterson. I agree with all that, but as far as temperature goes, there is less loss of heat (i.e., higher average temperatures) in the desert, at a given latitude and altitude. The water seems to exert a negative effect on temperature, overall.

  276. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:08 PM | Permalink

    263, 265

    As 265 points out, the max/min data show that clouds reduce heating in the daytime but reduce cooling at night. This is contrary to the latent-heat water-vapor cycle mechanism, which should cool both daytime and nighttime (tho’ the cycle may be much reduced at night because of lower evaporation).

    You might find some interesting results in your project if you treat max and min separately, instead of working with the the median.

  277. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:08 PM | Permalink

    RE 262. Some day we have a meeting of the CA people who have lived in chicago.

  278. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

    266 jae says:
    November 19th, 2007 at 5:52 pm

    Then to make it even more questionable in my mind, they posit an increased height of a platry 150 m caused by CO2 and then use the lapse rate to calculate the direct temperature increase for 2 X C02 of 1 K, that is (6.5)(.15 km) = 1K.

    Oh, now that is interesting. I sure would like to see how they account for the differences in altitude due to seasonal changes, changes due to orbital mechanics, and most especially the ever changing gravity waves. 150 meters has to be some kind of a calculated mean value, so it takes no imagination to infer what that means to any hopes for accuracy in such a calculated value.

  279. Susann
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:11 PM | Permalink

    Susann, while its true the actual cause of MWP is not yet undestood (or if it really occurred on a global level) the number of possibilities are not endless. You have already eliminated CO2 as a suspect and I believe we can also eliminate orbital fluctuations. Two likely candiates are changes in solar activity and land use changes. If some combination of non CO2 forcings drove the MWP and it can be shown that these factors have contributed and our contributing to todays warming then then role of CO2 is diminished.

    I don’t know if I follow your logic. You are claiming that if X drove the MWP and CO2 didn’t, and if X is a factor today, it can’t be CO2 today. I don’t think that is a valid argument, but perhaps others who know more about this can correct me. First, we don’t know what drove the MWP. If we don’t know what caused the MWP, we can only guess if this unknown forcer is currently acting to warm the climate. That would seem to says absolutely nothing about CO2.

    Ice core data shows that levels of CO2/GHG are unprecedented today. That is one variable that has changed and that can be measured. Ice cores show that CO2 has, in the past, acted as a feedback to natural forcers like orbital changes. Even if there is some other forcer at work today to account for current warming, it would seem to me that the CO2 put in the atmosphere could, as in the past, act as a feedback and magnify the warming. Either way, CO2 levels seem to be a valid issue.

    All of the GCM’s assume that predict +4.5 deg C temp rises in 21st century have built in a high climate sensitivity to CO2, if a large amount of the current warming since 1970 can be shown to be from solar, land use or other forcings, then these models are clearly wrong in this regard.

    I take it you reject the IPCC reports that attribute only a small portion of current warming to solar. I have looked at a few articles on solar forcing, but am not able to comment much on their validity.

    More to the point if CO2 is not 100% responsible for the latest warmings reducing CO2 will likely have a small effect on the future climate.

    Please explain — why is this the case?

    The other issue with MWP revolves around the issue of the “ideal climate”. It seems that Kyoto dictated that the perfect climate occured in 1990. If the MWP was actually warmer by a degree or two than what existed in the last several decades of the 20th century and the bioshere did not melt, it means we have more time to deal with the problem (yes rate of change is important but it seems that the temp increase in the last ten years is decelerating, so this seems to be less of a crisis than predicted).

    As a environmental health policy type, and as a resident of the cold north, Northern Hemisphere warming will be mixed for me and for the people where I live. It is nice not to have to plug my car in every night during the winter. In fact, last winter and the one before, I only had to plug my car block heater in a dozen or so nights when the temperature got down below -20C. :) It’s not so nice if new diseases come to my neck of the woods that were once held in check by our very cold winters and if we lose all our trees to pests. It would be nice to grow oranges here, but I don’t know if getting WNV or other new viruses is worth it. It’s a mixed bag for us. How global warming affects the poor and people in developing nations or in drought stricken areas of the developed world is a whole other matter. Who can say what an ideal climate is, and for whom where? I can’t, but a climate significantly warmer than today might mean that a lot of people are displaced and a lot might suffer because of drought and other consequences of warming.

  280. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:15 PM | Permalink

    At the risk of being a pest, I will point out that Steve prefers to avoid discussion of CO2 on his blog.

  281. jae
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:18 PM | Permalink

    270. Yes, that’s my take on it, too. It could be fatal flaw in the global climate models WRT the amount of AGW caused by CO2. It forms the very basis (and I think the ONLY basis) for the 2.5-3.0 increase in temperature for 2 x CO2.

  282. Susann
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:22 PM | Permalink

    8, I don’t think he was saying that all AGW was a con, just this recent outburst by the SPM committee. That particular outburst, you have to admit, was rather strange.

    Granted. I don’t know if thats wise, because at some point, the public will stop listening if the tone remains shrill but little else in their world changes.

    It’s hard to know what is behind such announements, wrt timing and the degree of panic implied in the text. I assume that those responsible for the IPCC report and for announcements are honest in their concern so even if the timing and wording is strategic, they must think that alarm is warranted. The politics behind announcements is interesting in and of itself, but that’s not for this discussion as much as it fascinates me. :)

  283. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:22 PM | Permalink

    “From a risk management perspective, it makes sense to have plans in place to deal with the identified
    real and potential threats. This means planning for both the low-probability high-impact threats as well
    as high-probability low impact threats. I don’t think the answers are in yet on what the current warming portends, but it would be foolish in the extreme not to plan for all possibilities, however remote they are.

    If we did nothing, we could expose ourselves to severe conseqences if the models and their predictions are correct.”

    Someday I explain pascals wager to you. Today, we stick to having plans in place.

    The IPCC estimates that the seal level will rise by 18CM to 59cm by 2100. Lets make that an even 100cm. 1 meter.

    1 meter by 2100.

    The EPA estimates that mitigating the adverse effects of a 1 meter sea rise in the US will cost
    250Billion in present day dollars–relocation costs and barrier costs.

    solution seems pretty simple. Don’t allow further building in areas likely to be impacted by global warming.

    Then again you could spend 100 billion dollars or more to rebuild a city under sea level.

    Finally, you cannot plan for all outcomes. That you think you can is troublesome.

  284. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:28 PM | Permalink

    The point is not about the substance itself, but rather when you have data, whatever it is, is it accurate and meaningful. That points to and illustrates the problem with proxies, because you have to link them to what you’re measuring, and you have to take other possibilites into account.

    So how does 3% more of anything in the greenhouse effect drive climate? Why do all the factors mimic each other in that 420K year Vostok graph move together? What would happen if today it got 8 C colder or 2 C warmer as it has many times? What makes anyone think the system isn’t adjusting itself and it might not make a difference? Are BCP a better proxy than ice, or anything else for that matter.

    The point is there really isn’t an answer we can give, just questions we can guess the answers to.

    Which is very different than saying “the measured forcing/feedback of A is X WM2.”

  285. Susann
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:35 PM | Permalink

    Someday I explain pascals wager to you. Today, we stick to having plans in place.

    I’m all ears. (or eyes as the case may be)

    Finally, you cannot plan for all outcomes. That you think you can is troublesome.

    Where did I claim it was possible to plan for all outcomes?

  286. Susann
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:36 PM | Permalink

    #13 — I didn’t realize that. I imagine that my posts will be unthreaded then.

  287. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:36 PM | Permalink

    267 jae says:
    November 19th, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    265, D. Patterson. I agree with all that, but as far as temperature goes, there is less loss of heat (i.e., higher average temperatures) in the desert, at a given latitude and altitude. The water seems to exert a negative effect on temperature, overall.

    Think so? Consider these phenomena.

    With lake effect snow in Chicago and Buffalo, you have a a cold air mass moving over a warmer mass of lake water. The thermal instability of warming air along the lake boundary layer create4s vertical turbulence and mixing in the cold air. The cold air is cold enough to precipitate the water vapor in the warm air parcels as snow. The precipitating snow releases kinetic heat energy into the air mass and warms it.

    Ever heard of the phrase, “It’s too cold to snow?” It doesn’t have to be 32F/0C to snow, but when air temperatures get down to -40F the air is so cold, any moisture in the air has probably already precipitated and reduced the cold air mass to a dry air mass. It is for this reason that the Polar Air Mass tends to be cold and dry. It simply has difficulties in gaining and retaining moisture due to precipitation. One of the driest deserts in the world is located on the northern shores of Greenland. Others are located in places like the alpine regions of the Andes Mountains. It’s not like they are not exposed to a plentitude of atmospheric water. It’s just that they cannot partake of and hold the water. By contrast, you have innumerable examples of tropical waters and tropical air masses warming the colder and drier desert regions when the weather patterns bring such systems into contact with each other.

    In Southern California, you can go surfing at Newport Beach in warm waters, thanks to the upwelling of the warm water currents from the equatorial regions of the Pacific Ocean. Drive out on California Highway 1 past Santa Barabra and you’ll reach a point of land after which there is a sudden and dramatic change in air temperatures on land and sea. North of this point of land the sea coast is washed by the cold ocean currents from the North pacific Ocean which are responsible for San Francisco Bay’s notoriusly cold and wet miseries.

  288. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:42 PM | Permalink

    272. Like around Moro bay ?

  289. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:46 PM | Permalink

    nasif nahale

    The web source below is not a favorite source for some but it does give you some idea what research is being done in the area of clouds and their effect on global warming. I have asked them questions in the past but they never reply.

    http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/ climanal1.html

    By the way here are two papers that have looked into joule heating in more detail in the ionosphere and stratosphere. Personally I think that joule heating extends all the way to the surface of the earth as vertical elctrical fields and currents extend right down to earth’surface . This area that i am now focusing on. The papers are kind of expensive to order.

    Stratospheric Joule heating by lightning continuing current inferred from radio remote sensing

    Stratospheric Joule heating by lightning continuing current inferred from radio remote sensing
    Martin Füllekrug
    Centre for Space, Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Bath, Bath, UK

    Massimiliano Ignaccolo
    Centre for Space, Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Bath, Bath, UK

    Alexei Kuvshinov
    Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Abstract
    The mean lightning current waveform of particularly intense lightning discharges is inferred from 52,510 radio wave recordings in the frequency range 1–200 Hz. The current waveform decays initially with a time constant of ∼2 ms, and the current lowers ∼60 C from cloud to ground within the first ∼10 ms of the discharge. The subsequent continuing current exhibits a decay time constant of ∼40 ms and lowers ∼170 C from cloud to ground within the next ∼100 ms of the discharge. The total charge transfer ∼230 C from cloud to ground deposits electrical energy into the stratosphere resulting from quasi-static (Joule) heating. The energy deposition is dominated by the lightning continuing current, and it is ∼10−5 J/m3 at 30 km height. It is speculated that the initiation of blue jets and gigantic jets in the stratosphere may result from lightning continuing current 100 ms which can be observed with radio waves at frequencies 10 Hz.
    Received 8 February 2006; accepted 12 May 2006; published 4 October 2006.
    Ionospheric joule heating during magnetic storms: MHD simulations

    Ionospheric joule heating during magnetic storms: MHD simulations
    S. Hernandeza, , R.E. Lopeza, , and M. Wiltbergerb,
    aDepartment of Physics and Space Sciences, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL 32901, United States
    bDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, United States
    Received 7 January 2003; accepted 9 May 2005. Available online 12 September 2005.
    Abstract
    In this paper we will examine ionospheric Joule heating during magnetic storms using global MHD simulations of the interaction of the solar wind with the magnetosphere. The MHD simulations use solar wind data as a boundary condition, so that we are able to model actual events. Among the events that we have modeled are the November 1998 and January 1997 storms. We will begin by comparing the MHD dissipation rates with those estimated from AE in order to benchmark the simulation. We will then discuss the relationship between the energy dissipated in the ionosphere through Joule heating and the input from the solar wind. We will also investigate the time scale for energy dissipation in order to specify the direct-driving time scales for these events.

  290. Dex
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:47 PM | Permalink

    Susann, Let me reverse the argument to see if I can make it clearer. If I can show that the MWP did not exist, then I can eliminate many of the other potential forcings that might also be affecting todays climate other than CO2. For instance if sunspot activity was high during the MWP but there was no effect on the climate then, then high sunspot activity today should also have no effect.

    If the .4 degs of warming observed since the 70’s is not almost exclusively due to CO2 but also affected by some other “natural” forcings then the GCM’s are probably going to overstate the impact of CO2. It is certainly possible that CO2 will accelerate the warming caused by these other factors if they remain constant or increasing in the 21st century. If this is the case, decreasing CO2 may help mitigate some of the change, but the cost/benefit may not justify it.

    On the economic front, the Stern report was savaged by economists for picking the worst case negative impacts of global climate change with the rosiest assumptions about mitigating CO2. If CO2 makes up only 50% of the forcing that most of the models predict, then the economics get that much worse.

    As for the ideal climate, it has become almost immoral to suggest that some parts of the globe may benefit from a warmer and wetter climate (on balance)and so that debate has been completely shut down, to all of our detriment.

  291. Mike Rankin
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:48 PM | Permalink

    D. Patterson,

    The IPCC has stated that anthrogenic emissions of water vapor are not significant. I have doubts about that. My background as an engineer in a chemical plant suggests that industrial emissions of water vapor are very high. All of the chemical plants I am aware of use fuels in boilers to generate steam. The combustion of fuels (except coal) produces water vapor. In the case of natural gas fueled boilers, there are two mols of water per mol of CO2 emitted. The steam is used in various ways but nearly all the thermal energy is ultimately absorbed into cooling tower water which is cooled evaporatively in cooling towers. In addition to this, most chemical reactions are exothermic and that heat is released into the cooling water systems. Liquid fuels used in transportation would typically release almost 1 mol of water vapor per mol of CO2. There must be a large net addition of water vapor to the atmosphere since 1900 and a significant impact on the hydrologic cycle and the heat emitted to space.

    Do you have any comments?

  292. Dex
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:50 PM | Permalink

    I am sorry, I will wait for unthreaded

  293. rhodeymark
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 6:57 PM | Permalink

    ice core data suggests that CO2 levels are unprecedented

    And by how many years does CO2 lag temperature on Mr. Gore’s graph? I’m afraid Pat is right – Steve will probably be through here with his Zamboni shortly.

  294. M. Jeff
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 7:03 PM | Permalink

    steven mosher, #15, November 19th, 2007 at 6:22 pm says:

    solution seems pretty simple. Don’t allow further building in areas likely to be impacted by global warming.

    AGW or not, restricting such construction might be a good idea. Galveston apparently did not learn its lesson from the 1900 hurricane. Wall Street Journal article, July 14, 2007, “Enjoying That Sinking Feeling, Why Galveston is booming as a Gulf Coast vacation spot, despite the hurricane risk”, says that Galveston is sinking by about a quarter of an inch per year, and that …There’s $2.4 billion in new commercial and residential construction under way on the island. Investors, retirees and vacationers see building on Galveston as a simple economic gamble. They figure they have good odds of getting plenty of value out of their beach homes before a hurricane washes them away…

  295. Larry
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 7:12 PM | Permalink

    291, the point is that the water only enters the atmosphere temporarily. In the long run, it ends up in the oceans. The atmosphere can only hold so much, and how much it holds is determined by weather. It doesn’t build up.

    So many here don’t get this simple concept. Isn’t it obvious?

  296. Doug
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 7:16 PM | Permalink

    Susan, Dex

    It has been reported that the cold kills around 1.4 million people more a year than the warmth;

    http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/martinez/story/731663.html

    I think it would be interesting to do a population analysis of the MWP and the LIA and look at the global impacts. As both these periods had temps higher and lower than today then we should learn a lot from their impacts on humanity and the world at large – snow lines, ability to grow crops etc. Especially if Loehle reconstruction continues to be upheld then the MWP gives us a valuable understanding particularly into previous recent climate in Europe. As I understand it correlating data from China seems to also be coming out that is supportive of a warmer MWP.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMPP71C..09L

    http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-04/evil.htm

    Mosquitos I understand are already in the poles and I think the nature of our world is cyclical anyway.

    http://www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog/2007/10/07/the-spread-of-mosquito-borne-disease-linked-to-tires-not-global-warming/

  297. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 7:19 PM | Permalink

    288 steven mosher says:
    November 19th, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    272. Like around Moro bay ?

    No, it’s Point Concepcion, south of Lompoc and Vandenburg AFB. Offshore from Point Concepcion there have been many notable sea wrecks due to rocky shores, fog, and problematic sea currents.

  298. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 7:24 PM | Permalink

    Larry, I think it’s obvious about how much water the atmosphere can hold in vapor form is limited. It’s also pretty obvious there’s some limit to how much the atmosphere can hold in solid form.

    As far as I can tell, it’s a self-regulating mechanism that can’t really be determined except at to what it’s doing now, and what the trend is.

    As far as some sort of trace gas cause/effect goes, let’s look at this logically.

    In 175 years, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air went up 33%, according to a combination of ice proxies and air measurements. Since its amount of the greenhouse effect is someplace between 9 and 26 percent, that means it went up from between 6.8 to 19.5, or 2.2-6.5% of the greenhouse effect (GE).

    So, in that case, the question then becomes “How much temperature results from 2-7% of the greenhouse effect.” If the average surface temp is 15 C and without the GE is -15 C the GE accounts for 30 C If we take the upper boundry of the rounded percentage, 7% of 30 C is 2.1 degrees. If 400 ppmv is responsible for 2.1 C then each 100 ppmv is .525 C which is in line with a +.7 trend. So doubling it (to 800) would add 2.1 C

    This of course totally ignores that in the 90s CO2 was increasing at a rate of 1% a year (which would be about 4 ppmv a year) and recently has been at 3% (12 ppmv) Then the question becomes a total guessing game; does that rate continue to increase? Fall? Stay the same? Can it be demonstrated?

    But say that it stays the same at 3%. How long until it doubles? 33 years.

    I can almost promise you the chances of it being 2.1 degrees warmer than it is right now in 33 years is slim to none, and slim left town. (If 2.1 degrees higher “on average” is bad, that’s another issue.)

    I’ll ask a “what if”. Well, it’s really not. Has there ever been a time in the last 125 years when the anomaly has exceeded +/- 1 C? No. Has there ever been a time ever when the anomaly has exceeded +/- 1 C? Oh yeah.

    So explain these two.

    100,000 years ago, why were we at +3 C and 280 ppmv?
    25,000 years ago, why were we at -8 C and 200 ppmv?

    Explain how a drop of 28.5% causes 10 C cooling in the past, and a 33% rise causes .7 C rise in the present.

    Or even better, how +.7 C takes 33% to 400 now, and +4 C took 40% to 280 during the climb to 1850…

  299. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 7:25 PM | Permalink

    RE 294. I know. It is a policy of stupendous idiocy.

    Years ago ( I’m prolly as old as hippy Steve Sadlov) I drove up Hightway 1 from marina del ray to Santa
    barbara. On my right Cliffs of unstable dirt. held in place by scrub brush and luck. Prone to fire.

    Stupid nuts build mansions on these cliffs of dirt.

    To my left. Ocean and houses on stilts in the high tide zone.

    Utter nonsense.

    IF people building or buying in these zones were REQUIRED to buy insurance the value would drop.
    Because they are not required to insure, because people know that they will be bailed out, the value
    of the property is elevated.

    Simple. REquire Global warming flood insurance for everybody living under Gorelevel

    ” gorelevel = sealevel+ AIT worst fears”

  300. deadwood
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 7:37 PM | Permalink

    #4:

    Mosquitos were at high latitudes before the CWP. Just ask anyone who worked on the Alaska Pipeline or the Alaska Highway. Malaria existed in high latitudes too!

  301. Susann
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 7:41 PM | Permalink

    Steven, my apologies — I did use the words “all possbilities”. Over-reaching — I should have said, “all known possibilities”. Having just gone through such an exercise where I work, I should have been more circumspect for that (we can’t plan for all threats because some will always be unknown) was a proviso of our little spiel to the employees.

  302. Larry
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 7:41 PM | Permalink

    298, same deal with NOLA. If you just stop the bailouts, the mortgage companies will require insurance, or you no getta the loan. Pretty simple. If people want to risk a million of their own money, fine. Just don’t come to the feds when it floods.

    A little more due diligence on the part of the lenders wouldn’t hurt, either, but that’s another ball of yarn.

  303. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 7:55 PM | Permalink

    RE 299. I know… After you spend a bunch of years online you wish to god you had a
    nickle for every time you said “all” and meant “most” or “some” Like I said, I was
    just being bratty.

    Since I used to work in threat analysis ( military) I get to say bratty stuff.
    HA.

    Anywho, glad to see you hang around. St. mac doesnt talk much policy here.. ALTHOUGH some
    policy MATH would be very cool…

    Have you looked at the SRES?

  304. Susann
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 7:57 PM | Permalink

    And by how many years does CO2 lag temperature on Mr. Gore’s graph? I’m afraid Pat is right – Steve will probably be through here with his Zamboni shortly.

    Zamboni already swept by. :)

    I’m sure you’re familiar with the 800-year lag issue, and for all I know, you may be a climate scientist! If so, excuse my hubris. From what I understand (which of course is possibly completely off base) orbital change leads to slow warming, which leads to release of GHG, which leads to increased warming through feedback and so on. The CO2 increase in the past century, from what I understand, is also unprecedented in terms of rapidity of increase. On a geological timescale, such a short timeline is rare, although I have read a few papers recently that showed other very fast temperature changes on a decade or so scale.

  305. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 8:01 PM | Permalink

    298
    Re flood insurance. Most of those people probably have a mortgage. No bank or mortgagee will give a loan to such homes without flood insurance, so the homeowners probably have it already.

  306. Larry
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 8:04 PM | Permalink

    In NOLA? Who would write that?

  307. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 8:07 PM | Permalink

    302 Susann

    Recognizing the 800-1000 year lag in the CO2 curve, you might note that the current rise in CO2 is about 800-1000 years after the Medieval Warm Period.
    Interesting, n’est-ce pas?

  308. jae
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 8:14 PM | Permalink

    302: Susann:

    I’m sure you’re familiar with the 800-year lag issue, and for all I know, you may be a climate scientist! If so, excuse my hubris. From what I understand (which of course is possibly completely off base) orbital change leads to slow warming, which leads to release of GHG, which leads to increased warming through feedback and so on. The CO2 increase in the past century, from what I understand, is also unprecedented in terms of rapidity of increase. On a geological timescale, such a short timeline is rare, although I have read a few papers recently that showed other very fast temperature changes on a decade or so scale.

    Er, Susann, you don’t seem to be learning anything here. IMHO, you are simply promoting “The Agenda.” Or maybe just a troll? What say you?

  309. jae
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 8:23 PM | Permalink

    287, Sorry, D, I don’t get the point.

  310. Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 11:04 PM | Permalink

    # 289

    Matt Vooro,

    Q = (eE)^2 Sum [(n/M) v/(w^2 + v^2)] gives very low amounts of transferred energy. How do you reconcile this with changes of 0.6 K, for example?

    Perhaps introducing Pedersen current? That’s it! Enough collisions to make the Joule heating gets larger at higher latitudes. That could be a plausible explanation to the recent Arctic warming, isn’t it?

    BTW, do you have the formula for FJ introducing Pedersen conductivity? We could convert the energy transferred into change of temperature (deltaT) if we know the altitude where massive collisions occur. I assume those collisions occur at altitudes above 100 km. I think it is very important to count on a methodology to know the global quantum electrodynamics derived from the intensity of SW and the interval of every lightning effect in a given period, something similar to Sondrestrom but more efficient.

    Another mechanism that it’s not well understood is how the nucleons could be accelerated into the atmosphere; I mean how Helium and Hydrogen nucleons could be accelerated if vertical movements of the air are redundant or neutral. I understand how the interstellar nucleons are accelerated by Solar Wind; however, how could it happen in the atmosphere? Perhaps, you’ll say that it is not neccesary that acceleration to explain FJ, but we are talking about heat released from friction.

    If we focus our attention in electrons we could explain the whole warming in the last 50 years. The matter is to find a correlation among the intensity and velocity of solar wind, the frequency of sunspots, the density of incoming electrons, the velocity of incoming He++ and H+ nucleons and the electrodynamics in the atmosphere.

    If we had a chart showing the correlation -of course, not dismissing uncertainties- among those factors, we would have the master key to know every climatic event caused by changes of the solar activity.

  311. Marine_Shale
    Posted Nov 19, 2007 at 11:26 PM | Permalink

    111

    Sussan

    Gore is a politican pushing a political message using science to further a political agenda. Dr. Loehle is a scientist who is presenting scientific information to the scientific (and otherwise interested) community supposedly to advance a scientific agenda. Apples and oranges.

    Actually it’s about apples and cherries.

    I think you misunderstood the point of my post. I do not particularly care about Gore’s motives and he was incidental to my observations.
    The point of the post was the assertion by JEG that he had never endorsed the scientific offerings of Mann or the “Team”, and as such has no obligation to discuss or defend their work.

    Since the issue has started to appear on this CA thread, let me be perfectly clear. I am not here to defend previous work : the sole focus of this review is Loehle’s article. I am a newcormer to this game, having entered the wonderfully charged world of paleoclimate reconstructions less than a year ago. As such, i do not pretend to have inoxydizable expertise on all recontrusctions to date, much less on all of ClimateAudit’s blogposts. Hence, please do not ask me to justify so-and-so’s methods. Loehle comes as a challenger in this game, and i believe it is the job of the underdog to do at least as well as the Establishment he criticizes. I will accept no excuse of the type :”this had not be done in the usual reconstruction” if they are demonstratedly doable in the case of this simple method (cf error bars). McIntyre is well-founded when he says that much of my criticisms would apply to some previous work, none of which have i ever pretended to defend.

    Now, the scientific underpinning of AIT is,in large part, the work of the Team, including as it turns out the validation of the Hockey Stick with…….. the Hockey Stick.

    JEG asserts in his review that:

    He makes an excellent job of presenting well-established, overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic global warming, both scientifically correct and visually striking ;

    That is an endorsement of Mann and the Team (even if it is by proxy). If JEG has reconsidered some of the scientific issues involved with proxy reconstructions then it might be usefull to also reconsider his glowing endorsement of the scientific content of AIT.

    I should point out that JEG strikes me as a fairly genuine young man who has some good insights into a number of issues, just not all issues.

  312. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 1:33 AM | Permalink

    There were requests about essential reading list, my suggestions, related to the statistical side of the debate:

    1) Basics

    Stuart, Ord, Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol I, Distribution Theory

    6th ed. picks:

    Ch. 10, Standard Errors, 10.17 The jackknife and bootstrap

    Stuart, Ord, Arnold, Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol II, Classical Inference & the Linear Model

    6th ed. picks:
    Ch. 27 Statistical Relationsip: Linear Regression and Correlation
    Ch. 29 The General Linear Model
    Ch. 32 Analysis and Diagnostics for the Linear Model, 32.8 Confidence and prediction intervals, 32.46 Multicollinearity, 32.61 Autocorrelation, 32.76 Calibration

    2) Filtering

    Jazwinski, Stochastic Processes and Filtering Theory

    Gelb, Applied Optimal Estimation (Ch. 6, Optimal Linear Smoothing, tells you what engineers mean by smoothing )

    3) Calibration, Multivariate Regression

    Rao, Toutenburg, Linear Models: Least Squares and Alternatives ( yet, I find this a bit tough to read, for some reason :) )

    Brown, Multivariate Calibration, J. R. Statist. Soc. B(1982), 44, No. 4

    Sundberg, Multivariate calibration — direct and indirect regression methodology (with discussion) . Scand. J. Statist 26, 161-207 (1999). Note page 166, well approximating variance matrices for the LS, GLS, and EGLS estimators.

  313. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 5:37 AM | Permalink

    309 jae says:

    November 19th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
    287, Sorry, D, I don’t get the point.

    Water evaporation does have a negative effect upon surface air temperature, but water condensation has a positive effect upon surface air temperature. Lake effect snow warms the air at the surface. Upwelling ocean currents have a tendency to promote surface condensation activity on land which contributes to warming of land surface air temperatures. Fog contribute to a warming of surface air temperatures at levels just above the fog.

    One of the recent AGW arguments focused on the role of water vapor as a so-called greenhouse gas allegedly being responsible for the greater rate of warmth in Europe. Condensation of water must necessarily be a part of any equations attempting to calculate the balances of such surface air temperatures.

  314. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 6:39 AM | Permalink

    D Patterson

    Water evaporation does have a negative effect upon surface air temperature, but water condensation has a positive effect upon surface air temperature.

    A classic example of lagged negative feedback as temperatures rise water evaporates soaking up heat without raising temperatures as it again cools water condenses giving up heat keeping temperatures up. It opposes temperature change and that is negative feedback of sorts. Though I tend to think of it as more akin to reactance in electronics.

  315. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 7:00 AM | Permalink

    Jan Pompe says:

    November 20th, 2007 at 6:39 am
    D Patterson

    A classic example of lagged negative feedback as temperatures rise water evaporates soaking up heat without raising temperatures as it again cools water condenses giving up heat keeping temperatures up. It opposes temperature change and that is negative feedback of sorts. Though I tend to think of it as more akin to reactance in electronics.

    A key difference is how gravity causes heat release to occur more often with condensation towards the top of an adiabatic column of water or atmosphere and heat absorption more often at the base of the adiabatic column of water or atmosphere.

    The other important difference is the question of how differences of air pressure change the rate at which radiative transfer of heat energy into outer space can occur.

  316. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 7:14 AM | Permalink

    315. Yeah, in those cases, there is probably only an overall slight net negative feedback. You get back some of the latent heat energy of evaporation. But some of it occurs “above the thermometer,” so you don’t get that part back. In general, the energy is released high in the atmosphere, often when clouds form. BTW, do clouds hinder vertical convection?

  317. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 7:48 AM | Permalink

    nasif nahale re 310
    THE ATTACHED PAPER MAY BE OF HELP BUT IT WOULD COST $30

    Parameterization of the heating in the middle stratosphere due to solar wind-induced electric currents
    L. N. Makarova , , a, A. V. Shirochkova, A. P. Nagurnya, E. Rozanovb and W. Schmutzb
    a Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, Saint – Petersburg 199397, Russia
    b Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium, Davos, CH-7260, Davos Dorf, Switzerland

    Available online 6 August 2004.
    Abstract
    A new mechanism of thermal heating in the middle stratosphere by the solar wind-induced electric currents is proposed. This process occurs mostly at 20–30 km altitude where a permanent layer of heavy ion-clusters is produced by the galactic cosmic rays and by some other sporadically occurring sources. The currents in this layer control the electric fields in the stratosphere. Numerical estimation of the possible atmospheric heating rate due to this process shows that such heating could reach 1–2 K/day that is comparable to the heating due to the absorption of the solar UV radiation. Thus, the electric fields and currents induced by the solar wind energy are candidates for producing relevant additional heating in the middle stratosphere (altitudes 20–30 km). This process may alter the thermal structure of the polar stratosphere and the structure of the polar stratospheric vortex, and as a result, the global climate/weather system. In this paper, we describe the parameterization of this heating suitable for the application in climate and general circulation models.

  318. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 7:58 AM | Permalink

    Mike Rankin says:
    November 19th, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    D. Patterson,

    The IPCC has stated that anthrogenic emissions of water vapor are not significant. I have doubts about that. My background as an engineer in a chemical plant suggests that industrial emissions of water vapor are very high. All of the chemical plants I am aware of use fuels in boilers to generate steam. The combustion of fuels (except coal) produces water vapor. In the case of natural gas fueled boilers, there are two mols of water per mol of CO2 emitted. The steam is used in various ways but nearly all the thermal energy is ultimately absorbed into cooling tower water which is cooled evaporatively in cooling towers. In addition to this, most chemical reactions are exothermic and that heat is released into the cooling water systems. Liquid fuels used in transportation would typically release almost 1 mol of water vapor per mol of CO2. There must be a large net addition of water vapor to the atmosphere since 1900 and a significant impact on the hydrologic cycle and the heat emitted to space.

    Do you have any comments?

    Yes, but I will restrain myself. I know what you mean, being acquainted with cogeneration operations. I would first observe that your question contemplates the “net addition of water vapor” instead of the cumulative effects of all anthropogenic emissions of water vapor during their residence in the atmosphere. As you noted, the IPCC appears to hand wave away the effects of anthropogenic emissions of water vapor as being negligible in effect upon the global heat budget. Such IPCC hand waving is at first appearance in conflict with the IPCC claims that anthropogenic CO2 from the same fuel combustion processes that generated the water vapor are a catastrophic problem. Since the IPCC says water vapor is an even stronger so-called greenhouse gas than CO2, and CO2 quantities are a catastrophic problem for the world; it would appear as though the IPCC owes an explanation of how and why the water vapor generated with that CO2 by humans is not also an equal or greater threat to the world, instead of being hand waved off as negligible?

    Is there such an explanation? Gavin Schmidt seems to think so, but he seems to contradict himself and the IPCC by also linking to CO2 effects. Likewise with other proponents of AGW, they assert that water vapor tied in various ways to the problematic human emissions of CO2 and its effect upon world climate, yet they contradict themselves by also asserting human emissions of water vapor are not important. Perhaps they are implying the quantities of human emissions of CO2 are negligible in comparison to the total atmospheric concentrations. Perhaps they are implying the hydrologic cycle reduces the problem to negligible proportions. If so, there are monumental problems with those concepts as well.

    Whether its the IPCC delivering a report or any other commentator, their conclusions will be deficient and unacceptable until they can demonstrate a proper scientific accounting for the effects of human emissions of water vapor on the Earth’s radiative heat transfers into outer space. This is true regardles of whether AGW hypotheses are or are not true. No one can competently play the role of terraforming engineer without getting reliable data about the effects of human emissions of water vapor.

    Also, it is noteworthy to observe that the Earth’s atmosphere does not have a set amount of water vapor it must contain at a given point of time. Although air temperatures and air pressures govern precipitation of water out of the atmosphere, the world climate has not always maintained worldwide water vapor concentrations equal to its maximum capacities before condensaton and precipitation. We presently live in one of those geological periods.

  319. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 8:08 AM | Permalink

    316 jae says:
    November 20th, 2007 at 7:14 am

    315. Yeah, in those cases, there is probably only an overall slight net negative feedback. You get back some of the latent heat energy of evaporation. But some of it occurs “above the thermometer,” so you don’t get that part back. In general, the energy is released high in the atmosphere, often when clouds form. BTW, do clouds hinder vertical convection?

    Ask yourself, which is the cause and which is the effect, when observing a cumulonimbus cloud or a hurricane?

  320. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 8:14 AM | Permalink

    D. Patterson

    A key difference is how gravity causes heat release to occur more often with condensation towards the top of an adiabatic column of water or atmosphere and heat absorption more often at the base of the adiabatic column of water or atmosphere.

    The other important difference is the question of how differences of air pressure change the rate at which radiative transfer of heat energy into outer space

    I ‘m not sure what your point is. The resistance to temperature change is the same whenever and wherever the evaporation due to incoming heat and condensation due to releasing occurs regardless of means or facilitating processes.

  321. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 8:34 AM | Permalink

    318: RC will counter all this by saying that the half-life of water in the atmosphere is very short, cf. CO2. Some studies were done in CA, which compared temperature rises in irrigated valleys with those in the mountains, that give evidennce that anthropogenic water vapor DOES increase local temperatures. Forget who did this, but it was well done. It might have been Christy. Will try to find the study.

  322. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 8:36 AM | Permalink

    319: The cause is heat generated by condensing water, no?

  323. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 9:04 AM | Permalink

    #57: sorry Staffan, just seen it.
    Yes I misunderstood Havel with Klaus (what an error!).
    No the data came from an Italian meteorological website.

  324. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    @Susann–
    Either way, CO2 levels seem to be a valid issue.
    I agree with you on this. CO2 levels appear to be a valid issue.

    Simplistic 2-D models like those in Hederson-Sellers and McGuffie can be useful for understanding some of the more robust features of heat and mass transport that that have a dominant influence on climate on a planet. Including simple radiative-convective effects, and physics of CO2 lead to a qualitative understanding. (I don’t see these collected together in that book. I’d have to hunt down some that do. I know they exist, but my area is not climate change, so I don’t have all the reference memorized.)

    These models cannot predict fine scale details; there is no argument about that. Quantitative agreement with data are not expected to be excellent because fine scale details do matter. (If the didn’t, climate would be a function of latitude only. Also, no one would propose 3D models.)

    With regard to 2D models: it would appear that increased CO2 should increase the average temperature of the planet, and lead to some warming. The increase in temperature increases the ability of air to hold water vapor; because water has strong absobing capabilities, we would expect positive feedback.

    The effect is expected to be detectable if CO2 doubles.

    Can one say more based on 2D models? Probably not. There are many devils in the details.

    Nevertheless, I’d say, the reason I think AGW is probable relies more on these simple models than on GCM’s. GCM’s are large complex models that include many parameterizations. On the one hand, and in principle, they might be thought to provide better details. On the other hand, models do get tuned to data, and in climate, unlike lab work, it’s difficult to rush out and collect more data.

    The more tuning factors that exist, the more it it possible to adjust results while “tuning” knobs within ranges that seem acceptable based on existing data. ( This sort of tuning is not unique to climate science. It’s done in engineering fields, where the problems associated with tuning is discussed rather openly.)

    So, for all the over-simplification involved in 2D models, I prefer to based my opinion (which is what it is) on that. I expect the 2-D model to give a decent qualitative prediction of what happens when CO2 increases: Temperature goes up. (The models similarly suggest sun-spots matter etc. You can also test other phenomena if you like)

    (You will note I did not answer people’s questions about my guess of “how much does CO2 affect temperature”. There were so many requests there all I can say is: I have no idea “how much”. That’s the nature of basing an opinion of analyses that can only capture qualitative behavior. Also, so far, no-one has asked me any policy decision questions. :) )

    ========
    Oh– on the shrillness issue: I also agree with you. Shrillness rarely leads to agreement. (Strangely, sometimes over-formal attempts at politeness don’t help either.

    I see shrillness on both sides. I also see some tendentious arguments, shrillness, ad hominems, accusations of not having appropriate motivations, appeals to vanity, appeals to authority, accusations of economic motives etc. on both sides. Strangely, I can’t even begin to say which side is worse! ( I’m not going to try.)

    If looked on as a scientific issue only, this an odd debate.

    Strangely enough, some of the arguments are very similar to those that occurred surrounding modeling of gas-liquid flows in multiphase flow! (Search for the words “ill posed” in the exponential growth thread. Then search for ill-posed in multiphase flow. My understanding is people got very, very angry with each other, and a lot of heat was generated in Nuclear Reactor Safety meetings. )

  325. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 9:46 AM | Permalink

    324,

    Strangely enough, some of the arguments are very similar to those that occurred surrounding modeling of gas-liquid flows in multiphase flow!

    An interesting juxtaposition of scientific issues can be found at Lubos Motl’s blog (motls.blogspot.com). The two issues that he’s always on about are climate and string theory. Surprisingly, some of the string theory wars are as contentious or more so than the climate wars. From what I understand of some of the acrimony between Newton and his contemporaries, it was always thus. What makes climate different is the overarching political dimension that most scientific controversies don’t have.

  326. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 10:04 AM | Permalink

    321 jae says:
    November 20th, 2007 at 8:34 am

    318: RC will counter all this by saying that the half-life of water in the atmosphere is very short, cf. CO2.

    In any case, the ultimate question is how much does each process contribute to the ultimate radiative transfer of heat energy off of the planet? Does a mass of water vapor being cycled through the water cycle send off more energy than a mass of carbon dioxide which remains resident in the atmosphere during the same time period?

  327. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

    324 lucia says:

    November 20th, 2007 at 9:31 am
    @Susann–
    Either way, CO2 levels seem to be a valid issue.
    I agree with you on this. CO2 levels appear to be a valid issue.

    For the sake of clarity, “valid” for what “issue”?

  328. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 10:36 AM | Permalink

    RE: #264 – And at night, it shoots out into outer space. Yet another energy loss not properly accounted for in the GCMs.

  329. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

    RE: #269 – If you open that particular door, then you must also ask the question, is partial pressure CO2 too low to guard against certain risks? For example, low CO2 + major NEO impact event = ?. What if the answer is bad, and, in order for it to be good, we would want 1300 PPM of CO2?

  330. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 10:45 AM | Permalink

    @D patternson,
    I would say CO2 is a valid issue with regard to climate modeling means at a minimum that there is a plausible scientific basis for suggesting that an increase in CO2 would lead to an increase in the average temperature of the planet, and that, scaling arguments suggest that the variation in CO2 cannot be discounted out of hand. I think also, there is a plausible scientific reason for suspecting humans use of carbon fuel is sufficiently large to increase CO2 a detectable amount.

    That’s enough to make CO2 a “valid issue” in my mind.

    Of course, that doesn’t begin to address the actual arguments we really see and hear, does it? I’m guessing, you would also point out that my threshhold for “valid issue” is not so very high, correct? :)

  331. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 10:51 AM | Permalink

    RE: #287 – Warm water? Normally, Socal, low 60s, Nocal, high 50s. I guess low 60s feels warm compared with upper 50s. Of course, you will get spikes into the low 70s in Socal and low 60s in Nocal when the upwelling shuts off in the winter. Without the upwelling of 38 degree abyssal waters, our surface waters are more in line with waters several hundred miles out to sea.

  332. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

    >> why can’t we agree that there is a MWP? Then we can relax, talk about the best way to get off oil (since higher temps won’t cause catastrophic changes – since its happened before)

    Since, if higher temps won’t cause catastrophe, and if C02 doesn’t cause higher temps, then there is no reason to “get off oil”, since it’s a miracle energy source. It is much cheaper than “hydrogen from nuclear electrolysis”. The brazilians just discovered a huge amount of oil which is clearly abiotic, being created only 24,000 years ago, well after dinosaurs existed. As such, it seems like Gaia is valid after all, since mother earth is producing a nearly unlimited supply of oil for us.

    It isn’t about science at all. I think Erlich was quoted as saying “the worst thing that could happen is if they came up with a technological solution”. It’s about the agenda, as espoused by the “trio of the Malthusians behind the global warming hysteria”.

    We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

  333. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 11:17 AM | Permalink

    330, Lucia:

    @D patternson,
    I would say CO2 is a valid issue with regard to climate modeling means at a minimum that there is a plausible scientific basis for suggesting that an increase in CO2 would lead to an increase in the average temperature of the planet, and that, scaling arguments suggest that the variation in CO2 cannot be discounted out of hand. I think also, there is a plausible scientific reason for suspecting humans use of carbon fuel is sufficiently large to increase CO2 a detectable amount.

    That’s enough to make CO2 a “valid issue” in my mind.

    FWIW, I completely agree. CO2 helps store energy, no doubt. But the idea that it stores enough to increase water vapor appreciably is far out, especially when you lose the latent heat of vaporization whenever you increase water vapor. And that would take a lot of the supposed 3.7 w/m2 energy that 2 x C02 is supposed to provide. And you can’t increase temperature without a concommitant increase in absolute humidity (in moist areas).

  334. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

    # 328

    SteveSadlov,

    It’s correct. Matt Vooro has highlighted another issue that has not been considered in GCMs, which it is more important than GHG on GW issue, that is, Intensity of Solar Wind (SW). I found another correlation between the anomalies of tropospheric temperature and the Interstellar Cosmic Rays (ISCR). However, GCMs consider that both, SW and ISCR are “negligible”, although astrophysics shows that they are the main drivers of global climate on Earth and other bodies of the Solar System. The anomalies of ISCR and SW (which density, velocity and intensity has been increasing through the last 400 years) explain the climate changes observed in the whole Solar System, but GCMs play down the results.

    For a better comprehension of this issue, nucleons from ISCR are speeded up by SW. The ISCR not always come from stars. There are ISCR generated in Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) with high energy densities at radio, IR, gamma and X-ray, and material emerging from the nuclei. The last nuclei cross the threshold at the bow shock at speeds of tens of thousands of Km/s.

    Unfortunately we are not allowed to talk about our own theories in this forum, thus I cannot go deeper this issue by deference to Dr. Steve McIntyre, the owner of this blog.

  335. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

    @Jae– At an extra 3.7 w/m2, all you need is time for water to evaporate and ultimately increase the average level of humidity up to whatever the equilibrium value may be. I may be mistaken, but I think the response time for water vapor is relatively short (compared to things like ice melting.)

    I don’t know what the response time for a step change in heat addition might be, but any simple model would a least provide one for the model. The question then might be: does this model properly describe the response time of the system–to even leading order. But, just saying extra heat can’t increase the relative humidity while leaving out the issue of time doesn’t sound quite right to me. With sufficient time, there would be some change in the equilibrium value.

  336. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 11:46 AM | Permalink

    331 SteveSadlov says:

    November 20th, 2007 at 10:51 am
    RE: #287 – Warm water? Normally, Socal, low 60s, Nocal, high 50s. I guess low 60s feels warm compared with upper 50s. Of course, you will get spikes into the low 70s in Socal and low 60s in Nocal when the upwelling shuts off in the winter. Without the upwelling of 38 degree abyssal waters, our surface waters are more in line with waters several hundred miles out to sea.

    Sometimes it used to be like driving through an invisible curtain separating the walk-in refrigerator/reefer and a kitchen. The disparity in temperatures at Point Concepcion is reported to be greater sometimes during an El Niño.

  337. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

    # 333

    I can only add on this issue that for a GW occurs extra energy is required. GHG do not provide energy superfluity because they are not heat sources if they do not react chemically. Data point out to the anomalies of ISCR and Solar Activity. That’s the reason by which Dr. Craig’s plots coincide closely with the plots of proxies on Solar Irradiance. Flawed data on the anomalies of temperature don’t match with SI graphs, as if the Sun was not what heats up the Solar System.

  338. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 11:55 AM | Permalink

    Lucia: the latent heat of vaporization amounts to 0.69 watts/gram of water, which is a lot of energy. And all that energy does not add anything to the sensible heat (temperature). And it is “lost” when the water condenses way up there in clouds. I’m pretty certain that the whole water vapor feedback hypothesis, if you can call it that, is a only a construct from the climate models and cannot be demonstrated empirically. But you CAN demonstrate a NEGATIVE feedback from water empirically. This is one of the key issues in the AGW idea, since without this supposed feedback, the effects of CO2 would be quite benign.

  339. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

    If anyone is willing to “invest” $5,000/year in climate taxes by 2015, based on global climate models, then they should surely be willing to let the stock market computer models guide their investing in the market. I wonder how many people have as much faith in those models. What is really stupid about all this, is that it will do nothing to avert any supposed global warming, probably even if China and India join the charade (which they will not do, IMHO). It is insanity at its worst.

  340. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 12:34 PM | Permalink

    @jae– I know the specific latent heat of vaporization– in units of energy per unit m ass– is rather large I also know that the product of power and time is energy. So, given sufficient time, watts * time can become a lot of energy.

    Discussions that compare POWER to ENERGY without mentioning TIME are, what would be called incomplete. Those that actually say “CO2 doubling adds 3.7 watts of energy” and in narratives that make it appear the writer actually believes watts are a unit of energy are called rather misguided and like confused.

    Also, energy is not lost when water recondenses or freezes up in the atmosphere or anywhere else. That energy is transfered to something in the local vicinity– likely the air.

  341. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 12:47 PM | Permalink

    # 339

    Lucya,

    Yeah, they’re confounding the units:

    W = J/s (W for power; J/s is the equivalent unit, or m^2 kg/s^3)

    W*s = J (W*s for energy; J is the equivalent unit, or N*m, or m^2 kg/s^2)

    W/m^2 = kg/s^3 (W/m^2 for heat flux density or irradiance)

    J/kg = m^2/s^2 (J/kg for specific energy, or m^2/s^2)

  342. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 12:54 PM | Permalink

    DocMartyn,

    I will now rephrase my question. Is there any difference in the heating of a body of salt water, at 15 degrees centigrade, when we shine IR light or white visible light on it, using the same amount of energy (4 w/m2 for instance).
    Would the IR radiation have more effect on the rate of evaporation compared with deeper penetrating white light (use Sun light as the source)?
    Does white light cause more heating of the water at greater depths?

    It’s going to depend on mixing. In a calm body of water thermal IR will only warm a very thin skin at the surface. If the warming is only in the first 5 mm, the warming rate is 0.69 degrees/hour for an additional 4 W/m2 and in slightly over an hour, the temperature will increase by the 0.74 degrees necessary to achieve radiative balance. Actually, it will probably be much faster than that because warming even in the first 5 mm will not be uniform. Conduction into the depths will be very slow. Deeper penetration of visible light means the heating rate is much slower because a much larger mass of water is involved so more energy will be absorbed faster. Rapid mixing equalizes things. I don’t know for sure, but my guess is that mixing is rapid in large bodies of water .

  343. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 1:04 PM | Permalink

    Lucia:

    I’m guessing, you would also point out that my threshold for “valid issue” is not so very high, correct?

    Exactly. That’s where I think Susann was heading: what’s the risk level? How do we take this long chain of “if”s, and construct a realistic estimate of the overall risk. It’s actually a little more involved than that; the real risk management question has to list an array of scenarios, and rank the likelihood of each. That’s what the IPCC has attempted to do. From that standpoint, I think the got the process right, I just believe that the numbers are way off (i.e. they’re awfully fond of “90% certain” regardless of what the question is).

  344. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 1:05 PM | Permalink

    ?? Lucia: I guess you are correct, a watt is synonomous with a watt-hour, so it is power. And you are right, the energy is reclaimed, but normally it is reclaimed at a level that allows most of that energy to go to space, not to warm me up. Water vapor STORES heat in the atmosphere, just like the air molecules. But to heat one m3 dry air (STP) by 1 C takes 1,172 joules = 0.326 watt. To heat 20 g water vapor/m3 (the amount in a very warm and humid place) 1 c takes only 0.024 watts, or only 0.024/0.326 = 7 % of the stored energy. Most of the energy is stored by the air, not the water vapor. I think this is not generally appreciated. That’s one of the reasons that deserts still retain a lot of heat overnight. The other reason is that the surface soaks up so much more energy; the surface in the desert can go to 60 C or so; whereas the surface in the wet area cannot get above the air temperature (due to the fact that you have to evaporate water to get the absolute humidity in equilibrium with the temperature of the surface).

  345. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 1:13 PM | Permalink

    DeWitt Payne,

    I got 0.95 degrees/hour for a mass = 1 kg.

  346. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 1:18 PM | Permalink

    I’m really taken aback by this. “A watt is synonymous with a watt-hour”? This is pretty basic stuff. A watt is a watt, and a watt-hour is 3600 joules. Potatoes v.s. potatoes per hour. Not synonymous.

  347. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 1:19 PM | Permalink

    Jae,

    1772 J = 0.000325556 W*hour = 1772 W*s

  348. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

    Energy Converter

  349. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

    Correction: 1772 J = 0.492 W*hour = 1772 W*s. Sorry.

  350. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 1:28 PM | Permalink

    343 jae
    Hey, jae, you just did what lucia warned about — mixed up energy (joules) with power (watts).

  351. Bob Koss
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

    I’m about as sharp as a marble when it comes to anything more than elementary regarding physics, but I came across this IPCC scenario chart for 2 and 4 times CO2 using a 3.5C climate sensitivity. Chart is here.

    The GCM created values show each doubling of CO2 results in a roughly equal increase in temperature. If this is actually true then it seems to me that when the concentration is cut in half a temperature reduction of equal size should eventually occur.

    So I figured I’d use 256ppm as a start point simply because it is convenient. Halving that concentration 8 times should bring CO2 down to less than 1ppm with a reduction in temperature of 28C. Sure doesn’t leave much of a temperature effect for water vapor and the rest of the gases. As I understand it the total effect of all GHGs is about 33C.

    Is the IPCC chart and/or GCM figures just wrong? Does the halving the concentration stop reducing temperature at some point? What am I missing here? Simple would be good. :)

  352. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 1:35 PM | Permalink

    @Larry–

    With regard t the IPCC– I honestly don’t know what it means to be “90% certain” about AGW. That’s the type of terminology that comes from statistical hypothesis tests and it’s not clear how that translates into something more general.

    I can say “probably” only in the sense that I think one thing is more likely true than the opposite. On the other hand, I say I’m sure when I’m really quite sure. (Even then, I’ve been known to be wrong.)

    Example:

    My local Jewel is probably out of 16 lb JennieO frozen turkeys now. If you were to bet $10 the contrary, I might take that wager and we could go down and check. (Tradition dictates the winner buys donuts and shares.)

    But am I 90% confident? 95% confident? 80% confident? Beats me!

    On the other hand, I’m sure there is no snow at the “Four Lakes ‘Alpine’ Village between my house and the local Jewel. I wouldn’t even place a bet because that would be stealing!

  353. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 1:35 PM | Permalink

    My handy-dandy conversion table says that 1 joule = 2.778 e-4 watt-hr.

  354. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 1:43 PM | Permalink

    Jae,

    Yeah, it’s correct; 1 J = 0.000278 W*hour. Thus 1772 J = 0.492 W*hour, and 1772 J = 1772 W*s.

  355. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 1:48 PM | Permalink

    352 jae

    I was referring to this:

    to heat one m3 dry air (STP) by 1 C takes 1,172 joules = 0.326 watt

    Maybe it was a typo……

  356. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    @Jae–
    My handy dandy calculator says 1 second = 2.778 e-4 hours. Ain’t that a coincidence? :)

    You also might want to read up a bit on your desert climatology. I’m pretty sure deserts experience large temperature fluctuations between night and day. I think (but am not sure) the dramatic drop in nighttime temperatures is partly due to the lack of night time clouds. When skies are cloudless, the ground looses heat by radiation to the sky which acts like a plane held at absolute zero. In contrast, clouds, while cold, are not at absolute zero, so the ground stays a bit warmer.

    Water in the atmosphere does things.

  357. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:11 PM | Permalink

    OK, 1 watt = 1 joule/second. I am using watt-hr, which is 1 joule/3600 seconds = 0.0002778 watt-hr. Sorry if I confused anyone.

  358. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:13 PM | Permalink

    >> you would also point out that my threshhold for “valid issue” is not so very high, correct?

    Yes, you should raise it. It reminds me of the time my boss, for political reasons, asked me to prove that 100 amps of current would melt an 18 gauge wire.

    >> CO2 would lead to an increase in the average temperature of the planet, and that,

    In reality, thermodynamics is the appropriate science for studying temperature dynamics. If one could heat the atmosphere independently from the ocean & land (which is what proponents of C02 AGW claim), one would find that heat would transfer to the ocean and land, proportional to the delta T.

    The amount of energy something can store is proportional to its mass. Because of the large mass differences between the C02 and the ocean (C02 is only .000171 % of the mass of the oceans), there is no way for that small quantity of material to store enough energy to have heated the oceans in a short amount of time. It’s made even worse for AGW when one considers that the specific heat of air is 29 J/mol/K, while liquid water is 75.

    IOW, if you applied heat energy to the atmosphere, the heat would get sucked into the oceans, and the average air temp would return to equilibrium, until you have heated the ocean up. The very large mass difference would probably imply a heating time in the thousands of years. Therefore, since we have not been producing C02 for nearly that long, any air temp rise currently happening could not be caused by C02.

    >> scaling arguments suggest that the variation in CO2 cannot be discounted out of hand.

    It’s made even worse for AGW when one considers the mass change to be from .000171% to ~ .00034%. It’s made even worse when one considers that the C02 in the troposphere is dominated by water, so it’s only the C02 above the troposphere that is causing this alleged change (the AGWers have now fallen back to this position). Since the troposphere contains roughly 80% of the total mass of the atmosphere and 50% of the total mass of the atmosphere is located in the lower 5km of the troposphere, it leaves even less C02 mass to store energy.

    >> I think also, there is a plausible scientific reason for suspecting humans use of carbon fuel is sufficiently large to increase CO2 a detectable amount.

    We have not been able to detect man’s effect on C02 levels thus far. During the world wide depression, human C02 output declined, but levels rose. The last 20 years have seen dramatic increases in emissions, due to rapid industrialization of India and China, yet the levels don’t reflect that. Based on isotopic analysis, the % of atmospheric C02 of human origin is at most, 4%. When one considers the % of the greenhouse effect that is attributable to C02, it’s down to .12%

    Although on another thread, you said it was flat wrong that thermodynamics is the appropriate science to study temperature dynamics, would you like to revise that opinion, since it’s not quite consistent with you being a mechanical engineer?

  359. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:14 PM | Permalink

    Nasif,

    I was using an area of 1 m2 and a depth of 5 mm. That’s 5 kg water. (3600sec/hour*4W/m2)/(4181J/kgK*0.005m*1000kg/m3)=0.69 K/hour That’s just a rough approximation, though. The heating rate will slow as the temperature increases and some heat will diffuse deeper into the water. I doubt there is an analytic solution. If I remembered how to do this sort of problem it would not be difficult to program.

    After further thought, 5 mm is too thin. 50 mm or 50 kg is more like it. That’s the thickness of the boundary layer after one hour. That gives an approximate heating rate of 0.069 K/hour. Boundary layer thickness increases as the square root of time. That also makes it more likely that mixing will occur and there will be no difference between the amount of heating at different wavelengths of incident radiation.

  360. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:17 PM | Permalink

    You also might want to read up a bit on your desert climatology. I’m pretty sure deserts experience large temperature fluctuations between night and day. I think (but am not sure) the dramatic drop in nighttime temperatures is partly due to the lack of night time clouds. When skies are cloudless, the ground looses heat by radiation to the sky which acts like a plane held at absolute zero. In contrast, clouds, while cold, are not at absolute zero, so the ground stays a bit warmer.

    Water in the atmosphere does things.

    I’ve done a LOT of reading on this subject, Ms. Lucia. Although the diurnal variation is much greater for a desert than for a humid area, the AVERAGE temperatures in a desert are higher than they are for a humid area at the same latitude and altitude. People go to Phoenix in the winter, not to Birmingham, AB. And yes, water in the atmosphere does things. One of those things is to store a little energy. Another is to rob a great deal of energy via. latent heat of vaporization and via increased convection, due to the low molecular weight of water vapor (18) vs air (approx 29).

  361. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:24 PM | Permalink

    BTW, IPCC has to be using the term watt as synonomous with watt-hr. Otherwise, they are talking about 3.7 joules/second, or only 0.00103 watt-hr.

  362. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:26 PM | Permalink

    RE: #335 – Surfing I wear 1/8″ Body Glove full length Nocal or Socal, SCUBA I wear 1/4″ including farmer john, booties, gloves and hood. I once got away without a hood in Catalina, but was one of few who did not have one. Coldest water ever was wreck alley, San Diego – I measured 45 deg F at 100 feet.

  363. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

    354, Pat:

    I was referring to this:

    to heat one m3 dry air (STP) by 1 C takes 1,172 joules = 0.326 watt

    Maybe it was a typo……

    Make that an IPCC-type typo, or a watt-hr.

  364. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:30 PM | Permalink

    It reminds me of the time my boss, for political reasons, asked me to prove that 100 amps of current would melt an 18 gauge wire.

    That’s supposed to be hard? I don’t get it. Get a welder and a hunk of bell wire. Clamp welder on each end. Set to 100 amps. Hit switch. Watch fireworks. Get pat on back from boss.

  365. mzed
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:30 PM | Permalink

    jae, I did want to note that I suspect the situation is a little more complicated. For one thing, perhaps soil type and soil density could be important. You should probably also consider albedo, and also the albedo of the biomass in non-desert areas. Are you thinking about heat transport via flowing water? What about absorption of light, heat, and CO2 by biomass? What about the local landforms (which can affect air currents)? I’m not saying I know the answers to these questions, but they seem legitimiate to me. I’m not sure you could perform this particular experiment anywhere besides a laboratory.

  366. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:32 PM | Permalink

    Gunnar, you only get one warning: don’t try to tell Lucia about thermo. This is the only warning you’re going to get.

  367. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:39 PM | Permalink

    The amount of energy something can store is proportional to its mass. Because of the large mass differences between the C02 and the ocean (C02 is only .000171 % of the mass of the oceans), there is no way for that small quantity of material to store enough energy to have heated the oceans in a short amount of time.

    WTF?

  368. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:40 PM | Permalink

    >> 1 watt = 1 joule/second

    Ok, everyone gets confused once every now and then, but your main points are absolutely correct:

    1) water is transferring large amounts of heat away from earth, bypassing C02 completely. We should remember that C02 is not working on average parameters directly. If it exists, it’s working minute by minute. It slows heat transfer. If heat transfer is dominated by water, then C02’s effect is quite limited.

    2) If the greenhouse effect actually raises average temperatures, and if water vapor is the major GHG, and if water doesn’t cancel the greenhouse effect, then really dry areas should be cooler.

    At least, that’s what I have learned from you jae. In short, the C02 hypothesis, if correct, should be verifiable by the scientific method.

  369. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

    Anyway, I think most people overestimate the amount of heat contributed to the air by water vapor and greatly underestimate the amount of heat contributed by the dry air, itself.

    Cp dry air = 1.0035 J/g/K
    Air density @ 25 C at sea level = 1,168 g/m3
    1 Joule = 2.778 e-4 watt-hr
    Therefore, an increase of 1 K increases energy storage in 1 m3 dry air by (1.0035)(1,168) = 1,172 Joules = (1,172)(2.778 e-4) = 0.326 watt-hr.

    Cp water vapor = 4.184 Joules/g/K
    Therefore an increase of 1 g/m3 water vapor stores (4.184)(1) = 4.184 Joules = (4.184)(2.778 e-4) = 0.00116 watt-hr.

    20 grams of water vapor/m3 is very humid, yet it stores only (20)(0.00116) = 0.0232 watt-hr

  370. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:48 PM | Permalink

    >> That’s supposed to be hard? I don’t get it. Get a welder and a hunk of bell wire. Clamp welder on each end. Set to 100 amps. Hit switch. Watch fireworks. Get pat on back from boss.

    No, you don’t get it. I was being asked to verify something experimentally, when common sense would indicate that a test is unnecessary. I did not get a pat on the back, since he was hoping against hope that 100 amps would not melt an 18 gauge wire. Similarly, the AGW speculative idea doesn’t pass the common sense test for a scientific hypothesis.

    >> Gunnar, you only get one warning: don’t try to tell Lucia about thermo. This is the only warning you’re going to get.

    I’m not sure who you think you are that you can tell me what to tell anyone. Someone’s educational background does not give that person a pass. Everyone who expresses a thought should be willing to defend that thought. No one is immune from criticism, not even Dr Mann.

  371. mzed
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:49 PM | Permalink

    #357, I seem to be missing something. There *is already* heat energy in the atmosphere–yet the ocean remains cold! Impossible? Well, no, apparently not, because…well, there it is, nice and cold. Note that I’m not defending agw ocean heat storage, but measurements of ocean temperature, as I understand, are generally taken from the topmost few layers of the ocean. No one is claiming AFAIK that the *entire ocean* has warmed by X degrees! It’s just a measure of the “ocean temperature” record, which applies to whatever area the instruments are sampling, i.e. the topmost few layers of the ocean at best.

  372. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

    At jae–
    This is from the csmonitor,describing Phoenix:

    The lows at night are rising, too. Three decades ago, the nighttime low here was about 30 degrees cooler than the days. Today, it is on average only 20 degrees cooler. That’s because cities are slower to cool off at night, retaining their heat in roads and buildings.

    …;
    That has a huge impact on water consumption and electricity generation, he says. Researchers in his department recently calculated the correlation between nighttime temperatures and water consumption. “A one-degree nighttime [temperature] increase equals 677 gallons more on average per household per year,” he says – due as much to evaporation from pools, irrigation, and agriculture as to human consumption. Golden and his colleagues study these rises in temperatures for urban areas from here to London and Beijing.

    Note: Water use in Phoenix is leading to higher humidity and smaller drops in night-time temperatures.

    For more read: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0830/p01s01-wogi.htm
    Other heat island effects are discussed. (I found this interesting article by googling “phoenix night time low temperatures”.

    I skipped the PDFs, and clicked the first news article. You can find other links here.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=phoenix+night+time+low+temperatures&btnG=Google+Search

    Pheonix is hot– but the day/night swings are large, and were larger before everyone turned the sprinklers on.

    BTW: I live near Chicago. I once lived in Richland, Wa where it is dry. During the cloudless nights in Richland, the temperature drops more than it does during the damp Chicago nights.

    Jae: When someone reads your link and immediately points out you mixed up energy (joules) and power( watts), you should suspect they have taken thermo!

  373. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:53 PM | Permalink

    RE 361. no hoody at catalina? that explains everything!

    backside of the island or natalie wood side?

    Next you tell me that you paddled out at mavericks.

    I paddled out twice. Once in cambria. First time out, I sucked and froze.
    Then I paddled out at ladego bay in malibu. 6 ft day I damn near drown.

    I’d rather boogey board at the wedge and end up in a wheel chair

  374. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:54 PM | Permalink

    364, mzed:

    jae, I did want to note that I suspect the situation is a little more complicated. For one thing, perhaps soil type and soil density could be important. You should probably also consider albedo, and also the albedo of the biomass in non-desert areas. Are you thinking about heat transport via flowing water? What about absorption of light, heat, and CO2 by biomass? What about the local landforms (which can affect air currents)? I’m not saying I know the answers to these questions, but they seem legitimiate to me. I’m not sure you could perform this particular experiment anywhere besides a laboratory.

    Another misconception. If moisture is available, and it is in all “green” areas and over water, to obtain a one degree increase of the surface temperature, you HAVE to evaporate approximately 1 gram/m3 water (that’s around 25 C; you have to evaporate more and more as the temperature goes up). Thus, the surface temperature in moist areas cannot be above the air temperature at the soil/air interface. Measure the soil temperature in a warm (or cold) moist area, if you don’t believe me.

  375. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:55 PM | Permalink

    # 360

    Jae,

    Then the IPCC is deeply wrong. W is a unit for rate of energy transfer (1 W = J/s), while W*hour is a unit for energy (1 W*hour = 3600 J).

    # 358

    DeWitt Payne,

    You have to solve the bolded units:

    (3600sec/hour*4 W/m2)/(4181 J/kgK*0.005m*1000kg/m3)=0.69 K/hour

  376. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 2:59 PM | Permalink

    Ok, Gunnar. ‘Splain fugacity.

  377. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:04 PM | Permalink

    >> There *is already* heat energy in the atmosphere–yet the ocean remains cold!

    No, the globally averaged air temp is quite close to the average water temp

  378. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:07 PM | Permalink

    Lucia:

    Pheonix is hot– but the day/night swings are large, and were larger before everyone turned the sprinklers on.

    Yes, and your point is?

    And yes, I’ve taken “thermo,” albeit a long time ago. If you read upthread a little, you will see the explanation for my “mix-up.” Are you going to correct the same “mix-up” for IPCC?

  379. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:08 PM | Permalink

    @Larry — 366. I agree totally with your analysis. On all three points.
    @steven mosher — 372. See the benefits of living near Chicago? We are usually protected from hurting ourselves paddling out on boogie boards into waves beyond our abilities. :)

  380. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:11 PM | Permalink

    Refresh my memory. How did the IPCC mix up energy and power?

    *Something tells me I’m going to regret rattling the cage.

  381. Ron
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:13 PM | Permalink

    Apologies if this is too far off thread.

    Re #135
    Douglas,
    In an interview on this morning’s CHED Edmonton (Rutherford)talk show Dr John Christy discussed the politics of the IPCC and really did a selling job on the idea that trying to deal with climate by curtailing humanity’s energy needs through government imposed restrictions on CO2 is just flat out the wrong way to go and can only end up creating far more human misery than any possible amount of global warming could cause. What you had to say about freedom would have made an excellent #2 (the old 1-2 punch thing) to give people some motivation to see through the constant media barrage of crashing ice and cuddly polar bears soon to be disposed of their property.

    Re #162
    Larry,
    Your point here immediately brings to mind Chesterton’s observation that “you can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it”. As my math skills were challenged by long division my understanding of a lot of the discussion here is related only to the “big picture”. This means I must only rely for “truth” on the credibility of the speakers, and for me this is based on the old saw about trusting those who are faithful in the little things. So when the Real Climate thesis that the people at CA are too busy counting the pebbles that they miss seeing the mountain my reaction is to shout out that you can’t get clear images out of fuzzy or missing pixels—and grab my wallet. Then again, maybe my respect for what goes on at this blog is because my favourite uncle was a chartered accountant—auditing is in the family.

  382. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:13 PM | Permalink

    Nasif,

    Haven’t we just been discussing that W = J/sec? So W/m2 = J sec-1 m-2. It all works out. Step by step, 3600 sec hour-1 * 4 J sec-1 m-2 = 14400 J hour-1 m-2. Divide 14400 J hour-1 m-2 by 4181 J kg-1 K-1 = 3.444 K kg hour-1 m-2. Divide 3.444 K kg hour-1 m-2 by 0.005 m = 688.8 K kg hour-1 m-3. Divide 688.8 K kg hour-1 m-3 by 1000 kg m-3 =0.69 K hour-1. Q.E.D. And the mass of the atmosphere on 1 square meter is still 10,000 kg too.

  383. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:18 PM | Permalink

    Lucia, again:

    BTW: I live near Chicago. I once lived in Richland, Wa where it is dry. During the cloudless nights in Richland, the temperature drops more than it does during the damp Chicago nights.

    30-year average temperatures for Pendelton, OR (as close as I can get to the tri-cities) = 22.7 C in July, 1.3 C in December; for Chicago, 20.3 in July, -3 in December. And Chicago is 3.9 degrees LOWER in latitude (41.8 vs. 45.7). You are right about diurnal variation, but NOT about average temperatures.

  384. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:18 PM | Permalink

    >> you should suspect they have taken thermo

    But if someone says that thermo is not the right science for calculating temperature, then maybe they slept through it (Greek thermç, heat, from thermos).

    And if someone says “CO2 would lead to an increase in the average temperature of the planet”, then they probably aren’t apply thermodynamics to the problem. So, maybe they took the course, but failed to understand it’s usefulness.

  385. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:22 PM | Permalink

    Refresh my memory. How did the IPCC mix up energy and power?

    See # 360.

  386. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:22 PM | Permalink

    Re the several posts on ocean warming, Stephen Schwartz determined the response time of the upper ocean levels to atmospheric heating to be about 5 years.

    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

  387. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:23 PM | Permalink

    361 SteveSadlov says:

    November 20th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
    RE: #335 – Surfing I wear 1/8 Body Glove full length Nocal or Socal, SCUBA I wear 1/4 including farmer john, booties, gloves and hood. I once got away without a hood in Catalina, but was one of few who did not have one. Coldest water ever was wreck alley, San Diego – I measured 45 deg F at 100 feet.

    One December day I picked up a party of visitors from the Midwest in Santa Ana one morning and took them up to the ski slopes at Big Bear. They’d had enough snow and cold by noon, so we left Big Bear went down to Elsinore to watch the sail planes and hang gliders do their thing. Well warmed, we crossed over the mountain and went to Laguna Beach. With air temperatures in the 80s, they stripped to their swimming trunks to party. A couple who ignored warnings discovered the hard way that the water just then was not near as warm as it appeared to be. From Laguna Beach I took them to a home in Fountain Valley. It was so hot in the house, we turned the air conditioning up to maximum. After a short visit, we went back to Santa Ana in the early evening, picked up their luggage, and drove up I5 through downtown Los Angeles and north towards Glendale, the San Fernando Valley, and through the Grapevine to Bakersfield. We ran into a traffic jam in the Grapevine as heavy blowing snow fell, trucks and cars collided, and the snow suddenly got deeper. Once we were out of the Grapevine, it was strong and cold winds gusting and threatening to blow the car off the road. Finaly reached Bakersfield shortly after midnight. The next morning, the females in the visiting party were definitely looking a bit stressed as they discussed among themselves the required apparel choices for the day. Just another sunny Bakersfield day (chuckle, chuckle).

  388. mzed
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:24 PM | Permalink

    No, the globally averaged air temp is quite close to the average water temp

    Sure…at the surface layers…

  389. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:25 PM | Permalink

    I don’t get 360. What is the issue in 360? What exactly did the IPCC say that confuses watts and watt-hours?

  390. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

    @Larry — 366. I agree totally with your analysis. On all three points.
    @steven mosher — 372. See the benefits of living near Chicago? We are usually protected from hurting ourselves paddling out on boogie boards into waves beyond our abilities. :)

    @Jae–
    I guess maybe I misunderstood whatever argument you mean to make in 343

    I think this is not generally appreciated. That’s one of the reasons that deserts still retain a lot of heat overnight. The other reason is that the surface soaks up so much more energy; the surface in the desert can go to 60 C or so; whereas the surface in the wet area cannot get above the air temperature (due to the fact that you have to evaporate water to get the absolute humidity in equilibrium with the temperature of the surface).
    I thought you were trying to suggesting that desserts retain more of the heat accumulated during the day as compared to humid areas. In reality, the temperature night time temperature drop more in desert areas than in humid areas. So, generally, people characterize desserts as losing more heat.

    Of course, it’s true that if they start out hotter, the may remain hotter despite losing more daytime heat than is lost in a humid area. If the only idea you meant to convey is “deserts get hot”, yes, they get hot for a variety of reasons.

    On this bit:
    whereas the surface in the wet area cannot get above the air temperature
    Should you ever visit Lake Michigan, you will notice that, from time to time, the surface of Lake Michigan not only can, but does get warmer than the air above Lake Michigan. You’ll see similar phenomena all over the place.

    But yes, water does have a moderating influence. And that’s why deserts fail to reatain as much daytime heat as humid places.

  391. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:28 PM | Permalink

    Lucia: My wife’s sister is also named Lucia. She’s an attorney and loves to argue, too :).

  392. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:34 PM | Permalink

    Should you ever visit Lake Michigan, you will notice that, from time to time, the surface of Lake Michigan not only can, but does get warmer than the air above Lake Michigan. You’ll see similar phenomena all over the place.

    Perhaps VERY briefly. I can see this if you have a sudden cool breeze. But the water surface will quickly strive to come back into equilibrium. The vapor pressures of water in the air-water interface must match the vapor pressure at the water’s surface.

  393. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    Gunnar, thermo isn’t the only science that involves heat and temperature. Do you understand what Lucia is referring to when she uses the word “transport”?

  394. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:37 PM | Permalink

    I thought you were trying to suggesting that desserts retain more of the heat accumulated during the day as compared to humid areas. In reality, the temperature night time temperature drop more in desert areas than in humid areas. So, generally, people characterize desserts as losing more heat.

    They DO, see #381.

  395. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:39 PM | Permalink

    @Jae– I said nothing about average temperatures, I was commenting on your “retain heat at night” claim, which I evidently mistakenly assumed meant retained relative to the local daytime level

    Richland Washinton is certainly both warmer a drier, on average than Chicago. Richland is in the rainshadow of mountains. I think (but am not sure) the heat is due to the isentropic compression that occurs as air travels down. The dryness is due to the isentropic expansion as air travels up the mountains. When it gets cold, the water falls out. Then, the now dry air travels down the mountain, it gets warm— as it’s compressed.

    So, the dryness doesn’t cause the heat in the way you say, but they are sort of linked.
    Pendelton’s climate may be similar to Richland’s.

  396. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:44 PM | Permalink

    @Jae– before I contradict you in 380… would your “very briefly” correspond to “For months at a time during winter”?

  397. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

    394, Lucia: OK, you got me in a way there. The water stores a lot of heat in the summer, and that rises throughout the winter. But if you were to measure the temperature of the uppermost layer of water, it would be at the same temperature as the air above it. You will also note that the relative humidity in the air in cities near the Great Lakes stays very high, even in the winter, due to this effect.

  398. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

    #384, that paper is flawed. The reality is that the sun heats the oceans directly, and the oceans control the average air temp. Deep ocean thermetrics show that water temps go up and down with the seasons. What theoretical basis is there for assuming “this heat capacity is dominated by the heat capacity of the upper layers of the world ocean”?

    Does water not conduct heat below a certain depth? Of course, there is a temp gradient, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the ocean isn’t there. Heat is being transferred by both conduction and convection. The deep ocean is cold because cold water is more dense, so it sinks. That doesn’t mean that heat transfer is not taking place, it’s just the mass is so great, that what is a few degrees on the surface is a fraction of a degree down deep.

  399. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:00 PM | Permalink

    Gunnar – here’s a clue – google “ocean mixed layer”. And yes, it has to do with transport, whatever that is.

  400. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

    393:

    @Jae– I said nothing about average temperatures, I was commenting on your “retain heat at night” claim, which I evidently mistakenly assumed meant retained relative to the local daytime level

    Can you point to where I said anything about “retaining heat at night?” I said that the AVERAGE temperature, which is a measure of heat retention over the course of a whole day, is higher in Richland than in Chicago. Your reflections on why this is true may be correct and may explain some of the differences, but the relationship also holds for dry vs. wet locations east of the Rockies. Water vapor exerts an overall net effect on temperatures near the surface, I do believe.

  401. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:08 PM | Permalink

    Larry, 387: Unless I am mistaken (which has happened before :), the IPCC uses the term watt, when it means watt-hour.

  402. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:16 PM | Permalink

    @ Jae–
    Can you point to where I said anything about “retaining heat at night?”

    Yes, I can. I already specifically quoted your “retain at night” words in my previous responses to you even including your words indicating that you were discussing this retention as specifically distinct from the “other reason” deserts were hot. That “other reason” is that they get hot in the first place, during the day.

    Here is the quote. If you want to find the exact number of the comment, I suggest you use the search tool on your browser.

    If you now believe all you meant is the deserts get hot during the day, I already said, that yes, deserts do get hot during the day.

  403. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

    Without the context, I don’t know, but you’re probably referring to the increase in heat capture from a CO2 doubling, which is 3.7 w/m^2. That’s correct use of units. They’re dealing with power over area. Think of it as a flowrate of calories. It’s called heat flux.

  404. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:19 PM | Permalink

    Oops–the quote. ae in 343

    That’s one of the reasons that deserts still retain a lot of heat overnight. The other reason is that the surface soaks up so much more energy; the surface in the desert can go to 60 C or so; whereas the surface in the wet area cannot get above the air temperature

  405. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:21 PM | Permalink

    the surface in the wet area cannot get above the air temperature

    Never been to Houston, have you?

  406. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

    396 Gunnar
    So I am expected to reject a paper by a respected Brookhaven scientist on your say so? Sure.

    Regarding your question, read the references cited in his paper.

  407. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:35 PM | Permalink

    401,

    Without the context, I don’t know, but you’re probably referring to the increase in heat capture from a CO2 doubling, which is 3.7 w/m^2. That’s correct use of units. They’re dealing with power over area. Think of it as a flowrate of calories. It’s called heat flux.

    LOL. So we have (3.7 joules/second)(3600 second/hr)/m^2 = 13,300 watt-hr/m^2? I don’t think so, since the entire amount of solar radiation (at ground level) is about 10 kwh.

  408. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:37 PM | Permalink

    I see us discussing details. Let me see if I get this from a bigger picture, as I understand it. Drier air can’t hold as much heat as moister air (all other things equal). However, in order to convert liquid to gas, that takes a lot of heat and there is a net loss so wetter places are cooler. In drier places, the lack of conversion of water to a gas results in a higher temperature because air can hold (transfer) a lot of heat that’s absorbed by a surface material like sand which would have a lower albedo if the air temperature isn’t “saturated” yet. Daytime when the sun is out. When the night comes, drier air loses heat more rapidly and moister air more slowly. Therefore, in moister places, the heat transfer results in a smaller variation between temperatures day/night (holding wind and weather patterns like cold fronts stable) and in drier places, it’s hotter in the day and cooler at night and there’s a wider variation.

    Of course, evaporation of sweat from your skin is faster at 0% so it feels less hot than an equal temperature at 80% where it evaporates slower and provides less of a cooling effect at the skin.

    So my question is, what is the absolute temperature 0% humidity air can hold compared to 100% humidity?

  409. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:37 PM | Permalink

    @Jae–

    you will also note that the relative humidity in the air in cities near the Great Lakes stays very high, even in the winter, due to this effect.

    The humidity near the Great Lakes is very high compared to what? Should I expect the relative humidity in Chicago to exceed dramatically exceed that of Des Moines in Winter?
    Take a look at averages.

    http://www.cityrating.com/cityhumidity.asp?City=Chicago

    http://www.cityrating.com/cityhumidity.asp?City=Des+Moines

    There is very little difference. Or is Des Moines near enough to the Great Lakes to be humid because due to this effect?

  410. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:40 PM | Permalink

    Never been to Houston, have you?

    I lived in College Station for 5 years and went to Houston often, as a matter of fact. There is some residual heat storage in soil/water, but as I said before, the surface layer has to be at the same temperature as the air immediately above it.

  411. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:40 PM | Permalink

    Lucia in post #324 said:

    With regard to 2D models: it would appear that increased CO2 should increase the average temperature of the planet, and lead to some warming. The increase in temperature increases the ability of air to hold water vapor; because water has strong absobing capabilities, we would expect positive feedback.

    Correct if you neglect the uncertainty of the amount and sign applied to feedback from clouds — an effect that most everyone agrees has and will be difficult to quantify.

    Larry in post #342 said:

    Exactly. That’s where I think Susann was heading: what’s the risk level? How do we take this long chain of “if”s, and construct a realistic estimate of the overall risk. It’s actually a little more involved than that; the real risk management question has to list an array of scenarios, and rank the likelihood of each. That’s what the IPCC has attempted to do. From that standpoint, I think the got the process right, I just believe that the numbers are way off (i.e. they’re awfully fond of “90% certain” regardless of what the question is).

    Factors/risks in these probability chains that are either ignored or considered a sure thing are the probabilities of the mitigation actions actually working (in a political sense) and of making conditions worse than would occur from adaptation. I am convinced that it is these probabilities that people actually consider implicitly, if not explicitly, when they calculate the amount of uncertainty they are willing to accept in the earlier links in this chain. A libertarian, such as I am, and those with less confidence in governments’ abilities to handle such large scale tasks without unintended consequences, will want more evidence than those who have more confidence and who feel that government should be involved in these matters regardless of the uncertainty of the extent of AGW – i.e. it is for some not even an issue of certainty but a method (excuse, if you will) of establishing bigger governments. As a libertarian I also probably have more confidence in people left to freer choices having the capabilities to adapt.

    I personally have judged that the potential future temperatures could be lower or higher than those commonly predicted because I have not seen reasonable confidence limits determined for these projections or for reconstructions of past temperatures for that matter. When climate change predictions are further detailed to projecting detrimental and beneficial effects, I judge the uncertainty of these projections to go up exponentially. I strongly suspect that our current temperature is not some optimal ideal (even if one could be determined) and that an increased temperature will not produce results that are uniformly detrimental.

  412. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:41 PM | Permalink

    3.7 joules/second)(3600 second/hr)/m^2 = 13,300 watt-hr/m^2?

    Uhh, no. The units are different on the two sides of the “=” sign. Way different. In Pauli’s words, that’s not even wrong.

  413. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:42 PM | Permalink

    the surface layer has to be at the same temperature as the air immediately above it.

    B***S***. You’re not paying attention, are you?

  414. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:47 PM | Permalink

    402, Lucia.

    That’s one of the reasons that deserts still retain a lot of heat overnight. The other reason is that the surface soaks up so much more energy; the surface in the desert can go to 60 C or so; whereas the surface in the wet area cannot get above the air temperature

    Hey, I just said the deserts retain a LOT of heat at night, not that they retain more than, say, Chicago. I think we just have a misunderstanding going on. I quit.

  415. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:47 PM | Permalink

    409, excellent. And no matter how remote, we also have to consider the possibility that other factors are pushing the earth to cool to another little ice age, if not a big one, and even if mitigation is effective in cooling the earth, that isn’t what we want to be doing right now. All of these issues need to be on the table, and most of them aren’t.

  416. Carl Gullans
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 4:50 PM | Permalink

    Off-topic: Can anybody draw a parallel here?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978_pf.html

  417. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 5:09 PM | Permalink

    Lucia, next time just use this link

  418. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 5:13 PM | Permalink

    @Ken in 409.
    Agreed. Cloud model are an issue and result in significant uncertainty. See Munchkin, cute doggie mascot of ARM’s SGP site. He watches over the instruments that are being used to take measurements to test models to deal with this whole cloud issue. He, and the instruments, are on the job 24/7.

    I think his job is to make sure no rabetts travel to the back-ass of nowhere to nibble on any power lines. ( I knit the Munchkin his orange sweater. )

    Presumably, if scientist no longer think cloud models need validation, they will suggest closing these sites down. :)

  419. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 5:14 PM | Permalink

    410, Larry, how can I make it any clearer. Let’s see. One watt/m^2 = l joule/sec/m^2, which is 3600 joules/hr/m^2. Since 1 watt-hr is 3600 joules in an hour, then they should have used the units watt-hr/m^2, not watt/m^2.

  420. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 5:19 PM | Permalink

    411, Larry:

    B***S***. You’re not paying attention, are you?

    Get thee thy p-chem book. Think about boiling water. The vapor directly above the surface is at 100 C, just like the surface of the water. And the air is saturated.

  421. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 5:27 PM | Permalink

    417, What units are the sun’s output in? Everything has to be on that basis. The conservation law works on either energy or power, you just have to be consistent. Last time I checked, the sun didn’t put out w-hr.

  422. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 5:29 PM | Permalink

    Get thee p-chem book out, and look up what “transport” is.

  423. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 5:29 PM | Permalink

    re: #178 Ron,

    government imposed restrictions on CO2 is just flat out the wrong way to go and can only end up creating far more human misery than any possible amount of global warming could cause.

    This, BTW, is the take-away from Bjorn Lomborg’s book, “Cool it!” Nobody’s shown much interest in it here, but the book is actually quite good, IMO.

  424. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 5:32 PM | Permalink

    >> So I am expected to reject a paper by a respected Brookhaven scientist on your say so?

    Certainly not. Neither should you accept something, just because a respected Brookhaven scientist said so. The history of science is replete with famous scientists being completely wrong. Study thermodynamics, analyze some thermodynamic systems. Way back in college, I analyzed a system for a thermodynamics professor (bailing out one of his grad students who couldn’t handle the science, math, or the numerical simulation), and solved 20 equations in 20 unknowns, and got a feel for thermo. Somewhere out there, there is someone who didn’t deserve their masters, since I did their masters thesis.

    If you really need to, construct an experiment with the appropriate water mass to air ratio with no C02. Inject the correct amount (.035%) of very hot C02. Measure the temperature of the air and water at various points versus time. For me, it would be like proving that 100 amps will melt an 18 gauge wire, but it sure doesn’t hurt. Use the scientific method, and expect papers that you read to do the same. That paper is full of completely unverified claims.

    >> IPCC, power, energy

    And Jae is right, the AGW IPCC crowd is basing everything on a power based radiative balance, instead of an energy based thermo approach. It’s incorrect, since First Law only reduces to radiative balance if Work is zero and the internal energy is constant. Neither of these assumptions is correct. Several of our neighbor planets are in obvious non radiative balance, and there is no reason to think earth is any different.

  425. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 5:33 PM | Permalink

    Dang it, Larry. Look here. See the kWh/m^2/day units?

  426. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 5:39 PM | Permalink

    1 kWh/m^2/day*(1/24)day/hr = 1/24 kW/m^2 = 41.6 w/m^2. That wasn’t too hard, was it?

  427. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 5:41 PM | Permalink

    blockquote>Several of our neighbor planets are in obvious non radiative balance, and there is no reason to think earth is any different.

    WTF???

  428. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 6:07 PM | Permalink

    >> What units are the sun’s output in? Everything has to be on that basis. Last time I checked, the sun didn’t put out w-hr.

    WTF? And unlike you, I’ll support that. You’re really confusing the reality of physics and how some folks choose to measure and represent it. The Sun puts out energy (J, or Watt-Hr). If you take the derivative of energy, you get power. I’m amazed that anyone would think that a quantity and it’s derivative are equivalent.

    >> WTF???

    WTF?????? What, you doubt it? Read this slowly: First Law only reduces to radiative balance if Work is zero and the internal energy is constant. Neither of these assumptions is correct.

  429. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 6:30 PM | Permalink

    Ok, Larry, I guess we are arguing over nothing but convention. 1 watt = 1 joule/sec = 3600 joules/hr = 1 watt-hr. This is why watt and watt-hr are used synonymously, like I said a million threads ago.

  430. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 6:32 PM | Permalink

    Insolation of Earth.

    Why integrate? The average solar power reaching the earths surface is over 400 w/m^2 at the equator, down to around 215 w/m^2 in Iceland.
    Above the earth’s atmosphere it is around 1360 w/m^2.

  431. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 6:45 PM | Permalink

    Sometimes everyone drives me crazy here.

    Please can we be more percise?

    Take a few surfaces. Sand. Concrete. Asphalt. Tilled soil in a garden. Snow. Snow with soot on it. Grassland. Brush covered under tree canopy.

    Take a few conditions. Wet. Dry. At -30 C. 0 C. 30 C. 50 C. 100C.

    Put a matrix of these into a situation of no, medium, low, high and maximum sunlight.

    Now measure the surface, the air .001 mm above it, and the air 1, 10, 100 and 1000 mm.

    Nothing has to be anything.

    What kind of humidity are we talking about?

    specific humidity = ratio of kilograms of water vapor (which is possible at temps under 100 C btw) per kiogram of air

    relative humidity = ratio of partial pressure of water vapor in a mix of air and water vapor to saturated vapor pressure of water at a given temperature

    absolute humity = mass of water vapoer per cubic meter of air

    mixing/humidity ratio = ratio of kg of water vapor per kg of dry air at a specific pressure.

  432. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 6:54 PM | Permalink

    Watt and watt-hr are NOT synonymous!!!!!

  433. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 7:00 PM | Permalink

    First Law only reduces to radiative balance if Work is zero and the internal energy is constant. Neither of these assumptions is correct.

    You were arguing that climate is qualitatively different from weather, because it’s long-term. If so, then these transient phenomena don’t matter.

  434. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 7:02 PM | Permalink

    426,429
    A watt is a unit of power (energy per unit time). A watt-hour is the energy obtained from receiving a power of 1 watt for 1 hour, that’s why it is 3600 joules ( a joule is 1 watt integrated over 1 sec).

  435. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 7:06 PM | Permalink

    Gunnar: EIT question: You have a fan in a room. It has a 1 hp motor in it. It runs for an hour with the motor fully loaded. 1 hp = 746 watts. The windows and doors in the room are closed, and there’s no A/C. How many watt-hours of heat went into the room?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    A: 746.

  436. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 7:10 PM | Permalink

    # 380

    DeWitt Payne,

    Yes, but you have to solve units at both sides of the equation. W/m^2 = J/sec/m^2. In the formula:

    (3600sec/hour*4 W/m2)/(4181 J/kgK*0.005m*1000kg/m3)=0.69 K/hour

    [(3600 s/3600 s) (W/m^2)]/ [J/kg*K (m)(kg/m3] = W /J*K

    Thus, you have to solve W/m^2 to J/s/m^2.

    Now, in the formula we would have (bolds are eliminated):

    s/s (J/s/m^2) / J/ Kg*K (m) (kg /m^3) = K*s.

    Well, I’ve solved the units and have a congruent result.

  437. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 7:27 PM | Permalink

    # 426

    Jae,

    1 watt = 1 joule/sec = 3600 joules/hr = 1 watt-hr

    1 Watt = 1 Joule/sec… Ok!

    1 Joule/sec = 3600 Joule/hour…Ok!

    1 Joule/sec = 1 Watt*hour… No, but 1 Joule/sec = 1 W (Watts alone, or power only).

    3600 Joule/hour = 1 Watt*hour… No, but 3600 Joule/hour = 1 W (Watts alone, or power only).

    3600 (Joule/sec) = 3600 Watt.

  438. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 7:28 PM | Permalink

    426
    jae, they are not synonomous. Watt is a unit of power, E/t, where E is energy and t is time. Watt-hour is a unit of energy, (E/t)xt or E.

  439. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 7:41 PM | Permalink

    # 426

    Jae,

    Now, 1 Joule = 1 W*s (please, don’t take “*” for the multiplication sign; I use it to denote “for”)

  440. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 8:24 PM | Permalink

    This is why Steve doesn’t like thermodynamic discussions. What the hello is everyone babbling about?

    On a lighter note, if you run for the ICE, does that mean you are running away from the ELI?

    Two scenarios for you to consider.

    Scenario #1
    “Mr. policy-maker, among other things, pollution from burning fossil fuels for energy has resulted in a change from average global temperature of over one degree Fahrenheit since 1880.”
    “Oh, really, how’s that kind of thing happen?”
    “Black carbon, sorry, soot, gets on ice and makes it melt, and various by-products of burning fossil fuels help transfer more of the sun’s heat to the air. There are other things involved, such as how the water in the atmosphere acts. But it’s a “feedback loop”, and every indication is that it is accelerating to a detriment to many things in the system.”
    “Sounds reasonable, but I’m a busy man, get to the point.
    “It would be best if we came up with plans to reduce how much we burn, through a variety of methods such as replacement, conservation, and efficiency, and came up with plans to make what remains that we’re burning be cleaner.”
    “I don’t see why not. What numbers are we looking at in the future, and what methods exist, so I can come up with a cost/benefit analysis and justify the actions?”
    “Here is a one page executive summary of the possibilites of what might happen at various rates of temperature change, one for possible methods of controlling pollution and the release of the greenhouse gas by-products, and one showing some graphs of various behaviors of the system. They include references if you wish to look into it deeper or verify the information. Read them please when you have a chance, and thank you for your time today.”
    “I will, and you’re welcome”

    Scenario #2
    “Mr. policy-maker, CO2 levels have gone up 33%!!! We must cut human emisssions of CO2, it’s resulted in the temperature going up over .7 centigrade!”
    “CO2? And what does point seven mean? In how long of a time and what are the ramifications, and make it fast, I’m busy. Explain yourself.”
    “CO2 is carbon dioxide, and it’s 125 years for either. And the combination of CO2 making temperature rise will make the sea levels go up, and destroy coral reefs and kill the polar bears!!!!!”
    “You mean you’re saying CO2 results in a temperature rise? I don’t know what you’re talking about, except the 125 years part. Doesn’t seem like much of a rise of CO2 over 12 decades. Temperature either. I still don’t know what the heck you mean by point seven. Just tell me, how do they correlate and what’s the absolute value of the percentage?”
    “CO2 causes temperature rise. The CO2, that would be 100 ppmv.”
    “Son, you’re wasting my time, what the hell is ppmv?”
    “That’s parts per million by volume.”
    “So you mean its value has gone up by a total volume of .0001 over 125 years????? Get out of my office. Now.”
    “But you don’t understand, it’s a powerful forcing agent that has a radiative forcing on its own equal to all the other anthropogenic greenhouse gasses put together and is increasing yearly at 3%!!!!!!!”
    “Security!”
    :)

  441. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 8:34 PM | Permalink

    OK, all you guys, is it correct, or not, for IPCC to express the energy (power??) for 2 X CO2 as 3.7 w/m^2?

  442. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 8:38 PM | Permalink

    >> You have a fan in a room. It has a 1 hp motor in it. It runs for an hour with the motor fully loaded. 1 hp = 746 watts. The windows and doors in the room are closed, and there’s no A/C. How many watt-hours of heat went into the room?

    Not sure what your point is.

    Assuming that it’s something to do with power and energy: Yes, but what if a different motor ran at 74.6 Watts for 54 minutes, then ran at 671.4 Watts for 6 minutes. The energy delivered to the room would be the same, even though the situation is quite different. My wife told me to cook the roast at 300 F for 1 hour. I forgot to put it in for 30 minutes. To make up for that, considering that it was at room temperature for 30 minutes, I set the temperature to 575 for the last 30 minutes. That’s the same, right? It’s got to be, since climatologists say that we can do everything with time averages.

    Assuming it’s about Work: The losses of the motor are turned into heat energy, but there is some energy that went into kinetic energy. Consider a perfectly insulated ship in space that accelerates to a big velocity. All the energy expended would go into changing the kinetic energy of the ship. There is no friction, so there is no heat generated by movement. In this spaceship example, -dU = äW, since no heat was added or subtracted from the system. IOW, the change in internal energy is equal to the work performed. There are two types of energy, kinetic and thermal. It’s an AGW myth to think it’s all thermal.

  443. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 8:46 PM | Permalink

    Jae
    Since ~400 ppmv is about 1.5 w/m^2 the question is will another 400 give another 1.5+?
    I don’t know and don’t care to guess at it.

    Gunnar
    No, periods of time that equate mathematically to the same number don’t provide the same amount of either heat nor energy. 746 X over 1 hour is not the same as 746 X in 1 second.
    Cook a roast like that and see how you like it.
    Put a gallon of 205 F water in bathtub and put your feet into it and then put a gallon of 205 F water into a bathtub and wait an hour. Or put it into a bathtub that has 100 gallons of 33 F water in it already, and swirll it for a minute. Or a day. Or a week.

  444. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 8:50 PM | Permalink

    In a closed system, all the kinetic energy turns into heat. Period. Work done is irrelevant to the earth’s energy balance.

  445. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 8:52 PM | Permalink

    438, it is correct. And it is power per area.

  446. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 9:02 PM | Permalink

    @jae– What precise word do they use? w/m^2 would be appropriate units for energy flux.

    @Larry in 441. Yes. (Unless Gunnar starts to explain that his big climatologist puts his big hands around the planet and begins to squeeze the atmosphere, thereby compressing it.) If he says something like that, I’ll melt the butter while you deal with the popcorn. :)

  447. Larry
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 9:08 PM | Permalink

    Second law restated: in the long run, all energy is heat (let’s not get into black holes, and how the universe regurgitates itself).

  448. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 9:23 PM | Permalink

    # 437

    Sam Urbinto,

    This is why Steve doesn’t like thermodynamic discussions. What the hello is everyone babbling about?

    Hah! Got it. However, it is not because thermodynamics postulates are unclear, but because we make them ambiguous as we try to make them coincide with our ideas.

  449. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 9:29 PM | Permalink

    438
    I assume you are talking about units, not the magnitude of the number: It’s not energy (joules), but it is power density, because it is power (joules/sec or watts) per square meter (area).
    I assume that they are talking about the amount of energy trapped each second (joules/sec or watts) for each square meter of surface by the presence of the extra CO2, including any water-vapor positive feedback. If so, then the units are OK. (It is what is called a flux, which is Latin for ‘flow’ — flow through a unit-area imaginary orifice).

  450. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 9:34 PM | Permalink

    >> OK, all you guys, is it correct, or not, for IPCC to express the energy (power??) for 2 X CO2 as 3.7 w/m^2?

    Certainly not. C02 is not an energy source. It’s merely a material exposed to radiative energy. It slows heat transfer coming and going, similar to an insulator. Would anyone say that the insulator in my house is a forcing agent in the thermodynamic system, or that if I doubled the insulation, would it necessarily result in a warmer house, if the windows were wide open (the essential effect of the water cycle transferring large amounts of heat to the upper atmosphere)?

    If the house has a furnace (internal heat source, like a molten core), would anyone expect the house to be in radiative balance? The house is warmer than it should be, considering just solar radiation alone. If you took mercury, and shoved it on a course into deep space, it would slowly cool over the eons. All during that time, it would not be in radiative balance, since it would be cooling, ie internal energy is not constant. There is nothing in reality to keep the internal energy of anything constant. It would not drop to zero K, since gravity creates it’s own heat.

    A star is formed when there is enough matter to reach a critical mass of approximately 80 times Jupiter’s, at which point internal pressures raise the core temperatures high enough to ignite nuclear fusion. Was it ever in radiative balance?

    Sam, don’t think you’re getting my sarcasm. The energy was the same, just not the power. It makes a difference how you get there, which climatologists don’t seem to get.

    >> In a closed system, all the kinetic energy turns into heat.

    I don’t think that conclusion follows from the premise. Kinetic energy exists.

    >> Work done is irrelevant to the earth’s energy balance.

    No, it isn’t. In fact, it’s likely that the work done will be the theoretical carnot maximum.

    >> Second law restated: in the long run, all energy is heat

    That’s a new idea to me, but there’s a lot I don’t know. I don’t see that in my text books, or at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics. I think you’re just saying anything, while you munch on popcorn.

    Have a good Thanksgiving folks.

  451. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 9:59 PM | Permalink

    447 Gunnar

    if I doubled the insulation, would it necessarily result in a warmer house, if the windows were wide open (the essential effect of the water cycle transferring large amounts of heat to the upper atmosphere)

    I’m not at all sure that is a good analogy. The water cycle gets heat up to the higher parts of the troposphere, but radiation is probably needed to get it the rest of the way, and through the stratosphere and out.

    If so, a better analogy is: would it keep your living room warmer if you insulated the kitchen, given an opening between the two rooms.

    Another way of looking at it is that there are two steps in series, not in parallel.

  452. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 10:04 PM | Permalink

    447:

    Certainly not. C02 is not an energy source. It’s merely a material exposed to radiative energy. It slows heat transfer coming and going, similar to an insulator. Would anyone say that the insulator in my house is a forcing agent in the thermodynamic system, or that if I doubled the insulation, would it necessarily result in a warmer house, if the windows were wide open (the essential effect of the water cycle transferring large amounts of heat to the upper atmosphere)?

    I got lost in my own dialogue, but I think I agree with this.

  453. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

    Same for you, Gunnar.

    Larry,

    Second law restated: in the long run, all energy is heat (let’s not get into black holes, and how the universe regurgitates itself).

    In the long run, all energy is gravity (let’s not get into dark living beings [LOL], and how the universe regurgitates dark bacteria).

  454. Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 10:09 PM | Permalink

    # 449

    Of course, Jae! Gunnar is well oriented. CO2 is not an energy source, but a conveyor of energy.

  455. jae
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 10:12 PM | Permalink

    Anyway, it is my current opinion that the “greenhouse effect” has nothing to do with radiation, per se. It is simply a measure of the storage capacity of heat (overnight) by the surface and the atmosphere (almost all by dry air, NOT water vapor). Water stores a little heat in humid climes, and rocks store a little more in dry climes. That’s what fits the empirical evidence. And at this point at night, I don’t care if a watt is a watt-hour or what. Good night.

  456. BarryW
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 10:31 PM | Permalink

    Re 77

    The with your analogy is that you know that what you have is cancer. What if you walked in with a lump, how would you react if the doctor just said “oh, cancer! lets cut it out and give you massive chemo and radiation just to be sure” without a biopsy to verify it?

    Temperature is rising, CO2 is rising, ego the rise in temp is Human generated CO2. What if we are expending great effort and time and it’s not CO2. How about land use changes (Pielke) or solar changes? What about the temp rise being benign or positive? We don’t know although many have bought into the CO2 dogma. Look at how many apocalyptic scientific scenarios have been wrong in the latter half of the twentieth century. Everything from the Club of Rome to Global Cooling. What gives the IPCC anymore veracity than those?

  457. M. Jeff
    Posted Nov 20, 2007 at 10:34 PM | Permalink

    Susann, #77, November 20th, 2007 at 9:44 pm says:

    … if diagnosed with it, I don’t want to wait until then to treat it.

    Before treating climate change, wouldn’t it be prudent to obtain a reliable diagnosis and then wait until there is a proven treatment? Erring on the side of caution as concerns “climate change”, might be somewhat analogous to having a mastectomy prior to diagnosis.

  458. Andrey Levin
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 2:43 AM | Permalink

    Re#16

    Gunnar, it is 24 million years, not thousands. Still, it is clearly abiotic.

    On the side note, from Wiki:

    Oil sands may represent as much as 2/3 of the world’s total petroleum resource, with at least 1.7 trillion barrels (270 km³) in the Canadian Athabasca Oil Sands and perhaps 1.8 trillion barrels (280 km³) in the Venezuelan Orinoco tar sands compared to 1.75 trillion barrels (278 km³) of conventional oil worldwide, most of it in Saudi Arabia and other Middle-Eastern countries. This is only the remnant of vast petroleum deposits which once totaled as much as 18 trillion barrels (2,100 km³), most of which has escaped or been destroyed by bacteria over the eons.

    I always wondered, how many dinosaurs were buried in Alberta to produce 1000 cubic kilometers of oil?

  459. henry
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 9:04 AM | Permalink

    Just found out about this article.

    http://www.precaution.org/lib/warmer_after_2009.070810.pdf

    May have already been referenced, if so, move to that thread.

    I liked in particular the phrase:

    Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.”

  460. rhodeymark
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 9:16 AM | Permalink

    Steve – I know you clipped me for tone, but you were also free to edit. Or are you saying my point wasn’t accurate/valid? Thanks

  461. Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 10:46 AM | Permalink

    Andrey,

    The US has about 1/2 as much oil sand (actually shale in the US IIRC) as Canada.

  462. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 11:18 AM | Permalink

    The time between 700AD and 1200AD is coming to be better understood. It’s a case of past revisionist history. “Enlightenment” intellectuals such as Hume, Voltairre and Rousseau, eager to revolutionize society and repudiate so called “theocratic” notions, set forth a very harsh view of the entire period between Constantine I and the Italian Renaissance. The notion of an expanded “Dark Ages” emerged. The actual “Dark Ages” were a time, bracketed by the end of contiguous Roman emperors (“Holy Roman” emperors do not count) seated specifically in Rome, and the Carolingian “restoration.” This is roughly 480AD to the late 700sAD. It also, surprise, surprise, happened to be a cold period. Cold periods result in drying of the steppes, exerting pressure on nomadic peoples, pushing them toward the Southwest. We all know what the result was in the case of the Dark Ages. The name Atilla should ring a bell. After these dire centuries, there emerged a great awakening. Charlemagne unified much of the core of Europe. Learning was energized. Great public works were either begun or planned. The plans set forth in the late 700s eventually resulted in the start of Europe’s great universities, cities and road systems. They set the stage for our modern age and the amazingly successful development track of the past 1000 years encompassing so called “Western Civilization.” The first stone for Notre Dame Cathedral was laid in the early part of these amazing 1000 years. Of course, this great awakening corresponded with the MWP.

    Look at the cathedrals. They are built for a very warm climate period. Walk into one on a sweltering day. The passive air conditioning is highly effective. It is no surprise that the public was very supportive of such massive projects, at the time. The university and public buildings started during 1000 – 1200 also tend toward mass. Again, innate passive cooling features. Look at typical clothing during those days – the return to tunics. Tunics are definitely not cold weather gear. The MWP mirroed the RWP in many ways.

  463. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 11:39 AM | Permalink

    DIFFERENCES IN MODEL SOLUTIONS CONTINUE TO PLAGUE THE MEDIUM RANGE
    FORECAST WITH THE GFS BRINGING A WET CUT-OFF LOW OFF THE CENTRAL
    CALIFORNIA COAST BY TUESDAY MORNING WHILE YESTERDAY`S ECMWF TAKES
    THIS TROUGH ON A DRIER “INSIDE SLIDER” PATH INTO THE GREAT BASIN.
    RIGHT NOW THE DRIER ECMWF SOLUTION SEEMS THE MOST POPULAR AND IS
    REFLECTED IN OUR MOSTLY DRY FORECAST. WILL WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE
    12Z ECMWF HAS TO OFFER FOR AFTERNOON PACKAGE.

    Here’s my call. Tonapah Low within 72 hours, retrogrades into Calif, low elevation snow event.

  464. Earle Williams
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 11:45 AM | Permalink

    Regarding the sick patient analogy, the refrain commonly heard equates to “The patient is sick, something must be done!”

    Unfortuately we are at a place of understanding of the illness and the treatment that is akin to medicine during the dark ages. The patient has bad blood, we must conduct a bloodletting. Certainly it is better than doing nothing!

    I run the risk of analogy abuse, I know. However this is the best description of our current understanding of the climate, IMHO.

  465. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

    War has historic links to global climate change

    This article takes the usual AGW spin. Warming is likely to cause conflict, but burried in it is this statement:

    Most notably, Brecke and his team noticed a relatively peaceful period between the early 1700s and the early 1800s, compared to the previous 250 years. They first noticed the pattern in Europe, then found that it held true in China as well.

    The 100 year period came just before the end of Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1450 to the late 1800s. When the researchers looked at temperature records, they found that it corresponded to a short term 100-year warming period. (Emphasis added.)

    Perhaps the take-away is: Cooling leads to conflict, warming to peace :-)

  466. Dan Evens
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    Ok, possibly stupid question. Don’t know where it belongs so I’ll put it here. Steve, if you think this belongs someplace else, please by all means move it there.

    The current discussion (Nov. 21, 2007) of the error bars on the Loehle reconstruction made me think that one thing that would be a “nice to have” is lots more data. Looking at the map that Steve produced of the locations of the data for the Loehle reconstruction, there are large blanks. It would be pretty interesting to fill them in. 18 proxies, even if they are perfect reps of the local temperature, does not seem like a lot for the entire globe.

    How difficult and how expensive is it to do one of these “borehole” studies? How about the other methods? Is it reasonable to try to get up a “mission” to do some more of these studies?

  467. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 12:32 PM | Permalink

    Re#457

    Before treating climate change, wouldn’t it be prudent to obtain a reliable diagnosis and then wait until there is a proven treatment? Erring on the side of caution as concerns “climate change”, might be somewhat analogous to having a mastectomy prior to diagnosis.

    there was a model recently in her early 20s who was applauded for having double mastectomy solely because she’d been identified as being very high-risk genetically. Otherwise, your analogy would be more appropriate.

    Re#466
    According to this abstract, Mann doesn’t like borehole reconstructions.

    http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EAE03/06345/EAE03-J-06345.pdf

    If that author is correct, it’s quite interesting that
    (1) Mann is critical of borehole reconstructions even though they match the instrumental change of the 20th century
    (2) Mann criticized the spatial disagreement betwen boreholes and instrumental, yet he and many other climate scientists have no problem otherwise accepting spatial disagreements
    when it comes to things like glaciers, explaining them away using teleconnections as an excuse, saying they are exceptions that react globally and not locally, etc.

  468. Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 12:33 PM | Permalink

    # 466

    Dans Evans,

    The problem is that the sources of data for proxies rest at the bottom of the oceans or at inaccessible places. I don’t think any government is concerned on investing for that class of research, besides it would be inconvenient for the corrupt UN.

  469. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

    Re#466, (and my own #467), maybe borehole studies aren’t very good at picking up variability. You couldn’t almost draw a smoother 500-yr trend if you tried…

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html

  470. Dan Evens
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 1:09 PM | Permalink

    Michael in #469. Thanks for that cite. I’m going to need to do some reading. (When do I sleep?) I agree that boreholes wouldn’t capture short-term variations. But when you want to talk about century-to-century variations they seem to be applicable. It’s kind of frustrating that the cite you gave only goes back to 1500. It’s also pretty interesting that the temperature seems to have been rising fairly smoothly since 1500 to now.

    I don’t know about “inaccessible” for doing boreholes. I don’t see any dots in the plots for boreholes in South America, nor in Africa north of the equator, nor in Asia, nor in S.E. Asia. I’ve never been to Brazil. Depending on how expensive such a mission would be, I might be persuaded to pay my own way to Brazil to help tote equipment. Filling in the blank in S. America would be pretty interesting. Same for Asia or Africa.

    Steve: I’m not convinced that borehole inversions contain any valid information. HAving said that, “boreholes” used in these calculations are typically drillholes from mineral exploration. There are hundreds/thousands of drillholes in South America, Asia Africa that could be used and probably most mining companies would have no objection.

  471. David Smith
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    Steve M, I wonder if you’d consider a blog experiment.

    This would apply to follow-up posts, such as this one, where a conversation with a climate professional has begun.

    In this experiment you’d create two things:

    1. your follow-up post (like the one above), which contains a request that replies there be limited to the climate professionals as well as some key readers (UC, Jean S, bender, willis, and so forth, depending on the topic)

    2. a “shadow” post, which is for the general readership (those of us of unwashed hoi polloi origins :) ), where general comments can be posted

    As always, you have the ability to move a post from one thread to the other. A perceptive analysis on the shadow thread can be moved to the prime thread, or vice-versa).

    Maybe this works, maybe it flops. It would be a test.

    I empathize with the occasional professional climate scientist who posts here, in that comments come in swarms, sometimes with a rough tone, and there is no way to properly handle the volume.

    The swarm of comments also becomes a potential excuse for the professional to cry foul, run for the tall grass and thus avoid questions.

  472. bender
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 2:02 PM | Permalink

    He has already run a similar kind of experiment. Recall “Juckes omnibus”? Worked ok. Trouble is, you never know in advance how long a visitor will last or to what depth they will engage. e.g. Isaac Held.

  473. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 2:15 PM | Permalink

    In Juckes’ case, it didn’t really work as well as it might have, but JEG is a very different and far more pleasant character and it might work for him. By and large, Juckes ignored the Juckes Omnibus thread and foraged around the other threads, often taking issue with highly occasional posters while ignoring me, Willis, Jean S.

    I recognize that even keeping up with me is a problem since I tend to write posts as I work through articles resulting in a lot of posts. It’s fine for a regular audience that knows the back story but it’s a bit bewildering for someone encountering the huge comment volume – which can run 10 times greater than RC.

    HAving said that, something like the Juckes Omnibus would probably be a good idea here and my guess is that JEG would be pleasant company in the dialogue.

  474. Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 2:18 PM | Permalink

    There is an interesting SST proxy recently refined in The Netherlands: It claims a calibrated accuracy of 0.3 deg C!

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/nofs-tpf102407.php

    Texel paleothermometer for climate reconstruction perfected
    Spanish researcher Carme Huguet further refined the recently developed TEX 86 paleothermometer during her doctoral research at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ). The thermometer measures seawater temperature dependent changes in the cell wall composition of archeabacteria.

    Real thermometers have been available since the 17th century. For all periods before this, researchers depend on signs from nature. For such determinations, geochemists resort to molecules from microorganisms whose structure is well preserved in seabeds. The TEX86 index has recently been developed at Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ). It is based on temperature-dependent changes in the lipid composition of the cell walls of certain types of archeabacteria. Their cell membranes are composed from special lipids of which the number of carbon rings in the molecule changes with the temperature of the surrounding seawater. These organisms therefore adjust the degree of fluidity of their membranes to the prevailing conditions. Carme Huguet studied several aspects of this in greater detail and made significant improvements to the determination.

    With a new detection method the analytical reproducibility of the TEX86 paleothermometer was brought to 0.3 degC and the deviation in the results measured was reduced to 5% of the average. The TEX86 values for organic material out of the water column and from the uppermost layer of the floor sediment best match the temperature of the uppermost 100 m of seawater. However, the small cells of Crenarchaeota cannot sink to the floor by themselves; they are far too light for that. This is, however, achieved more rapidly if the cells of Crenarchaeota are eaten, for example, by crustaceous zooplankton. Fortunately, the time spent in the gastrointestinal tract of the crustaceans does not harm the molecules. Once they have landed on the sea floor, the preservation of the original fat molecules takes place best in anaerobic sediments.

    In modern, anaerobic sediments from a side branch of the Oslo fjord, the measured TEX86 values accurately reflected the average spring-autumn air temperature in Oslo. Temperature estimations of the transition from the last ice age to the present interglacial period were made using two cores drilled from the Arabian Sea. The TEX86 temperatures were compared with values from a British index; the Uk37. The index differences can be explained by differences in the growing season of the archeabacteria and algae that the Uk37 index is dependent on. The upwelling dynamic of the seawater in the Arabian Sea also exerts an influence. This dynamic is strongly dependent on the monsoon season in this area.

    Steve: This looks interesting especially with all the discussion that we’ve had about the Arabian Sea G Bulloides proxy. You left out the part of the quote that said:

    Carme Huguet’s research makes it clear that climate reconstructions should always be based on comparisons of several types of parallel measurements to prevent unexpected scientific blunders.

    “I wonder what that refers to.

  475. David Smith
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 2:18 PM | Permalink

    Re #40 Now that you mention it, I do remember. What it did was to show clearly to the casual reader Juckes’ dodge and weave.

    However, in the current threads having over a thousand replies, JEG’s replies, be they responsive or be they Juckian, are hard to follow.

  476. Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 2:47 PM | Permalink

    # 470

    Steve McIntyre,

    Thanks for the idea. Quaterra will invest in Mexico on mining gold and silver in the region known as The Anahuac Plateau, which is an untouched area for paleobiology studies. They told me that they’ve found some fossils at different layers of the terrain when making the prime explorations some 20 years ago. Perhaps, I will visit their installations in Nieves, Zacatecas, Mexico by the next month (December 2007).

  477. Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 2:52 PM | Permalink

    I’ve been there before. Here the old complex in Nieves, Zacatecas, Mexico:

  478. David Smith
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 2:58 PM | Permalink

    Ryan Maue has added a “cool” link ( here ) at his website (my generation would call it “neat”, as we were pre-cool and post-groovy).

    The link, which may take a minute to load, shows the movement of precipitable water (basically the amount of water vapor in a column of air) around the globe. The tropics show slow-moving pools of heavy moisture while the mid-latitude features zip busily along. The poles create the super-dry gray air.

    It’s a fascinating view of weather and helps one to visualize parts of the workings of the atmosphere.

    Cool.

  479. David Smith
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 3:06 PM | Permalink

    Re #474 I forgot to mention that it’s best to speed the animation (use the sliding bar at the top) to make the fluidity more apparent.

  480. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 3:21 PM | Permalink

    #465 Future warming, were it to occur, may well cause wars and social disruption. However, that study shows exactly the opposite relationship. Cooling causes wars and human population declines. Warming causes the exact opposite, fewer wars and population increases. It is symptomatic of the misinformation and outright deceit in the GW debate that the study is blatantly mis-represented to argue warming will cause future strife, when in fact the study shows the exact opposite.

    An example of the media misrepresentation.

  481. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 3:22 PM | Permalink

    RE 42. Julian thinks and engages. He has a sharp tongue and some edge. Moshpit like that. This is a kid
    you could toss into a fight and not worry about. Right or wrong he has more gumption than Juckes.

    A thread limited to St.Mac, UC. JeanS. Bender. JEG. Dr. Cobb ( where is she?) and richardT rob wilson?
    Would be very very instructive .. or select your own players. Needs to be balanced and moderated
    by independent moderator. who is that person?

  482. Larry
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

    I nominate Lucia.

  483. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 3:43 PM | Permalink

    RE: #476 – Cold periods mean drier mid latitude steppes and expanding subtropical deserts. The mid latitude nomadic peoples are driven to the south and west, the subtropical ones to the north and west. They converge on the Marine West Coast, Humid Contintental and Mediterrannean Zones. Ask the Romans.

  484. M. Jeff
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 3:46 PM | Permalink

    Michael Jankowski, #467, November 21st, 2007 at 12:32 pm, says:

    Re#457: there was a model recently in her early 20s who was applauded for having double mastectomy solely because she’d been identified as being very high-risk genetically. Otherwise, your analogy would be more appropriate.

    100’s of millions of years of dramatic climate change does suggest that the earth has a high-risk future. Therefore the U.S. and China should be excised as a preventive measure.

  485. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 3:47 PM | Permalink

    I second the motion.

  486. AlexS
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

    RE: 39
    Actually what I think you need for all topics is two response threads: ‘important’ and ‘general’. All replies in ‘important’ would also go to ‘general’, so the ‘general’ thread would be like now. ‘Important’ posts should only be used for scientific analysis and any other posts should be deleted, because they will still appear in ‘general’.

    Then you keep the chat while sieving out the science.

  487. Jeremy Friesen
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

    Needs to be balanced and moderated
    by independent moderator.

    What specific criteria would you suggest?

    For example, I have a background in computer science, and have been an observer and occasional commenter here for a long time. I admit to having noticable right-leanings, but any comments I make are more often trying to keep “us” civil and honest and defending those with points of view different than mine.

    How would that compare as opposed to say, someone with actual experience in statistics or climate science, and the relevant content of discussion, with more experience, and perhaps more experience, commenting history, and opinions?

    More than anything, what makes a good moderator?

  488. Jeremy Friesen
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 3:56 PM | Permalink

    wow…

    with more experience, and perhaps more experience

  489. M. Jeff
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

    The meaning of “excised” as used in #478, is based on one or both of these definitions?

    1. Excise: An internal tax imposed on the production, sale, or consumption of a commodity or the use of a service within a country.

    2. Excise: To remove by or as if by cutting.

  490. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 4:23 PM | Permalink

    Gunnar: It’s not that I don’t get your sarcasm, it’s just that I don’t think anyone else much is getting it. You need to make it clearer.

    It’s obvious (but not obvious) that you have to take a lot of things into consideration. Again, 478 in an hour is not the same as in a day or a minute or in a week. An empty bathtub full of 200 degree F water is not a good idea to get into, but if you wait a while (or throw a bunch of ice in it) it could be fine. My point is we all should be more specific at what the conversation is. Especially with this overall subject.

    Nasif: Yes of course. Not the facts, but the perceptions (and/or emotions) on a subject. Like overfitting. :)

  491. MarkR
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 4:37 PM | Permalink

    Mike B. I ask this here so as not to detract from the other thread.

    Does it matter that the Standard Deviation is in relation to the MEAN of a sample, but the Bootstrap type thing (as defined in the link you gave) is related to the MODE? The MEAN and the MODE are two different things. Apparently one can estimate the shape of a distribution from a Bootstrap using a sample, but that does not alter the requirement for a specific number of actual samples before a confidence level can be set.

    I’m afraid I am very distrustful of any computer based method which strays from first priciples, and the end result is we can tell the temperature 2000 years ago to within .2 C, and with a 95% confidence, from a lump of wood.

  492. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 4:53 PM | Permalink

    Here’s your Thanksgiving present.

    The “Are you a scientist or are you an engineer?” quiz.
    AKA “Are you a better ultimate fighter than a 5th grader?”

    1. How long does a light year last?

    2. What is the atomic weight of protium?

    3. When does micro-oxido di-hydrogen change state from liquid to solid?

    4. How fast do electrons travel?

    5. In which hand does la liberté éclairant le monde hold the torch?

    6. What does -.3 bel of attenuation do to power?

    7. When does hydroxic acid boil?

    8. Who has the riparian rights, territorial jurisdiction and ownership of Bedloe’s Island?

    9. How does barm relate to the catalytic activity of bacteria?

    10. How many neutrons are in deuterium?

    11. Can anything exceed the speed of light?

    12. When does hydric acid sublimate?

    13. What’s the propagation delay over 100 meters?

    14. How many neutrons does a molecule of protium have?

    15. In what state does oxygen carbon oxygen exist at a million pascals?

    16. What happens when methane and oxygen react chemically?

    17. What does Dennis think of having strange women lying in ponds distributing swords being a system of government, and why?

    18. On Peak XV when does water boil?

    19. How far does light travel in a nanosecond?

    20. What happens to voltage with a gain of 6 dB?

    21. What is the air speed of an unladen swallow?

    22. At the equivalent of 1000 feet below sea level, when does water freeze?

    23. On a fan, which direction do the blades turn?

    24. What happens to C6 H12 O6 when it reacts with Saccharomyces cerevisiae?

    25. What material is the Statue of Liberty made of?

    26. Is water ever a forcing in the atmosphere?

    27. In a capacitive circuit, how do voltage and current act?

    28. How many barns are in a snogle?

    29. What is the RMS value of a sine wave?

    30. In an inductive circuit, how do current and voltage act?

    31. What is enceladus made of?

    32. What two rock groups participated in the funding of the film “Mønti Pythøn ik den Høli Gräilen”

    33. What color is the top stripe and what color is the bottom sripe on an American flag ?

    34. How many times would light go around the Earth in a second?

    35. What is Captain Kirk’s middle name?

  493. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 4:55 PM | Permalink

    #480:

    Future warming, were it to occur, may well cause wars and social disruption.

    This might only be semantics, but humans cause wars and social disruption when they compete for resources that are more limited than they were, or find new ways to compete that disrupts existing arrangements.

    I think you meant “may well result in …”

  494. Larry
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 5:09 PM | Permalink

    Let’s see…

    3. 5 o’clock.
    7. when it gets hot.
    15. depends on temp.
    18. 9:16
    22. noon
    25. metal
    27. scandalously
    30. you don’t wanna know
    35. T.

  495. Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 5:14 PM | Permalink

    21. What is the air speed of an unladen swallow?

    http://www.style.org/unladenswallow/

  496. Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 7:11 PM | Permalink

    Hah! Someone wrote this at DNRonline:

    Are you in all seriousness asking what makes data from the UN Environmental Program more reliable than data from no-name, no-credential forum-poster Nasif Nahle? I did chuckle when I went to your latest link in this thread, to a different page on the same website from the same guy. I especially enjoyed his selection of links, including “Fabricated Data for The IPCC”, “Flawed Data from NOAA”, and most of all “Rush Limbaugh Site”. Sounds like quite a scientist you’ve got there! November 21, 2007 11:50 AM

  497. Yorick
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 7:35 PM | Permalink

    Jimmy, the argument is about whether the climate has been flat up to now. This has important implications. For instance, if it has been warmer than it is at present, why didn’t the ice sheets collapse over thousands of years, as Dr Hansen says they may well do within decades? As for the recent warming. Whatever. An accurate view of the paleoclimate is not going to disprove global warming, it is going to parameterize it. If we don’t know the size of the problem, how can we make good decisions? I will have a look at your links.

  498. Yorick
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 8:09 PM | Permalink

    Jimmy, the point is that the MWP is there in Greenland. Not only that, but there has been a period lasting thousands of years when Greenland was warmer than today, by direct measurment, using boreholes. Why didn’t the ice sheets collapse?

    Antarctica has been glaciated for 39 million years. It is very stable.

  499. Peter D. Tillman
    Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 11:44 PM | Permalink

    Re #37

    …several of the entries under “Favourite Posts” do not display properly (eg “Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science”, http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66). In particular apostrophes become a long line of junk characters.

    I’m using Mozilla FireFox, but this also occurs with IE7.

    I’ve noticed the same thing, using both Firefox and Safari. Also noticed some dead links.

    Is there a maintenance thread somewhere to post this sort of thing?

    Cheers — Pete Tillman

  500. Posted Nov 21, 2007 at 11:58 PM | Permalink

    # 499

    Pete Tillman,

    There are some characters that are used by the system for emphasizing, quoting, bold, code, etc. When we write some characters in the programmed code source they are translated into functions. For example, if you write this without spaces, the characters won’t be displayed.

  501. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 12:14 AM | Permalink

    Re # 198 D. Patterson

    You postulate that –

    The tropopause is therefore defined by a major change in atmospheric conditions due to the interaction of ultraviolet light with ozone.

    The tropopause is relatively about the coldest part of the atmospheric column. What type of chemistry causes the reaction of ozone with UV light to produce cooling? Can you refer me please to any other chemical system where shining light on a gas mix causes substantial cooling? Geoff.

  502. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 3:44 AM | Permalink

    Re: 502 Geoff Sherrington says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 12:14 am

    You are making a strawman argument based upon a false statement and a total reversal and perverse misrepresentation of what has been written. The tropopause is NOT “the coldest part of the atmospheric column” as you falsely stated. It was never stated or implied there was a “reaction of ozone with UV light to produce cooling.” The oxygen-ozone cycle described by Chapman is a heating of the air in the ozone layer by a “reaction of ozone with UV light.” The oxygen-ozone cycle described by Chapman is NOT a “reaction of ozone with UV light to produce cooling” in the tropopause as you misrepresent in your statements and question.

    The tropopause exists because of the existance and nature of the stratosphere above it. The stratosphere exists as an atomospheric substantially different from the troposphere because of the way in which it interacts with high energy solar radiation, especially its interaction with certain bands of UV solar radiation.

  503. Reference
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 5:01 AM | Permalink

    Has a fractal analysis been made of the dimensionality of proxy series data to see if they match that expected from direct temperature measurement?

  504. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 5:27 AM | Permalink

    re: #505

    And has the same been done for the near-surface temperature calculated by GCMs?

  505. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 7:55 AM | Permalink

    re 505 Like of comparison of hurst components?

  506. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 8:25 AM | Permalink

    No more on oil shales or abiotic oil please.

  507. jae
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    Here’s an interesting global warming “test.”

  508. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 10:25 AM | Permalink

    Hey, Jae! I got 10 correct answers! That’s a very good test.

  509. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    Has anyone else had trouble posting to Open Mind? I have replies to cce, Hank Roberts and Tamino himself, but, although the posts show up as waiting for moderation, they end up not appearing. It can’t be that I’m off topic as posts which have veered from Temperature 2007 (the subject) onto the tobacco industry are still appearing.

    TIA

    JF

  510. Reference
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

    #503-505

    Yes Hurst exponents and fractal dimension.

    There may be some mileage in a comparison of proxy series v surface measurement, also GCM output.

  511. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

    jae: I got all ten correct also. Which means that– as a novice in climatology who learned most of what he knows from this blog– I’m either learning my lessons well or thoroughly indoctrinated. (G)

  512. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 12:30 PM | Permalink

    # 511

    TheDuke (G),

    You’re learning here correct science. ;)

  513. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

    The “test” linked by jae is ridiculous.
    Q3 does not differentiate between the current warming and historical warming. Of course anthropogenic CO2 did not cause warming prior to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    Q4 ignores the fact that H2O is a feedback that amplifies the effect of CO2e warming.

    Q5 conveniently stops in 1996, focuses on the USA only, and ignores the fact that AGW has not become dominant until the last ~30 years.

    The chart of phanerozoic CO2 vs temp in Q6 was generated using NASA’s GEOCARB III model using a high CO2 climate sensitivity, and then used to argue against a high CO2 climate sensitivity:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2220#comment-151811

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2220#comment-152091

    Q7 is a strawman. Of course CO2 does not damage forests.

    Q8 is about natural variability, which the IPCC does not deny.

    Q10 ignores the satellite calibration issues which have been resolved:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

    With all of these obvious and intentional deceptions, you have to wonder about the motivation of the test’s author.

  514. Hippikos
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 2:11 PM | Permalink

    @ JohnV:

    Humor

    Pronunciation:
    \ˈhyü-mər, ˈyü-\
    Function:
    noun

    1. What makes the worst moments of our already miserable existence that more bearable.
    2. A sixth sense which some have and others don’t.

    Like in: “That man has no sense of humor.”

    —Related forms
    hu·mor·ful, adjective
    hu·mor·less, adjective
    hu·mor·less·ly, adverb
    hu·mor·less·ness, noun

  515. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 2:11 PM | Permalink

    Not climate, but of interest to readers here, Nature has started to demand independent replication prior to publication of papers making important claims.

    It will be interesting to see if other journals follow suit, and what effect this will have on climate science.

  516. jae
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 2:55 PM | Permalink

    514, John V:

    Q4 ignores the fact that H2O is a feedback that amplifies the effect of CO2e warming.

    I want to see you prove this, demonstrate it, or even find a reference that does either, without using a computer model that makes real unproven assumptions, such as “we assume that the relative humidity does not change with temperature.”

  517. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 3:35 PM | Permalink

    #516 Hippikos:
    I didn’t realize the test was meant as humor (or humour). Jae, do you concur? Was the test actually a joke?

    jae:
    The “test” states that “Over 95% of the greenhouse effect is the result of atmospheric water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere”. Most researchers put it at between 35% and 65% (going as high as 85% if clouds are included).

    Anyways, would you agree that absolute humidity increases as temperature increases? Is the absolute humidity in summer more than in winter? More in the afternoon than in the morning? If so, and because water vapor is a very important greenhouse gas, does that not imply that water vapor will amplify any other warming (be it solar, AGW, or whatever)?

  518. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    John V.

    Q4 ignores the fact that H2O is a feedback that amplifies the effect of CO2e warming.

    You’re absolutely on the opposite way. What’s more abundant, water vapor or CO2? Which gas has a higher absorptivity index, water vapor or CO2? Which one has a higher specific heat, CO2 or water vapor? Which gas has a higher Total Emittancy, water vapor or CO2? Which one of the two gases is the feedback of the another, the more abundant or the lesser abundant?

  519. jae
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

    519: I think you are right about RH, but the modelers are assuming constant RH. As far as feedback, it is the reverse according to everything I see. You might be interested in the new information I put up here, which offers more evidence that DRYER is hotter. Also, there is a real surprising extremely close relationship between the difference between measured absolute humidity and saturated humidity for moist locations (R2 = 0.96). I don’t have any idea what it means or how important it is, but it is sure interesting.

  520. David Smith
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 5:10 PM | Permalink

    Jeff Masters has an interesting post on an aircraft investigating a strong winter storm in the Atlantic east of Newfoundland.

    The aircraft encountered so much sea salt at 3,000 feet above the ocean that it lost three of its four engines. Shortly before crashing it encountered a rain shower that washed away much of the salt and the engines could then restart.

    That’s a remarkable amount of sea salt 1,000 meters above the surface.

  521. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 5:17 PM | Permalink

    John V 22/11

    The chart of phanerozoic CO2 vs temp in Q6 was generated using NASA’s GEOCARB III model using a high CO2 climate sensitivity, and then used to argue against a high CO2 climate sensitivity:

    Isn’t in wonderful when that happens? Sort of like assuming the square root of two to be Rational the proving it isn’t.

  522. jimdk
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 5:59 PM | Permalink

    This is what the warmers think and any confounding effect is due to co2!

    Water Vapour as a positive feedback

    As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it’s also a positive feedback – in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation.

    How does water vapour fit in with CO2 emissions? When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. So CO2 warming has an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect.

    How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg – loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).
    Empirical observations of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity

    The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in empirical studies such as Soden 2001 which observed the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past.

    Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study (Santer 2007), otherwise known as “fingerprinting”, was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels. Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system.

    Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world’s major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world’s oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of ‘atmospheric moistening’ was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

  523. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 6:03 PM | Permalink

    jae,

    I lived in College Station for 5 years and went to Houston often, as a matter of fact.

    So did I.

    Big school, small town…small world.

  524. MarkR
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 7:01 PM | Permalink

    JohnV #513 Your point about GEOCARB III is wrong, as was pointed out to you here.

    #265 JohnV. I didn’t say the paper was good or bad, I only posted the link because the chart of prehistoric CO2 v Temp was partly derived from it, and you asked for a link. The usefulness of the paper is as a source of real measured CO2 data, not the modelling part.

    As far as I can see the CO2 v temp chart I posted remains valid, and demonstrates no correlation between temp and CO2.

  525. jae
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 7:27 PM | Permalink

    A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past.

    I sure would like to see these “empirical studies.” Anyone have a ref? It’s hard to get too empirical, when you are studying the past. You need to study the present. If you can’t clearly demonstrate it to the senses, it ain’t empirical.

    I’m probably already considered a nut by a fair percentage of the readers here. I plan to increase that percentage when I offer a demonstration next week that the primary “greenhouse gases” are really just N2 and O2. Temperatures are controlled by HEAT STORAGE, not by radiation from H2O and OCO. The deserts prove this, IMO.

  526. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 7:28 PM | Permalink

    jindk November 22nd, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    It seems to me that some people think that positive feedback means warming and negative feedback means cooling. This is not how feedback works negative feedback reduces the variations positive feedback increases variations and makes a system unstable if greater than the total negative feedback.

  527. Andrey Levin
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 7:46 PM | Permalink

    WV positive feedback:

    If we are talking about average planetary temperature, whatever reason for warming (solar, GHG, whatever) WV should have positive feedback. But how it is distributed?

    There should not be serious warming at tropics, because most of the heat energy will be consumed by evaporation of water and transported to upper troposphere, and further polewards. Expansion of tropics and subtropics polewards? That’s for sure. Higher night temperatures? Most probable.

    But is it bad? Average temperature of Earth atmosphere could be seriously higher than today, but it could only mean more subtropical and temperate zones and less tundra and permafrost.

    My question is: are there some really old temperature proxies which confirm such scenario of warmer world in the distant past?

  528. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 8:08 PM | Permalink

    What positive feedbacks? I guess they´ll say the next little ice age will occur because they made the climate went back 2 °C. LOL!

  529. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 8:35 PM | Permalink

    #529 Nasif

    Is the article worth buying? I don’t have free access.

  530. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 8:43 PM | Permalink

    #524 MarkR:
    You’ve lost this one (badly) already. Let’s not go back into it. The fact is that GEOCARB III derives the CO2 concentrations based on temperatures, a model of decreasing solar output for the last ~600 million years, and continental configuration. It’s laughable that you think the GEOCARB III model therefore contradicts CO2 forcing.

    To be clear, GEOCARB III estimates CO2 based on temperature and an assumed sensitivity to CO2 doubling of around 3degC/doubling. (I forget the exact number and it’s not worth looking up).

    Also, the paper is *not* a source of measured CO2. It is a model-based CO2 estimate that is compared to proxy CO2 measurements.

  531. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 8:58 PM | Permalink

    Re #528 Andrey, your question on geographical distribution of water vapor feedback has an interesting aspect which has not been discussed much. It may be that warming of the tropical upper troposphere, which is important to Earth ridding itself of IR, may result in the cloudy regions getting cloudier (more water vapor) while the critically-important sinking-air regions get clearer (less water vapor). This is somewhat like Lindzen’s iris hypothesis. The jury has not returned a verdict on this critically-important issue.

  532. MarkR
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 9:32 PM | Permalink

    JohnV #531 Don’t start that all again, let the readers go back to the linked page and make their own mind up. The paper I clearly referred to in connection with the GEOCARB study shows the data from a proxy study not a model study. Please don’t make things up. Also, when I last saw you posting about this you were reduced to redrawing the graphics with assumptions fit to turn a circle into a square. Leave it, and go back to Tamino where you enjoy the protection of his censorship. There is no reputable graphic on any reasonable timescale that shows that changes in CO2 cause a change in Temp. Changes in Temp do increase or decrease CO2, but not the other way round. The end.

  533. jae
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 9:55 PM | Permalink

    528, Adrey:

    There should not be serious warming at tropics, because most of the heat energy will be consumed by evaporation of water and transported to upper troposphere, and further polewards.

    Query: Why do you think this only happens in the tropics?

  534. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 10:24 PM | Permalink

    # 534

    Jan Pompe,

    Sorry to say that it’s not, Jan. It’s almost a reiteration of Al Gore’s film and Media. Kerr took a little from there and another little from “The Day After Tomorrow”. For example:

    Some… amphibians are already feeling the heat

    A picture of a polar bear walking on a small ribbon of floating ice, etc. At the conclusion, Kerr quotes to Roger Pielke Jr. on uncertainties, etc.

  535. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 10:40 PM | Permalink

    Re 509

    Still no posts to Temp 2007 on Tamino. I think it must be a software compatibility problem: I was using Mozilla Firefox, Microsoft Word and Original Thought V 0.1. I think the latter might be the problem.

    Hank Roberts , cce and tamino, if you read this blog, sorry I can’t reply — it’s a shame that an interesting and thought-provoking discussion was unable to continue.

    JF

  536. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 11:12 PM | Permalink

    #532 MarkR:
    Please show me the proxy CO2 data in the GEOCARB III study. Last time you pointed to proxy temperature data, but perhaps there was a misunderstanding. Here’s the paper you linked:

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

    You pointed to Figure 8:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2220#comment-151933

    As I pointed out before, Figure 8 shows the model sensitivity to smoothed or raw Carbon13 temperature proxies. It has nothing to do with measured CO2.

    It was apparent that I made some statistical mistakes when calculating R^2 last time around, but the core fact remains: the GEOCARB III CO2 levels are from a model that explicitly uses a climate sensitivity of ~3degC/CO2 doubling. The CO2 levels in GEOCARB III depend on that sensitivity to match CO2 proxies.

    It is non-sensical to use the results of GEOCARB III in isolation to argue that its assumptions are wrong.

  537. Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 11:18 PM | Permalink

    MarkR:
    One more quick point that I have said many times before. Many things affect temperature. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) is one of them. Solar variation, orbital changes, and continental drift are obviously also very important on different time scales. Temperature and CO2 are not closely correlated over 600 *million* years because of huge changes in solar output and continental configuration.

    Over the last 30 years, continental drift is obviously not important. Neither are orbital changes. (I’ll stay quiet about solar variation to avoid provoking Bruce). The point is that climate influences over 600 *million* years are different than over 30 years. That should be obvious.

  538. MarkR
    Posted Nov 22, 2007 at 11:50 PM | Permalink

    Julian #535 I don’t think Tamino lets you post unless you are a true believer.

  539. MarkR
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 2:13 AM | Permalink

    JohnV #536. My reference to Fig 8 was to draw your attention to the Veizer paper, nothing to do with 13C at all in that sense, and I’m sorry I missed your ref to 13C, I picked up on Proxy. Also, do look at Rothman, Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years (I alrady linked on thread #23). That’s the kind of proxies I was assuming you meant.

  540. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 2:28 AM | Permalink

    Mark your link to the Vizier paper does not work

  541. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 2:39 AM | Permalink

    Thanks Nasif so it’s just more of what we’ve already seen. I have heard though that fungus has been a problem for the frogs.

  542. Andrey Levin
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 2:56 AM | Permalink

    Re#533, Jae, as I see it:

    More local evaporation and WV in the air decrease day temperature, increase night temperature, and channel more heat energy to upper troposphere. Overall effect on local subsurface temperature is negative; no disagreement with your findings.

    However, there is another effect. Higher WV concentration in tropical air will transfer much more heat energy from tropics polewards, extending warmer climate zones.

    Over the globe, WV feedback to increased radiative forcing will be negative to global heat energy (enthalpy) of subsurface air layer, and probably slightly positive to as currently calculated global average temperature.

    Again, it is how I visualize the picture, strictly on thermo basis. Influence of clouds, as David Smith noted, is a wild card (it is arguably negative, but where and for how much?).

  543. BarryW
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 7:11 AM | Permalink

    I’m always interested in the “Law of Unintended Consequences”, so I have a question related to water vapor. If we convert to the so called hydrogen economy and run our cars on fuel cells, water is the byproduct. Given the number of cars in large cities, what would be the resulting change in humidity in them and the related UHI effect? Atlanta already generates it’s own thunderstorms, what happens with all the extra water vapor? Anybody got a back of the envelope answer?

  544. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 7:27 AM | Permalink

    @Jae in 519:

    Please check your units. [EG. At your esnips article which you like you write: "This requires 0.69 watts of energy (latent heat of evaporation)."] Please, please stop trying to explain anything involving thermodynamics or heat transport — including desert climatology- until after you understand the differences between energy, power and energy flux. Please!

  545. jae
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 7:43 AM | Permalink

    544: The average absolute humidity in the air in all moist areas, all the way from Barrow, AK to the tropics is not far from saturation at all times and often reaches saturation at night, forming dew. If much more water vapor is added, I think you just get more dew and rain.

  546. Mhaze
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 8:00 AM | Permalink

    Might it be alleged reasonably that the entire existing extent of the greenhouse effect was from water vapor?

    I am not saying this is so, but given that there are gaps in understanding of both water cycle and GHG effects, it may be useful to investigate this concept.

    A strong theory may stand alone, while one that is weak requires extensive propping up. Eventually the house of cards collapses.

  547. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 8:03 AM | Permalink

    519 jae 545 lucia

    Jae: Please read posts 434, 438, 449 so as to get your units right.

  548. jae
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 8:45 AM | Permalink

    547, 449 says:

    438
    I assume you are talking about units, not the magnitude of the number: It’s not energy (joules), but it is power density, because it is power (joules/sec or watts) per square meter (area).
    I assume that they are talking about the amount of energy trapped each second (joules/sec or watts) for each square meter of surface by the presence of the extra CO2, including any water-vapor positive feedback. If so, then the units are OK. (It is what is called a flux, which is Latin for ‘flow’ — flow through a unit-area imaginary orifice).

    OK, pat. But then doesn’t 3.7 w/m^2 = (3.7 j/sec)(3600 sec/hr)/m^2 = 13,320 joules/m^2 over an hour. Isn’t that the same as 3.7 watt-hr?

  549. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 9:37 AM | Permalink

    548 I’m afraid not. The number is Ok (I think) but the units are wrong.
    You get the fact right that there will be be around 13,000 joules per square meter over an hour, but that means the result is 13,000 joules/hour/m^2. It’s a flux — so many ‘things’ passing through a unit-area ‘orifice’ in unit time.
    On the other hand, a watt-hour is not a flux, but a simple unit of energy and is equal to 3600 joules (no unit area, no ‘per sec’ rate).

    An analogy would be 3,000 cars per hour passing over the Bay Bridge (analogous to flux) vs 3,000 cars parked in a parking lot (analagous to the joule unit). As you can see, those are quite different things.

    I suggest reading a chapter on ‘Dimensional Analysis’.

  550. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

    #539 MarkR:
    Thanks for sorting out the proxy confusion. Let’s leave it at that to avoid hijacking this thread.

  551. jae
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

    OK, Pat, now tell me how to calculate the ENERGY EQUIVALENT of 3.7 W/m^2.

  552. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

    551 jae

    how to calculate the ENERGY EQUIVALENT of 3.7 W/m^2

    Well, they are different things, so there isn’t a way, without setting up a scenario. For example, how do you turn the 3000 cars going over the bridge per hour into x cars sitting in a parking lot? You can’t.

    Now, if you have a scenario where you say 10% of the cars going over the bridge between 1pm and 3 pm end up in the Y parking lot, then you can now calculate that the number of cars from the other side of the bay entering the Y parking lot during that period is 600 cars.

    With your flux example (3.7 joules/sec/m^2), the scenario also has to deal with the area, which the above car example didn’t have, as well as the time, which it did.

  553. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 10:13 AM | Permalink

    @jae– 551

    There is no direct energy equivalent to 3.7 W/m^2 anymore than there is a direct mass equivalent of gallons per minute.

    Energy flux (in W/m^2) describes the amount of energy thaf flows per unit time and unit area. So, you could ask if the energy flux through a surface is 3.7 W/m^2, how much energy flows through a 4m^2 area in 365 days . In case, you get:

    Energy= 3.7 W/m^2 * 4 m^2 * (3,153,600 seconds) = 466, 732,800 Joules.

    I think you can see the importance of time and area is when calculating the amount of total energy supplied to a system might be.

  554. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 10:15 AM | Permalink

    Re 538:

    Surely it is not believable that someone would censor a blog covering this vital area of 21st century science simply because a poster disagreed with him? It would require a bizarre set of values and priorities — I can’t believe it, I _won’t_ believe such a shameful thing.

    Some good came out of the exchange though. I started thinking about possible sources of ‘anthropogenic signal’ CO2: deep sea clathrates being devoured by methanophages; tundra unfrozen methane being devoured; certain phytoplankton switching from C3 to C4 metabolism when starved, thus raining out an unexpectedly high proportion of heavier isotopes, leaving a lighter signal in the atmosphere; C4 phytos outcompeting C3s and doing the same.

    I know our hyperactive host has a lot on his plate, but the isotope record really does need examining: all our fears spring from this, the smoking gun that pins the guilt for CO2 rise onto humanity. All else, the proxies, the graphs, the dubious statistics, the clash of egos, all these depend for their significance on the attribution of the rise to our burning of fossil fuels.

    How do we know a particular CO2 molecule comes from Drax? We don’t. We use deduction. Are the deductions right?

    JF
    Drax was, maybe still is, the largest coal-fired power station in the UK.

  555. topkick
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 10:19 AM | Permalink

    Hockey stick support…http://imagebin.org/11950

  556. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 10:19 AM | Permalink

    552 jae

    Perhaps, to be more helpful, I should have added the point that you need to multiply the 3.7 joules/sec/m^2 by something with the dimensions/units of area and by something with the dimensions/units of time to get something with the dimensions of energy.

  557. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 10:33 AM | Permalink

    # 541

    Yes, Jan; the same soup but in a different pot. We’ve not found chytridiomycosis (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) in our frogs. It seems that fungus is the main cause of frog declination at northern latitudes. Any way, if it is viral or fungal, the cause is human assisted fungus resettlement, not GW.

  558. jae
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 10:35 AM | Permalink

    Oh, come on, 1 joule = 0.0002778 watt-hr.
    Which means that 1 watt-hour = 3600 joules/hr or 1 joule/sec.

  559. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 10:48 AM | Permalink

    No, jae, 1 watt-hour equals 3600 joules, not 3600 joules/hr. A watt is power (energy/time, joules/sec) and a watt-hour is energy (power*time), not power.

  560. jae
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 10:56 AM | Permalink

    So my link is wrong, eh?

  561. fFreddy
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

    jae, stop using or even thinking in watt-hours. Use Joules.

  562. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

    560 jae
    No your link is fine — it is the line you wrote below it that is wrong, where you wrote joules/hr instead of joules.

  563. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

    @jae–
    By definition 1 watt = 1 joule/second. Watts (or Joules/second) are units that can be used to quantify power. Joules are units that can be used to quantify energy.

    By definition 1 watt-hour = 1 (joule/ second) * 1 hour

    because 1 hour has 3600 seconds, this is also:
    1 watt-hour = 1 joule/second * 3600 seconds = 3600 joules.

    So 1 watt-hour= 3600 joules.

    Joules are a standard unit for science. You can use watt-hours, but for most problems, converting back and forth between hours to seconds is a pain in the neck. Unless you are reading your power bill, you’ll probably want to avoid even thinking of watt-hours.

    If you account for time and areas, you will see that if the only thing the 3.7 Watt/m^2 thought to be associated with CO2 doubling did was evaporate water, it could evaporate quite a bit of water over the course of a year. I’m not tremendously familiar with how the forcing is defined, but I think that energy flux would be expected to act over the area represented by the disk (circle) of the earth as seen by the sun. That’s a huge area.

    (I don’t think pursuing a calculation to find out how much water could be evaporated tells us much, but you’ll see that acting over over the surface of the earth for a many, many seconds time, 3.7 Watts/m^2 represents a heck of a lot of energy. That energy would be sufficient to evaporate a lot of water.)

  564. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

    525, 562 jae

    If that’s what it means (I haven’t thought about it long enough but suspect you are right), it is indeed rather a stretch. Of course, the AGW line is that WV amplifies it through positive feedback, but you know that.

    BTW, I don’t think you’re ‘a nut’. I think you are an intelligent guy who asks some interesting questions — and has a hang-up with fluxes and watt-hours! I would take fFreddy’s advice until you’ve figured it out: convert any x watt-hours you have to deal with into 3600*x joules (NOT joules/hr), and work only with joules and seconds otherwise.

  565. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 11:40 AM | Permalink

    563 lucia

    I can see you are an inveterate pedagogue, like me.

  566. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    Pat, Jae,

    Please:

    1 W = 1 J/s (W for power; J/s is the equivalent unit, or m^2*kg/s^3)
    W*s = J (W*s for energy; J is the equivalent unit, or N*m, or m^2 kg/s^2)
    W/m^2 = kg/s^3 (W/m^2 for heat flux density or irradiance)
    J/kg = m^2/s^2 (J/kg for specific energy, or m^2/s^2)
    1772 J = 0.492 W*hour = 1772 W*s
    1 J = 0.000278 W*hour. 1772 J = 0.492 W*hour; 1772 J = 1772 W*s
    1 Joule = 1 W*s
    1 W*hour = 3600 W*s= 3600 J

    Force: N = m*kg/s^2
    Pressure stress: Pa = N/m^2 = kg/m*s^2
    Energy, work, load of heat: J = N*m = m^2*kg/s^2 Power, radiant flux in watt: W = J/s = m^2*kg/s^3
    Moment of force: N*m = m^2 kg/s^2
    Heat flux density, irradiance: W/m^2 = kg/s^3
    Heat capacity, entropy: J/K = m^2*kg/s^2*K
    Specific heat capacity, specific entropy: J/kg*K = m^2/s^2*K
    Specific energy: J/kg = m^2/s^2
    Thermal conductivity: W/m*K = m*kg/s^3*K
    Energy density: J/m^3 = kg/m*s^2
    Molar Energy: J/mol = m^2*kg/s^2*mol
    Molar entropy, molar heat capacity: J/mol*K = m^2 kg/s^2*K*mol

  567. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 12:28 PM | Permalink

    566
    Come on now, Nasif, that’s being really bad! You are throwing gasoline onto the fire by bringing in MKS units. (jae, don’t touch the MKS units, please).

  568. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

    If 1 J/s = 1 W and 1 W*s = 1 J, then 1 W*s / s = 1 W and 1 J/s (s) = 1 J?

    Amein!

  569. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 12:40 PM | Permalink

    I know, Pat, I know, Heh! ;)

  570. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 12:42 PM | Permalink

    The hypothesis of Jae would be better understood if Jae introduced MKS units.

  571. Barclay E. MacDonald
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

    Oh, Kim, or JEG, I have a question. I understand “teleconnection”, as you may use the term, and “the butterfly effect” to be the same concepts. Am I seriously confused?

    Steve: Yes.

  572. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 1:11 PM | Permalink

    Joe Duck, at 12:14, re exchange between real climate and here:

    They are following a script:

    http://www.countryguardian.net/warm_words.pdf

    (Linked before by tony m a week or so ago.)

    Scroll down near the end and read the conclusion with the heading, “Treating climate change as beyond argument.” (It didn’t allow me to copy and paste.)

    They don’t want to argue the science anymore, for various reasons, most notably the reason that is proved almost daily on this blog: it is flawed. They are being instructed to argue as if it’s settled. They can’t come here and do that in any meaningful way.

  573. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 1:57 PM | Permalink

    Thanks for feedback above:

    Yes, I’m new to the detailed debate, and despite the fact I’m used to lively blogOspherics I’m floored by the politics and personal contentiousness.

    I’ve been impressed with IPCC treatments as well as Steve’s approaches here, which seem to apply good data collection, good stats, and transparency. It’s hard to argue with that approach.

    I’m very uncomfortable with the notion that IPCC is accepting a lot of bad science. There is a clear concensus about AGW that extends far outside of the tree ring stuff. That doesn’t make AGW so, but it suggests it is very likely.

  574. Mark T
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 2:01 PM | Permalink

    I’m very uncomfortable with the notion that IPCC is accepting a lot of bad science.

    “Outside evidence” is immaterial – we aren’t trying to debate the existence or lack of in these mini-threads (though it is often brought up). THIS evidence is being used by the IPCC and it is known to be flawed. It is very difficult to trust anyone or any organization that is willing to accept such evidence when the flaws are known to be as they are.

    I’m not sure what impresses you with anything the IPCC does, btw. They are by design a political organization that does nothing but meta-analysis, and chapter authors often review their own work. Their practices and methodology are outstanding on paper, but if only they would adhere to their own guidelines, eh?

    Mark

  575. M. Jeff
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 2:11 PM | Permalink

    Re: theduke, #20, November 23rd, 2007 at 1:11 pm

    Scroll down near the end and read the conclusion with the heading, “Treating climate change as beyond argument.” (It didn’t allow me to copy and paste.)

    Adobe Reader 8 copied and pasted okay:

    Treating climate change as beyond argument
    Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra 2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality. Where science is invoked, it now needs to be as ‘lay science’ – offering lay explanations for what is being treated as a simple established scientific fact, just as the earth’s rotation or the water cycle are considered.

  576. UK John
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 2:35 PM | Permalink

    Back Garden Experiment that didn’t work! Why?

    Took 2 clear glass bottles, filled one with CO2, one with Air.
    Took 2 clear plastic bottles, filled one with CO2 , one with Air.

    T type thermocouple in each bottele. Kept bottles in cool temp inside.

    Waited till sun went down on hot day, you could feel radiative heat coming out the ground!

    Took bottles outside in dark hung them up, plugged in thermocouples, and one thermocouple in outside air, turned on chart recorder and waited till all was stable (about 30 mins).

    Temperature in all bottles was the same as outside temp, no difference in rate of rise between Co2 or Air, slight difference between glass and plastic.

    Why didn’t it work? Surely it should have!

  577. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

    @Pat–No MKS?! How about horsepower? BTU’s? Calories vs calories? lbm? lbf?

  578. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 3:35 PM | Permalink

    I can see my quiz was a big hit….. Here’s the answers. Self grade.

    1. A light year lasts as long as it takes you to go 5,880,000,000 miles.
    2. The atomic weight of protium is 1.00794 g/mol-1
    3. On Earth, micro-oxido di-hydrogen changes state from liquid to solid at 0 degrees centigrade.
    4. In theory, electrons travel at the speed of light. In practice, faster or slower but usually slower.
    5. la liberté éclairant le monde holds the torch in the right hand.
    6. -.3 bel of attenuation doubles the power.
    7. Hydroxic acid boils when it reaches its boiling point. Which on Earth is About 373 K at 100 kilopascals.
    8. For Bedloe’s Island, New Jersey has ripariian rights, New York has territoral jurisdiction, and the federal government of the US owns it.
    9. Both barm and catalytic activity of bacteria are the are components of microbial fuel cell technology. Glucose and yeast create alcohol, glucose can be catabolized to create microbial fuel cell power.
    10. There is one neutron in deuterium.
    11. Yes; for example, electrons can exceed the speed of light.
    12. Hydric acid does not sublimate.
    13. The propagation delay over 100 meters depends on the medium. On a cable with a velocity factor of 70% it takes .476 milliseconds.
    14. Protium is not a molecule.
    15. Oxygen carbon oxygen exists at a million pascals in either solid, liquid or supercritical fluid, depending upon temperature.
    16. Methane and oxygen reacting chemically results in 2 molecules of water and 1 molecule of carbon dioxide.
    17. Dennis says having strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government, because “Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.”
    18. On Peak XV water boils at about 154 degrees fahrenheit.
    19. In a vacuum, light travels about a foot in a nanosecond.
    20. Voltage doubles with a gain of 6 dB.
    21. The air speed of an unladen swallow? African or European?
    22. On Earth at the equivalent of 1000 feet below sea level, liquid water freezes at 0 degrees centigrade.
    23. If it’s on, the direction a fan rotates depends on if you’re looking at the front or back, what direction the blades are turned, and if the fan is pushing or pulling air. Alternativly, a fan usually turns to look at the side of the stage an entertainer is on, or buys a lot of merchandise from the entertainer they’re interested in.
    24. When C6 H12 O6 reacts with Saccharomyces cerevisiae, it turns into alcohol.
    25. Sheets of copper on a steel frame is what the Statue of Liberty is made of.
    26. Water can be a forcing in the atmosphere. Forster and Shine (1999) have estimated a radiative forcing of 0.2 Wm-2 since 1980 as a result of methane oxidation.
    27. In a capacitive circuit, current leads voltage.
    28. There are as many barns are in a snoogle as there are jeps in a lopal.
    29. The RMS value of a sine wave is .707 of the peak alternating current voltage.
    30. In an inductive circuit, current lags voltage.
    31. Enceladus is basically “made of” water.
    32. “Mønti Pythøn ik den Høli Gräilen” was in part funded by both Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin.
    33. Red is the color of the top and bottom stripe on an American flag.
    34. Light travels in a straight line and wouldn’t go around the Earth at all.
    35. Captain Kirk’s middle name is Tiberius.

    Scoring:

    35 correct and you looked up the answers: You are neither a scientist nor a an engineer.

    35 correct and you didn’t look up the answers: You are neither a scientist nor an engineer.

    0 correct: You didn’t take the test, and you are jaded and bitter, a scientist or an enginer, or both or neither; there is not enough information to answer the question.

    Some number correct and incorrect: You could be either a scientist or an engineer, or both.

    You want to argue over the answers: Depending on which ones you want to argue about, you could be either a scientist or an engineer.

    If you just want to see 5th graders in an ulitimate fighter contest: I don’t even want to guess, and I certainly don’t want to know.

    Bonus questions:

    1. Do they celebrate the 4th of July in Great Britain?
    2. What movie had both David Carradine and Sylvestr Stallone in it?
    3. What weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?
    4. How many neutrons does hydrogen have?
    5. Two trains leave Chicago, one to Florida going 200 MPH and one to California at 1000 MPH, which one gets to the destination first?

  579. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    575 lucia

    How about Standard British Sheep units?

  580. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

    UK John,

    1. RH in each bottle equal to RH in the surroundings.
    2. Pp of CO2 in the bottle equal to Pp of atmospheric CO2.
    3. Pa of air in the bottle equal to Pa of surrounding air.

    Same thing happens in Venus. It’s not the [CO2], but the average incident solar energy upon the planet and the Pp of CO2. The CO2 Pp on Earth is extremely low as to cause a change of temperature of 0.5 K.

    Change the heat source, for example a tungsten bulb. Take two bottles containing the same concentration of CO2 and two bottles containing air. Hang one bottle with CO2, plugged in thermocouple, at 10 in. far from the bulb. Hang the other bottle with CO2, plugged in thermocouple, at 30 in. far from the bulb. Take one bottle containing air, plugged in thermocouple, at 10 in. far from the bulb and the other one at 30 in. far from the bulb.

    Hum… the two bottles at 10 in. far from the bulb reached up the same temperature… and the two bottles, one containing CO2 and another containing air, at 30 in. reached up the same temperature… However, the bottles at 10 in. from the bulb are hotter than the two bottles at 30 in. Why the experiment didn’t work as we expected? How about the same bottles but two placed at 10 in. from a 100 W light bulb and the other two bottles placed at 10 in. from a 60 W light bulb?

  581. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 4:08 PM | Permalink

    Pat, Lucia,

    How about IS units? Please, answer my # 568

  582. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

    Nasif
    I’m not sure I see that I see a question there.

  583. John Baltutis
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 5:04 PM | Permalink

    Joe Duck wrote:

    I’m very uncomfortable with the notion that IPCC is accepting a lot of bad science.

    From:

    Mandate
    The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

    The mandate assumes human-induced climate change is risky. Paraphrasing Dr. Tim Ball: Technically humans do affect the climate. The problem is it opens up the argument of degree. The argument is narrowed to human production of CO2. The AGW argument is that human-produced CO2 is the key factor, while anti-AGWs argue it is so small it is within the error factor of almost all other variables. If human activity (CO2 production) has little or no effect on climate change, then there is no need for the IPCC’s existence.

  584. John Baltutis
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 5:06 PM | Permalink

    I hate this link button. In my last the link is http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

  585. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 5:10 PM | Permalink

    Sorry, I think it’s my English :(

    If 1 J/s = 1 W and 1 W*s = 1 J,

    1 W*s / s = 1 W and 1 J/s (s) = 1 J ?

    I’m not sure I wrote what I wrote… ;)

  586. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 5:22 PM | Permalink

    # 581

    John Baltutis,

    From your link:

    The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

    Now tell me why the IPCC prefers some literature on its side and dismiss literature on the opposite side? The example is the Hockey Stick vs. many other works that show the existence of other warmer periods before the 1998 (exclusivelly this year) GW.

  587. Steve Moore
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 5:29 PM | Permalink

    1. Do they celebrate the 4th of July in Great Britain?
    2. What movie had both David Carradine and Sylvestr Stallone in it?
    3. What weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?
    4. How many neutrons does hydrogen have?
    5. Two trains leave Chicago, one to Florida going 200 MPH and one to California at 1000 MPH, which one gets to the destination first?

    1. Depends on what you mean by “celebrate”.
    2. Death Race 2000 – a classic
    3. Which would you rather be hit with? I’ll take feathers.
    4. Depends on its mood.
    5. Neither. They both crash outside Indianapolis.

  588. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 5:53 PM | Permalink

    Newbies: **Which brings me to the next point: I (and many others) think CA needs a better “Introduction for Newbies” section, partic since traffic is up with your major award. Steve, you don’t need to spend your limited time on this — this is where guys like me, who can follow your arguments but don’t have the technical background to advance them, could make a real contribution. A wiki-style collaborative effort would seem the way to go. Steve, could you start a new thread for this, so we can get the ball rolling?**
    Peter Tillman posted the above in the Mann et al 2007 Precipitation Teleconnections Thread.
    In the last week or so there have been a number of newcomers posting and asking questions which have needed several responses to clarify the theme of this blog. I am not sure if a thread would be the answer as it would soon get buried. However I thought that a highlighted title or heading (that stands out) near the top left or right hand side would be good. Linked to this would be a few paragraphs in which Steve clearly states (which is normal) his intent in this blog. That should save some questions.

  589. Susann
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 6:11 PM | Permalink

    I would second and third that suggestion. As newcomer, I feel that some kind of overviw or FAQ would be really helpful.

  590. Susann
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 6:25 PM | Permalink

    Christopher, the FAQ page doesn’t give an overview of the project on tree rings. That’s what I need. Thanks, Andy, for the link.

  591. Susann
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 6:28 PM | Permalink

    Christopher, the FAQs do not answer my question about what Steve M is doing re tree rings. Thanks Andy for the link to that thread — the very first line was all I needed to know! A worthy project.

  592. steve mosher
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 6:58 PM | Permalink

    Lucia. I think you should knit socks with the mandelbrot set as the pattern.

    there is a crazy feet joke here some wear

  593. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 7:02 PM | Permalink

    583 Nasif

    I suppose so, but why both?

  594. Wansbeck
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 7:05 PM | Permalink

    re #20

    There is a select icon in the pdf toolbar.

    Here’s the text:

    Treating climate change as beyond argument
    Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is
    our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the
    argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that
    individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described
    earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact.
    The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of
    the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra
    2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.
    Where science is invoked, it now needs to be as ‘lay science’ – offering lay explanations for what is being
    treated as a simple established scientific fact, just as the earth’s rotation or the water cycle are considered.

  595. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 7:36 PM | Permalink

    @Nasif– The answer to 568 is “yes”. 1 Joule-s/s = 1 joule.

    It’s the convention of writing things. The dash ‘-‘ between Joule and ‘s’ means the units “Joule and second’ are in the denominator. So, the ‘s’ in the numerator cancels the s in the denominator.

    @Steve– I need to finish Jim’s sweater first. . .

  596. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 7:37 PM | Permalink

    ooppsss. “joule and second” are in the numerator.

  597. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 7:41 PM | Permalink

    # 589

    Pat,

    In the first algorithm I converted Energy into Power, and in the second algorithm I converted Power into Energy. Is it possible?

  598. M. Jeff
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 7:41 PM | Permalink

    “Almagre Data” thread, Re: #40, Wansbeck, November 23rd, 2007 at 7:05 pm

    re #20

    There is a select icon in the pdf toolbar.

    Earlier I replied to #20 that it was possible to copy and paste but was moved to “Unthreaded”. I have added the name of this thread to this post in anticipation of another move. Such a labeling might make it easier to correlate posts that have been moved?

  599. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 7:48 PM | Permalink

    Interlude:

    A spaghetti graph in honor to Jae… :)

  600. jae
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 7:51 PM | Permalink

    Wow, what a lot of bandwidth on such a basic subject. 1 watt of power = 1 watt-hour or one watt-second, or one watt-half minute of energy, as I think I said a hundred or so posts ago.

  601. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 7:56 PM | Permalink

    @jae– in 594.
    Yes, you just repeated what you wrote a hundred posts. Once again, what you say is all wrong.

  602. Anna Lang
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 7:58 PM | Permalink

    The M/S Explorer cruise ship sinks today after hitting an iceberg in Antarctic waters.

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3905858&page=1

  603. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 8:05 PM | Permalink

    @Pat in 577– I’m beginning to believe there might be a use for slugs.

  604. jae
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 8:07 PM | Permalink

    Lucia: please read it this way: One watt = one watt expended over x time = energy. One watt = 1 joule/sec expended over one second = 1 joule/sec/sec = 1 joule. Nasif explained it perfectly.

  605. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 8:11 PM | Permalink

    @Jae–
    Compare what you say in 594 to what you say in 597. They are not the same.

    What Nasif says is fine.

  606. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 8:14 PM | Permalink

    @Nasif– All you did was cancel units. That’s done all the time; it’s not converting power to energy.

    1 joule -sec / sec = 1 joule the same way

    4 * 2/2 = 4.

  607. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 8:17 PM | Permalink

    jae:
    Sorry to be blunt, but you are embarassing yourself.
    Power and energy are *different*. Energy is the integral of power. Power is the derivate of energy.

    1 Watt for one second is 1W x 1s = 1J/s x 1s = 1J.

    What do you mean when you say “one watt = one watt expended over x time”?
    One Watt = one Watt. Period.

  608. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 8:20 PM | Permalink

    594 jae
    I was trying to help you.
    Lucia is correct in 595. Apparently you believe that electric-battery current (60 amps) is the same as electrical charge (60 amp-hours). Listen to Lucia, because now I give up.

  609. jae
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 8:20 PM | Permalink

    John V and Lucia: I know I am right on this, and I will no longer waste any bandwitdth on the subject.

  610. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 8:29 PM | Permalink

    M. Jeff, #573: thank you for posting that. I’m going to check my adobe version. I don’t see any select icon on the one I’m using now.

  611. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 9:07 PM | Permalink

    Filipo, there has also been heavy snow in Scotland. Very unusual for November.

  612. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 9:14 PM | Permalink

    #603 jae

    I think you’ve gotten yourself into something of a spin. Take a little time out don’t think about it spend a little time on Dimensional Analysis and come back to it. I’m sure you’ll see it in a different light.

  613. Rick Ballard
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 9:22 PM | Permalink

    Susann,

    Rather than ‘policymaker’ imagine yourself a member of an FDA go/nogo panel with Mann (representing the Merck/Pfizer team) requesting permission to skip clinical trials and begin general distribution of the Mannomatic® to the general public as a general panacea for all ailments.

    Bearing in mind the implications of CENSORED and the paragraph elucidated in #40, how many schizophrenic treemometers would Willis have to demonstrate in order for you to recommend a consultation with the Department of Justice and the Securities Exchange Commission?

  614. jae
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 9:52 PM | Permalink

    Good grief,here’s another conversion factor site. How many do I have to link to convince you folks that 1 watt power = 1 watt-hour energy?

  615. Susann
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

    Bearing in mind the implications of CENSORED and the paragraph elucidated in #40, how many schizophrenic treemometers would Willis have to demonstrate in order for you to recommend a consultation with the Department of Justice and the Securities Exchange Commission?

    I read #40 and went to the source document. Fasinating. I’m familiar with semiotic analysis and discourse analysis in academic work. They are useful in examining the role of language in battles over meaning in politial and cultural wars, but now to see it used to assist those very wars seems quite perverted.

    #20 is a clear statement by “warmers” how to manipulate the public to ccept the notion that the case is closed. I have to mention a certain public relations firm APCO who has been trying to do the opposite.

    “Oh, what a web we mortals weave, when first we practice to deceive . . .”

  616. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 10:18 PM | Permalink

    Ok, Jae, try to convert 1 watt to 1 watt*hour before you go to the link posted by Jan.

  617. John Baltutis
    Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 10:24 PM | Permalink

    Re: #584

    Nasif Nahle asks:

    Now tell me why the IPCC prefers some literature on its side and dismiss literature on the opposite side?

    To perpertuate its existence? To destroy the capitalist system that demonstrates the fallacy of socialistic regimes and dictatorships? Level the economic playing field to the lowest common denominator? Envy? The environmentalist’s credo to rid the planet of mankind? Ends justify any means?

    Pick one. IMO, it’s the viewpoint that mankind can destroy the planet (by generating electricity, produciing life-saving products, and, basically, controlling nature). Thus, to save it from us, there should be one global government (run by those who “know”—UN statist bureaucrats and their ilk) with total dominion over the rest of mankind.

  618. Posted Nov 23, 2007 at 11:25 PM | Permalink

    # 600

    Lucia,

    It’s (J) (second)/second, (J/s) (s) = J (s)/(s). J/s is not a unit of energy, but of power, while J is a unit of energy. I only placed the rate at which energy is transferred in a given unit of time, that is, one second. For example, 10 Joules of energy transferred per each second (rate of energy transfer), what’s the amount of energy implied in the transfer of 10 Joules per 1 second? 10 (J/s) (1 s) = 10 Joules.

    One watt-hour is the amount of energy spent by a one-watt load that is exhausting (or drawing) power for one hour. One watt*hour (energy) is equivalent to 3,600 joules (energy), to be exact, (1 J/s) {power} x (3600 s) {4th physical dimension, time}, which means that the energy was transferred to another system in one hour (power). Energy is equivalent to power multiplied by time. To determine energy in Watt*hours, the power must be expressed in Watts, while time must be expressed in hours, i.e. E = P x t, where E is energy, P is the power expressed in Watts, and t is the time expressed in hours. Thus, what I did was obtaining the amount of energy from the load of energy (power), not an elimination of units.

    For example, what’s the energy expended by a system which is drawing power of 10 W for one hour? E = P x t = 10 W X 1 hr = 10 Whr… However, I’d wish to know this quantity in IS:

    1 Whr = 3600 J
    10 Whr = 3600 J X 10 = 36000 J

    I converted power to energy using the methodology recommended by Jan Pompe in her well-pointed post # 606

    Now, what’s the amount of energy transferred in 60 seconds? (Rate of energy transfer) (Time) = 10 (J/s) (60 s) = 600 J (net energy transferred). Wow! That’s too much energy and we would be grilled in the first minute… No, because we obtained the sum of the amount of energy transferred in one minute, if each second 10 J/s are transferred, but it doesn’t mean that the energy is accumulated in other systems. If we want to know the load of energy transferred to the air, for example, we have to go back to one second because the rate J/s denotes the energy transferred per unit time. That is, if the source of heat is quasi-stable and you measure the energy transferred in the first unit of time, it would be the same amount of energy transferred in the second unit of time, and in the third, the fourth, etc. On our example, the energy transferred would be 10 J per each unit of time, unless the energy source increased the load of transferred energy each next unit of time. Again, E = P x t = 10 J/s X 1 s = 10 J.

    Thus, in the next formula q = e (A) (sigma) (Ts^4 – Ta^4) the result implies heat, or the rate at which work is made. How could we deduce the change of temperature caused by q, if the result is power (Watts), not energy (Joules)? The fourth physical dimension is what we need… Time. For example, in the same formula, if we introduce t, the result will be W*s, W*min, or W*hour, which is not a unit of power, but of energy.

    # 596

    Anna Lang: thanks for that link to ABC News. It was a terrible accident, but fortunately the passengers and the crew were rescued and the climate change was not blamed on the accident.

    Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts, thanks for your fortitude. This is my last post on this issue… I think… :)

  619. bender
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 1:54 AM | Permalink

    Susann,
    The only way to learn the story is to read the blog. Yes, it’s long. That’s because there is a story here. You should record the answers to your many questions in a FAQ.

  620. Chris Harrison
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 3:10 AM | Permalink

    jae,
    The conversion sites you point to do not support your argument, since they give a conversion rate between watt hours and joules, which is correct.

    Watts are units of power i.e. joules per second. A watt hour is the amount of energy you get from one watt over an hour i.e. one joule per second for one hour which is one joule per second for 3600 seconds, which is 3600 joules.

    The difference between energy and power is important. If you don’t keep the units straight, you will make mistakes in your derivations and other people will not be able to understand them.

  621. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 3:53 AM | Permalink

    Would studying a simple undergraduate question help?

    Ignoring heat loss into space, the oceans, land, latent heat etc. how long would it take 1 Watt per metre squared radiative forcing to raise the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere by 1 degree Celsius?

  622. Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 7:04 AM | Permalink

    @Nasif—
    I converted power to energy using the methodology recommended by Jan Pompe in her well-pointed post # 606
    I wrote 606 :)

    Except for jae, we are all saying the same thing different ways.
    I commented you’d only canceled units in your previous comment because there were no numbers or words and Jae thinks he and you are doing the same thing.

    Canceling units is fine. Multipliying power by time to get energy is fine. It’s not called “converting” though, so when you asked how you’d “converted”, I answered that.

    Jae appears to believe he is literally “converting” power into energy without using time. You clearly understand the difference.You clearly understand the difference.

  623. Susann
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 7:55 AM | Permalink

    Susann,
    The only way to learn the story is to read the blog. Yes, it’s long. That’s because there is a story here. You should record the answers to your many questions in a FAQ.

    I realize that, and you can count on me reading as much of the archives as is possible. As a geeky policy wonk, this is fun for me. :) I may even create a blog just to provide an entree to the issues and research for policy wonk types.

    However, even for a geeky wonk, this blog is massive and there is a real learning curve involved in developing an appreciation for the issues. As someone who is concerned about the politics of the issue of global warming / climate change, I am sensitive to the degree of difficulty involved in understanding the issues. Even with a decent background in science, math, statistics, logic, etc. it takes a great deal of commitment to work through the issues and evidence and come to any kind of understanding on a personal level. Most people do not have the time or background to understand the issues. Regardless, they will be called upon to voice opinions which may sway politicians, and they will be called upon to vote for governments. They will therefore be swayed by groups like those who produced the document in #20 or by other advocacy groups. The rhetorical skill of advocates on either side, appeals to authority — these will determine how the public decides what to believe. I think that the easier it is for an outider to access this blog and find their way through the evidence and arguments the better. If it’s too difficult, people may throw up their hands and just decide on the basis of who looks the most trustworthy.

  624. Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 8:31 AM | Permalink

    # 622

    Lucia,

    Yes, it’s correct. I used the term “convert” in a wrong way. Perhaps, if Jae solves the problem that Steve Milesworthy posted on # 621 he will see the difference.

  625. Stan Palmer
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 8:54 AM | Permalink

    Since the terms “pseudo-science” and “anti-science” have been used pretty freely in the last little while, this coulmn decribing some new results concerning UN-sponsored science could be very illuminating

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071124.COWENT24/TPStory/National/columnists

    Teh Globe and Mail is a Toronto newspaper. It is the establishment newspaper in Canada. It has taken on the role of being the environmental conscience for the country with this being especially true for AGW.

  626. jae
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 9:05 AM | Permalink

    621: That’s thermo and isn’t allowed here. However, it would be easy to do if you make some assumptions about the mass of the atmosphere in a 1 m^2 column and assume there is no convection or conduction (i.e., mass of a 1m^2 column the depth of the atmosphere). All you need is that value and the weighted average specific heats for the gasses. To get total joules required for an increase of 1 C, calculate total grams in air column and multiply by (weighted average specific heat)(grams of air). This number is also the time, in seconds, since 1 watt = 1 joule/sec. So if you have a weighted avg. Cp of 1.1 and the mass is 7 x 10^6 kg), then the number of seconds = (1.1)(7 X 10^9) = 7.7 x 10^9 sec = 7.7 x 10^9/86,400 sec/day = 8.95 X 10^4 days.

  627. Wansbeck
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

    I find the frequent confusion between Power and Energy very misleading especially where alternate energy sources such as wind farms are concerned.
    Their output is invariably quoted in Watts even though their worth is in how many Joules they can provide when needed.
    It is of little use being capable of providing 10GW (power that is) if this only happens once per year with just the right strength wind in just the right direction at 3 o’clock in the morning.

  628. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    No more discussion of units of power or energy.

  629. Ron Cram
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 10:01 AM | Permalink

    Re: 571
    Joe Duck writes:

    I’m very uncomfortable with the notion that IPCC is accepting a lot of bad science. There is a clear concensus about AGW that extends far outside of the tree ring stuff. That doesn’t make AGW so, but it suggests it is very likely.

    Much has been written about the biases of the IPCC. Christopher Landsea resigned because of it. Roger Pielke has written about it repeatedly. Please take a look at this blog entry.

  630. Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 10:07 AM | Permalink

    I have found a free source for copies of the papers that I referred to in my earlier blog on the possible effect on global warming due to solar wind. You will find some of their formulas in one of the papers listed below

    Joule heating due to solar wind induced electrical currents shows that such heating could reach 1–2 K/day. That is comparable to the heating due to the absorption of the solar UV radiation.

    http://www.pmodwrc.ch/eugene1560/sowa/data.phtml

    http://www.sgo.fi/SPECIAL/Contributions/Makarova.pdf

  631. John M
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 10:26 AM | Permalink

    Susann in #623

    As someone who is concerned about the politics of the issue of global warming / climate change, I am sensitive to the degree of difficulty involved in understanding the issues.

    Needless to say, there is really no other way to approach this.

    If you can convince your colleagues in the policy realm that phrases like “the debate is over” and “the science is settled” only serve to make otherwise intelligent people look silly, you’ll have done a great service to both “sides”.

  632. Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

    Stan Palmer, 8:54 am:

    That’s a subscription article. Can you provide a summation ?

  633. Peter D. Tillman
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 11:24 AM | Permalink

    Re #623, Susann

    …even for a geeky wonk, this blog is massive and there is a real learning curve involved in developing an appreciation for the issues.

    — Which is why we need a better intro for CA newbies. Susann, if we can get our host’s interest, would you be interested in helping?

    Better to have it “official”, but I suppose even an offsite blog would help.

    Incidentally, Susann, I’m enjoying your posts here.
    Cheers — Pete Tillman

  634. Peter D. Tillman
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 11:39 AM | Permalink

    Re #588, Gerald Machnee; help for CA Newbies

    Gerald, thanks for reposting this here.

    I am not sure if a thread would be the answer as it would soon get buried. However I thought that a highlighted title or heading (that stands out) near the top left or right hand side would be good. Linked to this would be a few paragraphs in which Steve clearly states (which is normal) his intent in this blog. That should save some questions.

    I had in mind something more elaorate — more a “guided tour” of this increasingly-unwieldy blog, along with updating the FAQ and the “Pages” sidebar (which also needs a more-informative title!)

    I was asking Steve to start a thread so that interested CA readers can kick ideas around to best accomplish this. Here’s the link to my original post: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2406 (scroll down to post #100).

    Cheers — Pete Tillman

    “It’s a sin to waste the reader’s time” — Larry Niven

  635. Susann
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 11:40 AM | Permalink

    Thanks for your goodwill Pete. I am enjoying this place more than I expected. :) I would like to keep any summary I do separate from CA (or RC and other blogs) just to try to maintain some level of objectivity. As a civil servant (bureaucrat) I have to maintain the “appearance” of being apolitical and so all of it will require me to remain anonymous. Until I am no longer reliant on my civil service income, it has to be that way. I really am trying to suspend judgement of the bigger questions until I get a better grip on the details. In other words, I understand the politics quite well, but I am not sure of the science and am not willing to just take some authority’s word on the matter. That’s my focus for the time being.

  636. Susann
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 11:51 AM | Permalink

    Someone who really knows the site well and who has time could put together a “Go Here First” type of post — that would be a great help. It could include a brief overview of the blog’s mandate and the major issues (including links to seminal posts) and should be at the top of the blog sidebar so that it is one of the first things newcomers see when they arrive. It could also include rules and prohibited topics, etc.

    Just thinking out loud.

  637. Peter D. Tillman
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 11:51 AM | Permalink

    Re #635, Susann

    –so perhaps if we put something together via a wiki collaboration, you might feel comfortable helping, perhaps under a new CYA nom de guerre? The wiki wouldn’t be the final product, just the discussion/work vehicle.

    I’m being persistent because all this stuff will be fresh in your mind, and you’re articulate.

    Well, we’ll see if our host is amenable, to start. Steve?

    Cheers — Pete Tillman

  638. Peter D. Tillman
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 12:06 PM | Permalink

    Re #636, Susann

    Exactly so. Except there needs to be provision to keep the thing up-to-date, as the blog evolves. I’m assuming Steve has no great interest in doing this himself, though he would of course have final say as to what gets put up on his site.

    Anyway, I’ve done this sort of thing before [1], and I’ll have some time available in the next month or two, so if I were you, Steve, I’d jump at the offer… {G}.

    Cheers — Pete
    [1] see, forex, http://www.michaelswanwick.com/evrel/site.html

    Steve: I’d appreciate anything like this. I’ll look at anything.

  639. jae
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

    FWIW, in 626 I just took a wild guess at the mass of air in a 1 m^2 column. I forgot that that is also very easy to calculate, since the air pressure the surface is 14.7 psi, making the total mass 10.34 e6 grams. Also the specific heat of air, even including some water vapor is awfully close to 1, not 1.1. If you plug these data into the calculation, one gets 120 days for 1 watt/m^2 to heat the atmosphere by 1 C, if there is no loss to space or to the oceans.

  640. Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 12:20 PM | Permalink

    Sussan and Pete D. Tillman,

    What are you conspiring on? It would be something similar to, or definitively, a scientific magazine on line. And the peer reviewers? Hah! Great idea! Count on my vote and cooperation. :)

  641. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 12:48 PM | Permalink

    There is a lot here that is either intimidating or confusing for a casual reader. I’d say that for most people, particularly those without some science and stats background, this blog would be incomprehensible. Having said that, there is also a lot here that properly filtered and packaged would interest a wide audience. Looking around at potential presentation models, I’d say that Real Climate does a pretty good job of presenting climate science in an accesible way. People here don’t like RC because of its biased presentation (a view I share), but the model of a post explaining an issue followed by heavily moderated comments is a good one for reaching a wide audience.

    There are several issues in getting a CA version of Real Climate off the ground. Not least getting the initial traction so vital for any new blog. Where I would start is to list between 10 and 20 topics that need summarizing in less than 500 words; Why the Hockey Stick is broken, Why the MWP matters, The divergence problem and what it means, UHIs and their significance, Global Climate Models explained, etc. Get those 10 to 20 posts written and then your blog is ready to go, with a sufficient volume of material to get readers attention.

  642. Dogbert
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 12:50 PM | Permalink

    Re #580 Nasif Nahle and the hanging bottles

    I like the bottles of air and CO2 experiment described. Remarkably simple.

    Given that we could be sure that the type of glass used was not interfering with the LW IR and that we could, say, use a double-walled vacuum insulated bottle we could measure the claimed heating effect of CO2 for different concentrations. At about 800 ppm we should see a measurable increase in temperature. It should get really hot with pure CO2. If not, why not? Please discuss

  643. UK John
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 1:02 PM | Permalink

    re #642#580#576 Hanging bottles

    I tried full CO2 (got it from old fire extinguisher) but no effect. The CO2 just didn’t warm up after the sun went down, but I think there was plenty of IR around, my skin could feel it!

    This just doesn’t work, and I don’t know why.

    If you put the bottles in the sun then the CO2 filled bottles do get warmer, but that would indicate that CO2 would stop IR or some wavelengths getting through to the surface, and make it cooler.

    I have tried everywhere (even RC) to get an explanation of what I am doing wrong, but nobody seems to know, RC just quoted theory at me.

    Perhaps others should have a go.

  644. Peter D. Tillman
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

    Re #638, CA Newbie guide

    Steve:

    I’d appreciate anything like this. I’ll look at anything.

    OK, then, could you pull out the relevant posts here and start a new thread?

    #640, Nasif

    What are you conspiring on? It would be something similar to, or definitively, a scientific magazine on line.

    What I’m thinking of is a “Newbie Guide” as a part of CA. Though your idea has merit too {G}

    Cheers — Pete T

  645. deadwood
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 1:45 PM | Permalink

    Susann:

    Anonymity for a civil servant on this blog is not a trivial thing.

  646. jae
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

    643: It probably has to do with what is known as “path length.” Since so much of air is really space, a given photon has a very low probability of striking a molecule in the jar.

  647. Dogbert
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 2:21 PM | Permalink

    Re # 646 jae

    Okay then, if we now make the bottles bigger? A kind of proof by induction. If your explanation is correct then they’d be more volume for interaction but also to heat and so we still wouldn’t see a temperature increase.

  648. Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 3:47 PM | Permalink

    # 644

    Pete,

    I was looking around the link-example at http://www.michaelswanwick.com/evrel/site.html, and I got the idea. Great! It would be the organization of all the authors and their arguments, especially the messages classified into the topic “unthreaded”, so the reader that navigates here for the first time can select easier the theme of interest. I’m sad because almost all my posts hole into prohibited subtopics. You can see the warnings from Steve after two or three of that kind of messages. ;)

  649. Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

    Sugar vessels… That’s it! The problem could be the materials with which the bottles were made. Get some bottles made of sugar glass (syrup + sugar + water) and repeat the experiment. Although the root could be that the heat source is peripheral. You can try with some aquarium heaters placed into the sugar vessels. Don’t forget the time of temperature stabilization (~ 30 min). You must have a firm hand to do the thermostats coincide in the initial temperature. The water vapor must be the same in all the bottles. Take also into account that gases DON’T have an unlimited capacity of absorption. I bet you’ll find the same results or amazingly the opposite results (you know… CO2 thermo-).

  650. UK John
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 5:32 PM | Permalink

    I thought about materials of jar, but you have got to use something !, that is why I used one clear plastic and one glass.

    But no difference.

  651. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 5:56 PM | Permalink

    This post is an example of how knowledge is assumed, making it difficult for the causal reader to understand posts at CA. It refers to ‘PCs’ as an undefined acronym. The acronym link says PCs is Principal Components. Google will tell you Principal Components is a statistical technique and it is used by Mann in his studies. But even that knowledge doesn’t help much in understanding the significance of PCs in this post.

    This is in no way a criticism of the post. I am just using it as an example of what is being discussed on unthreaded – how to make CA more accesible. A note explaining PCs and its significance to this post would make this post a lot more comprehensible to people not already familiar with PCs in Mannian proxy reconstructions.

  652. steve mosher
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 6:07 PM | Permalink

    RE 11. Hi Phillip. Here is a nice reference to start with

    http://csnet.otago.ac.nz/cosc453/student_tutorials/principal_components.pdf

  653. jae
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 6:50 PM | Permalink

    647, etc. I was told by someone here (forget who) that the bottle would have to be enormous in size to overcome this pathlength issue. I don’t know much about the subject. You also have to consider that the CO2 might be saturated with IR. Maybe try your experiment in a freezer??

    My gut feeling is that radiation has very little to do with temp. at low altitudes, anyway. The air molecules are certainly “trading” radiation with each other, but I doubt that has much to do with temperature at ground level. At some point high in the atmosphere, it has to be a major factor, but probably not below 5 km. I think it’s mostly a convection system down here.

  654. Steve H
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 7:04 PM | Permalink

    “A note explaining PCs and its significance to this post would make this post a lot more comprehensible to people not already familiar with PCs in Mannian proxy reconstructions.”

    As anyone writing a report knows, every term needs to be introduced with it’s complete spelling before it can be used in it’s more compact form.

    That is a simple respect for your readers….

  655. Carl Gullans
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 7:20 PM | Permalink

    #13: the acronym is well known to those that post or read here often, although understanding principal components will probably take weeks and/or a prior mathematical background. A recent thread went into this, but Mosher’s link above is a good start… do not expect to find an easier explanation elsewhere, but if you take the time to read it you will be able to follow this topic at the basic level. There are a lot of strange methods being employed here that will be difficult to understand and that are not covered in basic PCA primers, as they still are for anybody not named Mann, but you can learn if you keep reading.

  656. Wansbeck
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 7:22 PM | Permalink

    I have just looked at the EAS8100 Mission Impossible Team Thread.
    Can anyone point me to a source that explains the lack of European proxies.
    I would have thought that this region has the longest history of instrumental and historic data and therefore the greatest chance of checking calibration.

  657. Steve H
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 7:25 PM | Permalink

    Oh, as a long time follower of Steve, I understood exactly the term that were being used.

    For future reference, it would be wise if Steve defined his terms prior to their usage on all articals that he writes.

    Just a simple “word to the wise”

  658. steve mosher
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 7:34 PM | Permalink

    RE 16. I tell you what. Howabout we make a blogspecific plugin that auto links
    acronymns to the definition when you mouse over them.

  659. Gary Coleman
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 11:03 PM | Permalink

    #95 Geoff Sherrington:

    Guessing had a limited utility in scientific analysis, even by highly-qualified guessers.

    One of the reasons that I prefer Bayesian statistical analysis is that it explicitly allows “guessing” to play a limited role in defining the prior distribution, but then uses experimental results to compute the posterior distribution. As long as the prior distribution has non-zero values at all plausible values, even those you don’t believe to be correct, then the evidence will eventually lead to the correct result. The penalty for guessing badly is that the correct result will require more evidence, and will thus require more time.

  660. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 11:16 PM | Permalink

    Re #654 Most European dendros correlate with precipitation. Some interesting stuff here on how a major volcanic event circa 540AD affected the dendro record and also provides a fixed marker for dating verification (ref my comment about Craig Loehle’s reconstruction being out about a 100 years around 500AD).

  661. Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 11:26 PM | Permalink

    # 24

    George M,

    Comment on referencing post numbers. I suppose Steve is deleting occasional posts, and it makes some of the hanging references to post numbers nonsensical. Thus, it is probably a good idea to also include the name. The number will get you close, and the name the remainder. Sure, occasionally there are multiple sequential posts from the same author, but anyone who can’t get over that obstacle, well…………..

    Yes, you’re right. I apologize… the posts I referred to (# 22 and # 23) were not from MrPete, but from someone promoting cell-phones or something like that. Fortunately both posts were snipped, after which my # 22 apparently falls in my classification, hah! :)

    # 23, # 24

    Steve H, George M,

    At least I got you to think about all of the other ways that tree growth can be altered, besides only temperature.

    Monthly rainfall records for about 100 years should be available from data from the notorious USHCN sites. For the previous 1900 years, you are on your own.

    I agree; for example here. Indeed, rainfall depth, frequency and duration stress the evolution of biomes. A single succession of competent graminales can alter the annual growth of trees.

  662. MarkR
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 11:28 PM | Permalink

    Jan Pompe #540 A link to a Veizer paper. Veizer and Shaviv

  663. Bob Meyer
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 11:41 PM | Permalink

    Re 656 & 657 Pat, jae

    The real challenge here is to make the science accessible to people who can think for themselves. If one percent can be persuaded to think, then the rest will follow. Following is what most people do anyway.

    But this isn’t easy. The Amazing Randi, magician and hoax exposer, wrote on his blog that “The Great Global Warming Swindle” was produced by a known liar who deceived his interviewees and therefore nothing in the documentary could be trusted. How did Randi know this? His “good friend” Phil Plait of “Bad Astronomy” told him. Randi did not check out a single claim himself, he simply trusted Plait.

    Randi is not an idiot or a brainwashed cultist. He just didn’t expend the energy to think for himself. People see science as frighteningly complex, even bright hardworking types are intimidated. No doubt this is, in part, a leftover from mediocre science classes in high school.

    All that can be done is show the facts and the science to those that can think and then leave the rest to them. No one will yell “Eureka” and no one will thank you for saving them from the errors of their ways. However, days or even months later, some people may just start to think.

    On the other hand, the cultural impediments are enormous:

    1 Science and math are for “nerds”.
    2 Don’t think, go with your gut (feelings, intuitions, anything but your brain)
    3 Go along to get along.
    4 The OJ jury was not the exception.

    Hopefully, just enough people will actually pause to think before allowing their wallets to be emptied.

  664. Gary
    Posted Nov 24, 2007 at 11:57 PM | Permalink

    #643 It is the path length which is the issue. The emissivity and adsorption of CO2 is a function of the product of partial pressure and path length. A 30cm bottle of 100% CO2 is equivalent to about 1000m of atmosphere.

  665. Gary
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 12:09 AM | Permalink

    [snip - I'm not interested in this site trying to argue that CO2 effects are impossible. There is an effect - its impact is a different thing, but please don't use bandwidth for such discussions .]

  666. Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 12:12 AM | Permalink

    # 661

    Myself,

    In addition solar irradiance, fog, terrain gradient, winds, soil composition and temperature, I would consider also phytopathogens, plagues and physiological aging processes, especially through drought periods. We can find tracks of them in the samples. If a sample shows tracks or signals having been affected, that sample must be rejected because the growth of that tree could be affected by hormones and protective chemicals that the affected tree produced during the attack. In dendrochronology and dendroclimatology the things are not easy because the researcher works with the assumption that the variations of the conditions at present must have been the same or nearly the same in the past. We cannot use the same calibrations for the trees of the NH and the trees of the SH because there are substantial differences in the composition of soils, the kind of biomes, the subspecies, etc. Perhaps, Mann used the same weighs for US Western, US Southern, Europe, China, etc. Pinus individuals?

  667. Wansbeck
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 5:09 AM | Permalink

    #660

    Philip_B

    Thanks for the links.

  668. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 5:28 AM | Permalink

    New “enviromentalist” campaign live on BBC on line…
    Australian elections seemed to have been fought and won just on global warming issues, and new government will act on AGW and almost just on AGW it seems from BBC (I suspect Australia has many other problems as every country in the World).
    Moreover, weather disasters have quadruplied (!!!) due of course to global warming and other causes: another “hurricanes increasing due to global warming (then demonstrated false)” case? Does any other one has studied the same History than me, where weather disasters were related to cooling periods (e.g. LIA, early Middle Ages) and during warming ones civilisations flourished and expanded, or have I studied on the wrong books?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7111479.stm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7111623.stm

  669. Pete
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 6:21 AM | Permalink

    The Australian election was mainly decided on the basis of unpopular Industrial Relations laws. Climate change was about 4th on the list of major issues. The green party got basically the same primary vote.

  670. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 7:03 AM | Permalink

    #662 MarkR

    Thank you for that.

    #669 Pete

    I agree while green issues may have figured (enough to claim a mandate to sign Kyoto) it was the Industrial Relations laws that Labour has run a big scare campaign on I think it had most people frightened of another term of Howard.

  671. Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 7:39 AM | Permalink

    @steve mosher– the plugin to autolink a term exists. It’s called aLinks.

    On the one hand, I agree that, in articles, people need to define terms. But this is a blog. People can ask in comments. Steve does a great job.

  672. Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 8:05 AM | Permalink

    I concur with others here that the IR laws were the big issue in the Aussie elections – these have a direct impact on the hip pocket nerve and the changes already enacted had started to bite those whose job qualifications were not in high demand, thus starting a groundswell of discontent among the so-called ‘Howard battlers’ that Labor was able to capitalise on to generate a ‘landslide’ swing.

    Climate change was more of the order of a ‘feel good’ issue that Labor was able to ‘ice the cake’ with a little … I think the majority have no idea just how hard carbon taxes and the like will impact on their hip pockets for very little real infuence on future climate … and the few that do realise this saw that both major parties were headed off down the carbon tax highway anyway, albeit with different emphasis on how to enact controls.

    It is just a sign of the times that governments of all persuasions are headed down the carbon road, some faster than others, and it is really just a few places such as CA that are providing real science that questions the prevailing ‘scientific wisdom’ driving this change being promoted by the IPCC and the ‘Hockey Team’, so the fact that many govts are jumping on the bandwagon should not be surprising.

    Anyway, I think that SteveM might go through here with his scissors pretty soon if this strays too far into politics (if it has not done so already).

  673. Wansbeck
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 8:08 AM | Permalink

    Many other posters have made similar points but here’s my bit:

    When I was a lad (I’m 54 now – that’s the new 32) there was a consensus; correct me if I’m wrong but the mediaeval warm period existed. Then, almost overnight, the use of novel advanced statistical techniques wiped it from history.

    I can’t comment on the validity of the statistics but if I got a result that flat in my line of work I would check that I had switched things on. This is when I decided to start looking for myself.
    Here is the problem for the beginner. As most of you no doubt know, site after site contains highly opinionated material on both sides of the argument although one side claims there is no argument.
    Not a problem I thought, I will keep to genuine scientific sites so I tried the Royal Academy, the UK Met Office, NASA etc. While these sites undoubtedly contain some extremely good information, their introductory pages all seem to be biased. Maybe it is me but for an example on my first visit to the Royal Academy website I was greeted with the ‘How to answer a sceptic’ list of questions with the same answers as some of the more extreme sites and no information to allow visitors to make their own conclusions.
    I accept the need to look at all sides of an argument but before you can take part in the argument you need to know the facts.
    I know that within this site is the answer to almost any question that all but the most expert would want to ask but one has to dig deep. I have been looking at this site for far more than a year now but still consider myself a beginner.

    Would it be possible for some of the more experienced and knowledgeable posters to perhaps have a vote on the best sites and/or articles based on their factuality and accessibility. I know that you guys have provided links on numerous occasions and probably get sick of it at times but if all these links were put in one library rather than spread across numerous threads it could deflect a lot of questions. I’m sure our host couldn’t take part as it may be construed as bias but it is just a thought.

  674. Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 9:20 AM | Permalink

    UC and Steve

    As always this is very interesting but can we just cut to the chase. It’s become clear to me at least for sometime now (thanks to MM(2003?), NAS panel and Wegman reports etc) that the hockey stick is nothing more than a Mannian fabrication. You keep continuing to prove that this is the case but always stop short of making this point i.e. that its a fabrication deliberately designed to remove the MWP and LIA and to emphasise courtesy of some stripbark BCPs and an egregious splice of the ‘adjusted’ instrumented temperature anomaly record onto the proxy reconstructions that the recent ‘modern warming period’ is ‘unprecedented in the last 1000 years’.

    Steve’s sterling Starbucks work with MrPete has now shown just why it is that the stripbark BCPs show accelerated growth in the latter part of the 20th century and it has now become clear that it has NOTHING to do with claimed ‘unprecedented’ global temperature rises.

    Steve and UC, if you disagree with my statements and my interpretation of the excellent work you have done over the past few years then please explain why you disagree with my statements above rather than just snip this post as I think its important that others reading this thread get to see my post.

    Regards

    KevinUK

    Steve: 1) The hockey stick is more than a “Mannian fabrication”. Other serious researchers have got “similar” conclusions. I think that there are defects in each of these studies, but that doesn’t mean that the authors didn’t present the studies in good faith. Rob Wilson, for one, presents his results with total sincerity. 2) We haven’t proved anything yet with respect to BCPs other than you can update the proxies inexpensively and quickly. I’ve just got the data and haven’t assimilated it yet. 3) I repeatedly discourage people from going a bridge too far with their statements. You are making claims as to motive that you can speculate on, but are impossible to prove and are irrelevant to the science – so why speculate?

  675. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 9:36 AM | Permalink

    671 lucia

    As I understand it, alink is for a wordpress environment. Is there something that does the same for a simple html web page?

  676. Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 10:38 AM | Permalink

    Dave Dardinger #2, see Sping on Wikipedia.

  677. Peter D. Tillman
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

    #658, steve mosher

    Howabout we make a blogspecific plugin that auto links
    acronymns to the definition when you mouse over them.

    Now there’s a nice idea. How much work would it be?

    Also need provision to update the acronym list, as they proliferate like fruit flies, sigh.

    Cheers — Pete Tillman

  678. Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 2:47 PM | Permalink

    @Pat– Any sort of autolinking plugin has to run dynamically from a script. Plain old html is static.
    Climate Audit says it runs on wordpress, so aLinks should work fine.

    What are you thinking you need to do? I’ve written plugins for wordpress.

  679. John A
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

    bender: Consider what has happened with Energy & Environment, which is established because of the publication blockade of papers critical of the “scientific consensus”. E&E is pummelled by accusations that it has a political agenda hostile to global warming.

    So a Journal of Statistical Climatology had better come up with a better strategy than E&E – and better backing. I would like to know what Edward Wegman would think of the idea and whether the ASA would endorse such a journal.

  680. braddles
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 4:44 PM | Permalink

    Re #7 (pk)

    I suspect that I speak for a majority of this site’s visitors if I say that posts like this do need translation. Steve has recently criticised Mann for using the most obscure and uninformative language possible, yet here we have, in just the first three lines, five unexplained “acronyms” (UC, CCE, OLS, ICE, and MBH9x) and a stated assumption that everyone knows what a double pseudoinverse is.

    I realise that Steve, slashing away at the cutting edge and with a prodigious output, has little time to explain background. The explanation by Jean S at #12 was very useful, but could be fleshed out, perhaps by others.

    This is a very important website, but it has the potential to have still greater impact in the wider climate debate. I was recommending this sight to scientist friends, but they would be baffled if opening the site with a post like this at the top, and most new visitors would be completely intimidated and not return.

    I know it has been suggested before and howled down, but this site needs a parallel site with explanations for the intelligent layman, not from Steve himself (although perhaps with his approval) but perhpas from the other specialists and experienced readers who contribute so well.

    Steve: The standard of explanation for a blog post and a Nature article are different. Also the techniques discussed here are lingua franca in statistics and can be looked up. Mann’s material was idiosyncratic and nothing that you could look up in a book. It was, in addition, described incorrectly and contained errors. If Mann’s only issue was using acronyms, none of us would have minded.

  681. Simon
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 5:14 PM | Permalink

    How synchronized are the changes in the global warming temperature signal that is extracted from the proxies?

  682. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 5:19 PM | Permalink

    Wansbeck, I agree with you that it is hard to find a fair and unbiased summary, suitable for an interested lay-person, of what we do and don’t know about climate change. As you point out the places where one would expect to find such summaries appear to feel it is more important to promote belief than examine the evidence. I suspect their position is that the IPCC has already made an authorative summary of the evidence and hence the discussion is closed. Which leads me to think the place to start is a re-examination of the IPCC’s conclusions. Some people have already done this, for example Warwick Hughes. Rereading the IPCC report, it’s clear to me that the problem is in the models and the validity of their predictions, a subject the IPCC says almost nothing about. In fact, there is remarkably little information on the accuracy of the models’ predictions. At the link above, there is an attempt to rate the models’ predictive accuracy to date and their predictive ability seems poor.

  683. Susann
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 5:55 PM | Permalink

    E&E is pummelled by accusations that it has a political agenda hostile to global warming.

    Energy and Environment is pummelled in part because when interested people like me do a google on it, we get Sourcewatch’s page that suggests it is a journal that isn’t listed in the ISI, is edited by a global warming skeptic, that has an inadequate peer review process that publishes substandard papers that have been used in the political process. I have to say that it isn’t good press. If a journal of statistical climatology is created, you have to make sure there is no taint of advocacy involved or it will suffer the same fate.

  684. fFreddy
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 6:10 PM | Permalink

    Susann, do you regard Sourcewatch as a fair, balanced source ?

  685. Dogbert
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 6:11 PM | Permalink

    I believe that sensitivity to non-solar radiative warming effects will be more pronounced at night and in winter when daily solar effects will be minimized. So, I looked at the data archived at the Hadley Centre.

    An analysis of 1900-2007 HADCET data for January mean minimum temperature shows a negative slope of -0.022C/decade.

    An analysis of 1900-2007 HADCET data for January absolute minimum temperature shows a negative slope of -0.021C/decade.

    For comparison mean minimum for July has positive slope of 0.039C/decade and absolute minimum a slope of 0.079C/decade.

    Additionally the mean maximum for July has a positive slope of 0.089C/decade.

    Last century Central England warming would appear to be daytime effect being seen in the summer time. I think solar effects could be said to dominate.

  686. Larry
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 6:16 PM | Permalink

    Hmm….no sourcewatch page for realclimate. What’s that tell you?

  687. Peter D. Tillman
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 6:32 PM | Permalink

    Re #644, CA Newbie guide

    Steve:

    “I’d appreciate anything like this. I’ll look at anything.”

    PT:
    “OK, then, could you pull out the relevant posts here and start a new thread?”

    Steve, in case this wasn’t clear, I’m hoping you’ll start a new thread called “Creating a guide for Climate Audit Newbies” or some such.

    TIA & Cheers — Pete T

  688. Jeremy Ayrton
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 6:39 PM | Permalink

    re #642, UK_John. Maybe your back garden experiment worked, and you’ve drawn the wrong conclusion. You have inferred the temperature of the gas in the bottles from the reading of the thermocouples – but you haven’t allowed for any radiative heating. I would suspect that what the gas in the bottle is has little effect. Try repeating the experiment with a vacuum in the bottle. What happens then?

  689. Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 6:43 PM | Permalink

    Steven: #33: LOL!

    (btw, thanks for those links to Stan Ridgway a few days back. I’m now a fan. Unfortunately, you didn’t turn me on to him in time for me to buy tickets to the following, which was very close by:)

    http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/10/28/entertainment/music/11_07_0110_25_07.txt

  690. Larry
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

    33 What do you do when they start arguing with you? Maybe we need some ground rules, like if you’re going to discuss [t-word], you actually have to know something about [t-word], and if you don’t know the difference between watts and watt-hours, go pester Gavin.

  691. steve mosher
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

    RE 34. I thought Ridgeway went the way of the dodo after wall of voodoo, But S.Sadlov
    quickly corrected me. I think Sadlov and I were separated at birth.

    Glad you enjoyed him… and thanks for the laugh

  692. steve mosher
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

    RE 34. I thought Ridgeway went the way of the dodo after wall of voodoo, But S.Sadlov
    quickly corrected me. I think Sadlov and I were separated at birth.

    Glad you enjoyed him… and thanks for the laugh

  693. Susann
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 6:52 PM | Permalink

    Susann, do you regard Sourcewatch as a fair, balanced source ?

    I don’t — it’s a political site. The information may or may not be true — I’d have to do more research to decide. That doesn’t detract from my point that searching for E&E will turn up the Sourcewatch page that labels E&E in a certain way. People who don’t know much about the issues might be swayed by it. If your goal is to fight a battle, then put on a uniform so we can see your colors. If you aim at scientific validity, you have to take the uniform off and try to avoid advocacy for one side or the other.

  694. Susann
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 7:01 PM | Permalink

    There’s also no page for Climate Audit or Steve McIntyre or Michael Mann. :)

  695. jae
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 7:28 PM | Permalink

    Steve Mc: You should snip 690 by Larry. Cheap shot to which I can’t reply.

  696. Larry
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 7:33 PM | Permalink

    694, SM is there, and it’s not very flattering.

  697. bender
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 7:34 PM | Permalink

    Steve M wouldn’t need to snip if you didn’t make such egregious errors with such regularity. Anyway, what’s wrong with the idea of taking your thermodynamics over to RC?

  698. Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 7:40 PM | Permalink

    Bender: personal question: wustl?

  699. jae
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 7:46 PM | Permalink

    Steve Mc: snip bender, too, since I’m not allowed to defend myself here.

  700. jae
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 7:48 PM | Permalink

    Link

  701. jae
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 8:39 PM | Permalink

    This will surely be snipped, but what the heck. 1 watt = 1 joule/sec of POWER. But 1 watt-sec = (1 joule/sec)(1 sec) = 1 joule of ENERGY (ENERGY = POWER X TIME). (60 min)(60 sec/min) = 3600 seconds. 1 watt-hour = (3600 joules/hr)(hr) = 3600 joules of ENERGY. Watts and watt-hour are numerically equal. WHY is that so hard to understand?

  702. Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

    I have a problem just now and I had never the intention to report twisted data. Tropopheric T at 1000 m altitude is -38.2 °C (!), but surface temperature at 1.5 m above ground is 17.4 °C. The thermometer is giving a temperature appropriate for an altitude of 2150 m asl, but I wouldn’t have a valid explanation to this eccentricity at my coordinates, except, perhaps, for exhausted batteries or breakdown of the thermometer. It would be pseudoscientific from my part if I don’t look for simple technical errors more than complicated false explanations.

  703. pouncer
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 9:16 PM | Permalink

    701 for jae

    I said I get lost on the SECOND equation.

    A “man” and a “man-hour” aren’t numerically equal units.
    No matter how many convolutions I put in about men per week or weeks per hour or whatever. At the
    end of the day a man’s a man for all that.

    A joule is a unit of energy. A kilowatt-hour, as billed by my electrical provider, is a unit of
    energy. A joule per second is one watt of power. One watt sustained for one hour is 3600 watt-seconds.
    One watt-hour is 3600 joules. 3600 joules is not equal to one watt.

    Why would such confusion merit snippage?

  704. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 9:22 PM | Permalink

    Dogbert, See a Gust of Hot Air for analyses of Australian climate that show results consistent with your findings. Namely, solar insolation and increased outgoing radiation are the primary drivers of recent temperature trends. Scroll down for the analyses and then follow the weatheranalysis link.

  705. Peter D. Tillman
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 9:46 PM | Permalink

    If there are Wikipedians here, I could use a bit of support at

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy#Revision_of_Update_section

    I usually avoid these political hot-potatos, but did a cleanup and minor quote-addition to try to make the thing a bit more encyclopedic. Sigh.

    Thanks in advance, Pete T

  706. bender
    Posted Nov 25, 2007 at 10:43 PM | Permalink

    Re #705 The HS controversy is not over; how can it be historified? Again, my dislike of pretenses at authority. My advice: (1) Let the current-events documenters have their way for now. When the dust has settled, unconflicted historians will write the definitive story. (2) Be wary of getting dragged into the information wars. (3) Be prepared to fight, and lose, your own battles.

  707. Bob Meyer
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 12:38 AM | Permalink

    Re 693: Susann said “If you aim at scientific validity, you have to take the uniform off and try to avoid advocacy for one side or the other.”

    If you aim at scientific validity you have to do research that is scientifically valid. You can’t spend your time propitiating Sourcewatch or Nature or anyone else. From what I understand Nature wouldn’t give Steve the time of day. What should he have done? Begged? Pleaded? Changed his article by toning down his criticism?

    None of these things ever work. Steve recognized it and went a different route. The result is that E&E’s reputation got a shot in the arm because of the quality of M&M’s work. He’s not working to change the views of people who don’t understand the issues. He’s showing those who can understand where the statistical problems are with the present state of climatology. I get lost in the statistics, but I’m still along for the ride because I learn something new every time I read this blog.

    If reputation really counted then Samuel Langley would have flown before the Wright Bros. Seriously, how could a couple of bicycle mechanics funded by their bike shop hope to compete with an established inventor/physicist with government backing? The answer is that the Wrights knew what they were doing and Langley didn’t.

  708. Hans Erren
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 5:40 AM | Permalink

    re 706:
    wiki rule of thumb: if the talk page is larger than the article then the topic is controversial.
    In that case the talk page is more informative than the article.

  709. jae
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 6:06 AM | Permalink

    [Steve: no more discussion of energy measurement units- this is not worth bandwidth here]

  710. Andrey Levin
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 6:22 AM | Permalink

    Wansbeck:

    It is sad state of affair, but you will not find web site on the AGW subject not highly tainted by emotions.

    It is, actually, only natural: AGW proponents moved discussion of supposedly scientific matter to the realm of advocacy and politics, and AGW critics got extremely frustrated by this switch.

    You have to navigate yourself through subjective interpretations of scientific findings to form your own opinion.

    CA web site is the best, but another web site (however passionate is the host) bears huge library of scientific publications on the subject:

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/subject.jsp

    Good luck!

  711. jae
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 6:42 AM | Permalink

    685, 704: When everyone finally comes to their senses on this issue, I think they will realize that the “greenhouse effect” is nothing but the ability of the air mass to store some of the sun’s energy over night (plus energy provided by the heat stored in the oceans). 2 x C02 is still only 0.07 percent of that air mass, and the specific heat of CO2 is only about 86 percent of air, so it stores even less than 0.07 percent of the energy. More like (0.86)(.07) = .06 percent @ 2 x CO2. The molecules in the atmosphere “trade” radiation in the lower troposphere, but that radiation has nothing to do with heating. That’s why the sun has to control it all. I think I can demonstrate this very clearly and am working on it.

    Steve: Can you give this a rest for a while? Or at least until you can demonstrate it “clearly”. I’ve let this go on Unthreaded, but I’m getting tired of theories purporting to show that the greenhouse effect is impossible even on Unthreaded. I don’t believe that the scientists are wrong in a trivial way. These discussions are not ones that I’m involved with but are ones that often give an impression of the site to third parties.

  712. Susann
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 7:40 AM | Permalink

    None of these things ever work. Steve recognized it and went a different route. The result is that E&E’s reputation got a shot in the arm because of the quality of M&M’s work. He’s not working to change the views of people who don’t understand the issues. He’s showing those who can understand where the statistical problems are with the present state of climatology. I get lost in the statistics, but I’m still along for the ride because I learn something new every time I read this blog.

    People who have already decided what the “truth” is will only change their mind, or be open to it, if they perceive a site to be unbiased (or as unbbiased as possible). That’s why the justice system, for example, must not only be unbiased: it must “appear” to be unbiased. Appearance is as important as reality, for the appearance of bias undermines perception and public confidence.

    I only offer my views on how this blog appears to an outsider because I am aware of how appearance affects perceptions, independent of what is the reality. It is possible to change perceptions, and it is possible for people’s views to change if they are exposed to solid facts. Those facts may remain outide the pale if the source of those facts appears baised.

  713. kim
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 7:58 AM | Permalink

    I’ve considered and I suspect the occasional odor of moleness you exude is the result of an open mind revealing well set bias, in the process of examining that bias, even accidently. At first I thought you’d learned only the first lesson of the precautionary principle. Recently with the CO2 release stuff, again, a condition of mind was expressed.

    More power to you, S.
    ===============

  714. Susann
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 8:55 AM | Permalink

    If that was directed at me, #713, I asssure you that I am no mole for anyone but myself. :) I am not a member of RC or any other AGW group. As I have said before, I have a position on climate change. I am also quite aware of the politicization of this whole issue and want to understand that and what the science questions are more thoroughly so I can work through the policy issues. I truly hope that this will be my next “career” in policy as this is like crack to me. I realize that some people wouldn’t touch CA with a ten-foot-pole, but I want to give Steve Mc a fair shake, consider what he is doing seriously and come to my own conclusions. Whatever his background and motives, he seems genuinely interested in doing an audit and is trying hard to keep it at that level. From what he has found, I think it was justified. Whether that will do anything to change my position on climate change? Probably not other than to give me a better appreciation of the scientific uncertainties and the provisional basis of any claims made by both sides. It will help me understand the science better and that is key to writing good science policy.

  715. steve mosher
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 9:53 AM | Permalink

    Hey… stop assuming stuff about susanne that you have no direct
    observational aquaintence with. That is the kind of motive hunting
    nonsense we at CA should take NO PART in.

    Susann. St. Mac’s position is pretty dang clear.

    1. The statistics of Mann are wrong.
    2. We have no evidence that a MWP did not happen.
    3. Science should be Open.
    4. AGW may be true.

    1. Dr. Mann made mistakes. people should get over it, use the correct methods and move on
    2. MWP. St. Mac is AGNOSTIC. without proper studies this is scientifically sound.
    3. FREE THE DATA. FREE THE CODE. enjoy the benefit of an army of davids.
    4. Yup! AGW may be true.

    Climate agnostic.

  716. Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 10:06 AM | Permalink

    Susann: as you are on a quest for information on this subject, you might try the following, which is actually more opinion than science, but very entertaining nonetheless:

    http://parliamentofthings.info/climate.html

  717. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 10:14 AM | Permalink

    East of the Rockies a deep freeze, west of them, thus far, typical “dry” La Nina (meaning, the jet stream is stuck up north, drenching the Pac NW and missing the Pac SW). The remaining question – what if any effect will PDO have? For example, if we had another 1989 – 1990, then we may get lots of precip after New Year’s Day. Or, we may repeat the horrible two year drought of 1975 – 1977. Or, we may start getting drenched later this week, and literally have 40 days with measureable precip commencing Dec 1, like we did in 1984 – 85.

  718. bender
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 10:44 AM | Permalink

    #717 The outcome will depend on who is forcing who through what new teleconnection. Insofar as these circulatory modes are post-hoc inventions I have no confidence that their behavior is as stable (statistically stationary) as the climatologists seem to assume. If I’ve got this all wrong, could someone please point me to the definitive paper? e.g. Something “On the stability, stationarity and predictability of oceanic flow and atmospheric teleconnections”. i.e. The outcome is predictable with zero skill.

  719. Wansbeck
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 12:05 PM | Permalink

    Philip_B & Andrey Levin: Thanks for your responses, I know it won’t be easy.

    I appreciate the doubts over the models used. I frequently use modeling but unfortunately I then have to produce a device that works in the real world. The models that I use are based on known physical relationships or detailed empirical data and have over many years been tested against their real world equivalents and refined accordingly. They can still give unrealistic results and if you try hard enough they can give almost any result you want. It would be great if I could spend my time making magnificent models without having to prove that they work.

    One IPCC model that certainly needs attention is the peer model used in its review process.
    One thousand years ago English Law used the present IPCC model for its ‘Jury of Peers’.
    Peers were neigbours and workmates of the accused. This worked well when everyone had the same beliefs but following the Norman conquest and the divisions thrown up it became increasingly difficult to secure a conviction in cases where there was a sectarian element. Also, think of the difficulty of convicting a highwayman tried by a jury of his peers i.e. 12 highwaymen.
    Thus, probably around the end of the MWP, the IPCC peer model was abandoned to be replaced by models that look for a representative mix of the whole population.
    Today’s lawyers still know the value of the IPCC peer model for securing their case as it seems that many trials take longer to select a jury than to present the evidence. Each side is trying to get as many of their client’s peers on the jury as possible.
    (PS I am neither a lawyer nor an historian)

  720. Urbinto Heat Island
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 2:25 PM | Permalink

    I think Hans has it about wiki; if an article seems a little slanted to you, check out the talk page and archives…

    Okay, answers to the bonus questions!

    1. Do they celebrate the 4th of July in Great Britain? The answer is either “Maybe.” or “It depends on who ‘they’ are.”

    2. What movie had both David Carradine and Sylvestr Stallone in it? Death Race 2000.

    3. What weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers? Neither.

    4. How many neutrons does hydrogen have? If it’s the most common isotope, protium, zero. Others have up to 6.

    5. Two trains leave Chicago, one to Florida going 200 MPH and one to California at 1000 MPH, which one gets to the destination first? Neither, it was a speed test that lasted an hour. (Or make up your own answer!)

    A 60 watt light bulb uses 60 watts of power in an hour. How much heat and light does it give off? It depends on the bulb.

    No point in discussing things like this. RTFR:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt#Confusion_of_watts_and_watt-hours

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/watt

    http://www.reference.com/search?q=watt

  721. See - owe to Rich
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 4:17 PM | Permalink

    Hey, #720 Urbinto Heat Island. That’s the name I gave you a few Unthreadeds ago! Does this mean I am now having a visible impact on Climate Science :-)

    I’m chuffed.
    Rich.

  722. Sam "Heat Island" Urbinto
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 4:53 PM | Permalink

    Yeah, a visible impact!!! :) I just wanted to play around with that some for a few posts….

  723. Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 5:27 PM | Permalink

    It’s not my week. First I had a problem on Tamino and now the interesting thread on RC that I was contributing to has closed for comments.

    We were discussing les-chevaliers-de-lordre-de-la-terre-plat, particularly the calculation of cloud forcings. Barton Paul Levenson was kind enough to give me a simple explanation of the forcing as it relates to cloud coverage. It boils down to 1% of cloud cover = 1 watt/m^2 of forcing.

    I got to thinking about Palle’s study and, searching around, I found a NASA site about cloud amounts. Here’s what I wrote.

    “Re 216:
    http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal1.html is interesting. Looking at the cloud cover graph, the cloud amount rose up to 1987, then fell by 4% to 2001. That’s a lot of forcing. It then recovered slightly.

    quote For clouds, I assume mean cloud coverage of 61.7% (Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 figure). If the average albedo of the surface is 0.05, then clouds must have a mean albedo of 0.465 to reproduce the observed planetary albedo. If we then decrease cloud cover by 1%, RF changes by 0.96 W m-2. unquote

    So for 14 years we had up to an extra 4 watts/m^2. Comparing the graph with Hadcrut3 looks promising.”

    The lines rise and even fall in synch — ish. It’s a great shame that I couldn’t post this observation. Maybe a statistician could check it — it looks connected to me. It may even be detailed enough to find a true forcing to temperature ratio.

    Asking questions in climate science is really difficult. Still, it’s great fun.

    JF

  724. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 6:35 PM | Permalink

    Q: What is the repulsive force of two point charges at +1C a meter away from each other?
    A: ((1 coulomb)^2) / (4 * pi * electric constant * (1 (m^2))) = 8.98755179 × 109 newtons

    Q: What’s the total energy budget of the Earth?
    A: Like anybody knows.

  725. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 8:20 PM | Permalink

    723 Julian

    It boils down to 1% of cloud cover = 1 watt/m^2 of forcing.

    Is that negative forcing during daylight hours, positive forcing after dark, or positive forcing averaged over 24 hours — or something else?

  726. Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 10:11 PM | Permalink

    When I visited this site for the first time I took on board some wrong beliefs:

    First wrong assumption: This blog is anti-AGW. It’s not.
    Second wrong assumption: This blog is for discussing thermal science. Indeed, the topic is forbidden.
    Third wrong assumption: This blog is for expounding own hypotheses. No, it’s for examining statistics and algorithms.
    Fourth wrong assumption: This blog is for learning-teaching basics. Nope, it’s not a High School on-line.
    Fifth wrong assumption: Steve and John love debates. Demonstrated, they hate debates.
    Sixth wrong assumption: Climate Audit is biased. Actually, politics is banned here, also.

    After few months plotting a course on this site I’ve seen that it has considerably evolved through time. Now I’m not sure what’s right or what’s wrong for posting here.

    Sincerely,

    Beowulf, annihilator of monsters and hypnagogic states.

    Steve: Why would you say that I hate debates? I can’t engage with everyone and pick my spots. You’re also confounding 2 and 3. The reason why I clamp down on 2 is because it’s generally a front for 3. If people would stick to working through references that expound the thermal issues, I’d relax the restriction; I just don’t want the blog to get consumed by personal theories. There’s enough to do with the peer reviewed and IPCC cited literature.

  727. Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 10:49 PM | Permalink

    Steve,

    I understand your position about debates, and I accept it was a wrong deduction for which I apologize. I also could admit to be wrong, or confused, on 2 and 3. You’ve said many times that the blog is not entirely closed to thermal issues, though adhered to those comprehensible conditions. I know that we “gobble” thousands Mb with those endless discussions (i.e. Power vs. Energy). But at least, I was right on 1, 4 and 6. ;)

  728. Posted Nov 26, 2007 at 11:41 PM | Permalink

    Re 725:

    quote Is that negative forcing during daylight hours, positive forcing after dark, or positive forcing averaged over 24 hours — or something else? unquote

    [SHOUTS] Ve ask ze qvestions!

    Have a look at the RC thread around 216 on Les Chevaliers. As far as I understand these matters (which is not far), it’s just done on radiation with allowance made for day/night, curvature and albedo.

    I would have liked further development on the doubts about Palle’s work. And some understanding of this quote from a NASA site:

    “Over the 4-year span (2000 through 2004), the CERES instrument measured an albedo decrease of 0.0027, which equals 0.9 watt of energy per square meter retained in the Earth system. The CERES Team is currently unsure what caused this decline in albedo. The team says future research will focus on comparing CERES data to data from other space-based sensors to see if there are any significant changes in Earth’s climate system during that time that could account for the change in albedo.”

    CO2 forcing so far from industrialisation is about 2 watts isn’t it? (I’m not sure if that figure includes the water feedback which is assumed to be positive. (down, jae, down!)

    No-one said it was going to be easy, but I am reminded of JohnUK’s comment: ‘It’s getting warmer because it’s getting sunnier.’ On this we should spend trillions? Not yet, surely. More science, we need more science. First, let’s spend billions on the science.

    JF

  729. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 12:13 AM | Permalink

    Julian_Flood,

    It’s my idea, and it’s merely an assumption, that the decrease in albedo is due to more oceanic surface and tundra exposed by the retreat of the Arctic Circle ice shelf. Anyway, the change would be cyclical, not anthropogenic. (Huh! Did I write it right?) :(

  730. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 3:09 AM | Permalink

    RE 729

    My bet is clouds, but you knew that. Essenhigh has suggested that albedo will not change much when the Arctic clears of ice as stratocumulus clouds will take up the slack.

    Googling on ‘uea solas focus’ I find a set of experiments — no, not ‘set’, that’s too mean a word, let’s call it an empire — which could have been expressly designed to verify* the kriegesmarine hypothesis. They are even looking for new ways to harvest the microlayer. I find myself gibbering with delight as I read the list, the studies of DMS, salt and organic CCNs, blown-in nutrients, wave behaviour under surfactant pollution etc etc. If you’re reading this, guys, don’t forget the oil. And modification by pollution of the Weber number and the critical RH… Isotope behaviour of deep ocean sediments under the gyres when high Cr and Zn leachate volcanic dust hits the phytos above. And, and…

    When the numbers are in then they can look at the SSTs in the NH for ’39 – ’50 and the facts will drop like ripe plums.

    Anyone know how things are getting on?

    JF
    *Or perhaps not, but I’d rather not think about that.

  731. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 3:17 AM | Permalink

    Julian Flood and Paul Keating, decreasing cloud cover would be a positive forcing during daylight hours and a negative forcing during nighttime, probably netting out to around zero. However, because maximum and minimum temperatures both typically occur during daylight hours it would tend to increase both, resulting in a false warming signal from the average temperature (as the mean of daily minimum and maximum temps). This is essentially what Jonathan Lowe at a Gust of Hot Air discovered in his analysis of Australian temperature data.

  732. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 3:30 AM | Permalink

    And I’d add that decreasing cloud cover would result in warmer summers and cooler winters in temperate and high latitude locations (for the obvious reason there is more daylight in summer and more nighttime in winter). A couple of days ago, someone pointed out that the warming in the UK was all in summer and the winters were actually cooling. I’d say changing cloud cover explains a lot (and may also explain the changing albedo).

  733. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 5:24 AM | Permalink

    Houston, we have a problem…a big problem for Arctic air temperature measurement!
    Now, we have just 4-5 very high temperature measurement which make average to get up by 2.5-3°C of its value without these suspect “stations”: indeed, they show -11/-3°C values on frozen sea and surrounded by -33/-22°C measurements:

    http://forum.meteogiornale.it/attachment.php?attachmentid=45679&d=1196151191

    I mean: with those stations, average temp over Arctic Sea is -24.2°C; without them, -26.9°C, with an historical avergae of about -27°C (so, all the Arctic warming of last days is due just to a bunch of likely faked measurements).

    PS: how can I post pictures/graphs/maps here?

  734. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 10:39 AM | Permalink

    RE: #733 – Hey Anthony, how about heading up north … way up north? :)

  735. Abu Liam - Lurker
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 10:59 AM | Permalink

    Do I have the scale of this right??? Alarmists are telling us that a variation of 0.1% in TSI is too small to cause any appreciable change in climate but a increase of 100 PPM in atmospheric CO2 ( 0.01% of the atmosphere) threatens to trigger the melting of the icecaps.

  736. Pat Keating
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 11:20 AM | Permalink

    735 Abu
    Yes. Of course, they invoke (unproven) positive feedback to amplify the weak CO2 effect, but somehow won’t give insolation the same boost.

  737. MarkW
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 11:39 AM | Permalink

    Using very round numbers, the output of the sun (plus GHG’s) keep the earth at about 300K.
    Keeping all other things equal, a TSI increase of 0.1% would be enough to increase the temperature of the earth by 0.3K. That’s half the increase that we believe we have seen over the last 100 years. I would hardly call that inappreciable.

    And that’s without factoring in the influence of changes in cosmic rays. Or the increased ozone layer caused by increased UV radiation.

  738. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 11:48 AM | Permalink

    # 733

    Filippo Turturici,

    Publish your graphs, maps, tables, etc. in your blog or a webpage. Then copy the URL of the graph, map, etc. Come here and click on the Img button. When you’re asked for the URL of your graph, etc. past in on the line.

  739. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

    >> Keeping all other things equal, a TSI increase of 0.1% would be enough to increase the temperature of the earth by 0.3K.

    That’s right, except that the normal variation of TSI seems to be more like .29%. Here is a quick napkin calculation of solar temp sensitivity.

    Summer SI – Winter SI = ~200 W/m2
    Summer Temp – Winter Temp = 33 – 7 = 26
    dT per dSI = 26 / 200 = .13 dT/d(W/m2)
    @ dSI = 4 W/m2, dT = .52

    There is no doubt that the change in TSI is reponsible for the change in summer/winter temperature. Therefore, a 4 W/m2 change must result in a delta T of .52 deg C. And this is what the data shows. Hence, solar activity explains just about all the variation we’ve seen.

    PS, Tom V, your ad-hominem says more about you than me.

  740. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 12:41 PM | Permalink

    # 735

    Abu Liam – Lurker,

    Things appear to be more an exaggeration (alarmism?) than an error if we consider the problem in terms of density and partial pressure:

    [CO2] current = 381 ppmV = 0.000619 Kg/m^2
    [CO2] in = 100 ppmV = 0.000016 Kg/m^2

    [CO2] current + [CO2] in = 0.000619 Kg/m^3 + 0.000016 Kg/m^3 = 0.000635 Kg/m^3

    Pp of [CO2] current = 0.0004 atm-m
    Pp of [CO2] ipcc st = 0.00032 atm-m

    Of course, there is an effect, but it is negligible.

  741. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 12:42 PM | Permalink

    [trying]

  742. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM | Permalink

    Very well, Phillipo!

    # 739

    Gunnar,

    Indeed, the solar irradiance has increased by 3.7 Wm^-2; with a sensitivity of 0.141 °C per Wm^-2, delta T = 0.62 °C (non linearity)[Moaz. 2007]. If it was linear the sensitivity would be 0.175 °C/Wm^-2

  743. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 1:09 PM | Permalink

    As I quoted here amoung other things; http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2451#comment-167587

    The poorly constrained aerosol effects results from both limited physical understanding of how aerosols interact with the atmosphere and limited knowledge of aerosol concentrations during the pre-industrial period. This is a significant source of uncertainty in comparing modern climate forcings to past states.

    Ignoring all of the many natural variability, the things people do that have an affect on the system are many. The contaminents in the air and on the ground. GHG like CO2 and CH4 and O3 and N2O. The cleared or burnt forests. Cities. Farmland. Roads. Airports.

    The sun powers it all.

    Here’s a fun example of sorts. I saw a movie about a lake in Brainerd, MINN. They went to make a documentary about an “unexplainable” hole (2000×400 feet in ice a few inches deep) in one lake that opened up, the only such lake that did it. While they were making the documentary, it closed.

    Only a flash of insight by the frustrated filmaker led him to scape the snow off the lake and after a few days (?) it melted again. It turns out when snow wasn’t covering the section, sunlight going into the ice heated the water, and the ice kept the heat in. The lake was shallow enough where the water got warm enough to melt the ice.

  744. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 1:22 PM | Permalink

    RE 731

    I’ll think about it. I think you are assuming that low level cloud is as efficient a blanket as it is a mirror. As the outgoing radiation is long wave, and the incoming is at a much higher power and is short wave, I’m not sure that’s a safe assumption.

    JF

  745. jae
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

    731:

    Julian Flood and Paul Keating, decreasing cloud cover would be a positive forcing during daylight hours and a negative forcing during nighttime, probably netting out to around zero.

    I don’t think it nets to zero. The hottest places on Earth (average temperatures, as well as higest maximums) are the deserts, which are the most cloudless places.

  746. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 1:41 PM | Permalink

    RE: #745 – You have identified flaw #1 in “killer AGW think.” In “killer AGW think” the “average cloud” is cirrostratus. That is totally incorrect. The average cloud is not cirrostratus, but a hybrid of straocumulus and cumulus congestus. What does that do to the “venerable” GCMs and AGW scenarios?

  747. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

    jae, I just checked a few locations in Western Australia where cloud cover and precipitation decline from west to east (and into a real desert). There’s not much of an effect on annual averages. Annual average max temps increase one or two degrees and annual average minimum temps decrease by one degree or so as you go east. I’d say decreasing cloud cover results in an increasing diurnal range more than it results in warming. I.e. increased daytime warming and increased nighttime cooling as a result of decreased cloud cover do seem approximately the same.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/

  748. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 3:49 PM | Permalink

    # 747

    Steve Sadlov,

    Are you talking about cumulus mediocris or mammatus?

  749. jae
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 3:52 PM | Permalink

    Will 2007 be the warmest year in a milllennnium??

  750. Anthony Watts
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 4:12 PM | Permalink

    Pielke is blogging again!

    see the details: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/good-news-pielke-is-blogging-again/

  751. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

    2007 warmest? Doubt it. But you never know with these things. Maybe the thermometers will start measuring better.

    Pielke Sr. No comments allowed though.

    Interesting, his first info article is on shrubs, soot, ice and air:

    http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/11/27/arctic-tundra-shrub-invasion-and-soot-deposition-consequences-for-spring-snowmelt-and-near-surface-air-temperatures/

  752. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 4:34 PM | Permalink

    # 750

    Jae,

    From the link:

    (…) and given the very cold weather in the cards for at least the first half of December (despite the warm NOAA December forecast) (…)

    Perhaps the author meant the first half of November?

  753. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 4:40 PM | Permalink

    # 751

    Anthony Watts,

    First Pielke’s article is an “adjusted” copy from a 2005 article.

  754. Anthony Watts
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 4:44 PM | Permalink

    re 754

    Yes, but….please look at post just below that one where he announces starting up again.

  755. jae
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 4:49 PM | Permalink

    748, Phillip: You have to compare locations with similar elevations at the same latitudes. Did you do that?

  756. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 5:35 PM | Permalink

    #756, Yes. Latitudes are almost identical and elevation differences would be a 100 meters at most. I also avoided places right on the coast. The data is all there at the link, including annual number of clear and cloudy days. If you pick the expanded dataset, it even includes no. of days when min temp below zero.

    If you think deserts are hotter, plug the numbers into a spreadsheet and prove your point (or not as the case may be). BTW, the biggest effect is on summer highs and winter lows for the reason I explained above, more daytime in summer and more nighttime in winter. So more warming in summer and more cooling in winter as cloudiness decreases.

  757. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 5:41 PM | Permalink

    RE: #757 – No offense, but the equivalent of what you guys are comparing right now would be like comparing New Cuyama and Mojave, or, Hemet and Palm Springs. WA is almost all arid, as compared with the whole world. Australia is a tough nut to crack in terms of such comparisons. You might be able to compare, say, somewhere up further north with either the NW or NE coastal strip. But the truth is, Australia essentially lacks large areas that are anything like Huntsville, Ala or Baton Rouge, La.

  758. jae
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 6:06 PM | Permalink

    756: Here are some spreadsheets for the USA. If I get time, I’ll work on the Down Under.

  759. Dogbert
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

    Re #704 Philip_B

    Having looked at HADCET January mimimum temperatures and seeing no warming trend (1900-2000) I followed the link to A Gust of Hot Air (http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com) which looks at similar hypothesis – insolation effects could be a factor. Unfortunately HADCET doesn’t have sunshine records. However, Armagh Observatory does – they go back to 1929.

    A bit of playing around with Armagh July mean maximum and recorded hours of sunshine shows a good eyeball correlation year to year. Not only that, insolation has been on an upward trend which looks like some 2 hours/month/decade for July. A quick and rough calculation shows that to be an increase equivalent to 2-3 W/m2 for the month of July over the period (1929-2006).

    A quick look at my local weather station (EGHH) showed similar trending since 1957 when its sunshine records began but I haven’t got as far as checking the trends for coherence with Armagh.

    Are there any published studies on insolation trends and possible links to observed surface temperatures – I’ve looked but can only find Polar radiometer work published through NASA? However, there may be a wealth of data out there with the surface station records that is awaiting a better analysis than I can perform.

  760. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 6:30 PM | Permalink

    >> I’d say decreasing cloud cover results in an increasing diurnal range more than it results in warming… So more warming in summer and more cooling in winter as cloudiness decreases

    Even if you’re right (both of your positions seem reasonable), then it still supports the anti-AGW case:

    if decreasing GHG-water vapor, increases range, but does not change average

    then increasing GHG-c02, decreases range, but does not change average

  761. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 6:33 PM | Permalink

    #758 There is of course a lot of desert here in WA, but rainfall near the coast is quite high for the southwest of the state. Perth for example gets substantially more rain than London, England. And most of the east coast of Australia and the north is hot and humid in the summer. The problem with comparing locations in the north is that there is a summer monsoon that penetrates quite a long way inland. So the impact of decreasing cloudiness on temperatures will be clearest west to east across southwest WA.

    Otherwise you are right. My comparisons are similar to coastal versus inland California, but without the complications of mountains and coastal fog. And if WA is atypical then show me where decreasing cloudiness leads to higher average temperatures.

  762. Mark T.
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 7:05 PM | Permalink

    OT, but bender, you should know that the new straight-to-DVD Futurama movie was released today. :)

    Mark

  763. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 7:10 PM | Permalink

    jae, your spreadsheet shows july temps. Try january and annual average as well.

    Gunnar, Dogbert, I think cloudiness/solar insolation changes explain a lot of what we have seen in the temperature trend. What needs to be done is what Jonathan Lowe has been doing, drill into the details of temperature records, cloudiness, humidity, etc to see what they tell us about temperature trends. Unfortunately, there seems to be an aversion to this kind of analysis in case it undermines the AGW hypothesis.

  764. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 7:23 PM | Permalink

    #764, Philip_B, I agree 100%.

  765. jae
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 7:30 PM | Permalink

    764: December is there as well. Some of the curves include both December and July as a continuum. Of course there is really no “dryness” in December at all but the extreme deserts (i.e, there is enough moisture for the absolute humidity to “match” the temperature), so you cannot study this variable in December.

  766. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 7:34 PM | Permalink

    # 755

    Anthony Watts,

    I hadn’t read it well… That’s really good news, indeed.

  767. jae
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 7:34 PM | Permalink

    762: Again, see my link. You can use the solar insolation data as an inverse measure of cloudiness. The higher the insolation, the higher the temperatures, at a given latitude and elevation.

  768. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 9:28 PM | Permalink

    # 768

    Jae,

    Mine is a criticism on your link… Yeah, it is. Why you have everything there entangled? Could you do something like this?

    You can clearly see there an inverse sensitivity of WV with respect to asphalt, for example. But one cannot generalize; one has to take into account the conditions at the site where the measurements were made, soil classes, cloudiness, prevalent winds, etc.

    BTW, those data were obtained at 530 masl.

  769. jae
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 9:48 PM | Permalink

    769: ??? I have spent a lot of time analyzing 30-year average temperature and humidity data from 156 different locations, all the way from Barrow, AK to Guam. The relationships I show are not likely to be significantly flawed by UHI, asphalt, etc. They are also not likely due to spurious relationships, since they are just too darn good and they make physical sense. Exactly what they mean is still open to question, I understand. One thing that is fairly certain in my mind at this time is that the presence of moisture causes a net NEGATIVE feedback to radiative forcing, contrary to “The Hypothesis.”

  770. jae
    Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 9:59 PM | Permalink

    Nasif, by the way, I fully agree with your paper on heat storage, and I am working to prove it empirically.

  771. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 10:31 PM | Permalink

    # 770

    Jae,

    I would like to see in your article a graph like the graph I’ve sent to you so the public who does not know deeply the subject immediately sees the situation that you present there. If you observe the graph that I included in my post you will immediately recognize that, generally speaking, when the temperature of the surface goes up, the environmental relative humidity goes down and vice versa. There are some points where the inverse relation is not fulfilled; however, in the whole it is quite visible. I’m not arguing if your hypothesis is wrong or correct. I would only like to see a set of graphs where the effects are visible.

  772. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 10:46 PM | Permalink

    # 772

    Jae,

    Have you paid attention on the graph I’ve posted that the air temperature follows the temperature of the surface and that the inverse relation is given also with respect to RH? When I said that one cannot generalize I was referring to my conclusion derived from my graph, not from your work. ;)

  773. hswiseman
    Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 1:45 AM | Permalink

    Cry, Cry,Cryosphere Baby…..The Beaufort Sea is really, truly 100% iced over. Which means that it has a 20 percent negative anomoly, according to their nifty graphs and graphics. Does anyone at U of Ill. even look at the satellites? This kind of litter makes me feel like the 70’s TV Native Chief with the tear rolling down his cheek.

  774. Spence_UK
    Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 6:09 AM | Permalink

    Not climate science related, but for those who have an interest in fr@ud and error in science, you might be interested in this (fairly long) read:

    “Emil Rupp, Albert Einstein and the Canal Ray Experiments on Wave-Particle Duality: Scientific Fr@ud and Theoretical Bias”, Jeroen van Dongen, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 37 Suppl. (2007), 73-120. Preprint available here.

    Interesting extract (my emphasis):

    [...] Einstein could of course have grown suspicious about the slipshod way in which Rupp appeared to arrive at his results. Instead, Einstein was convinced, certainly by May 1926, that his theoretical analysis had to be correct, and expected Rupp only to find results that were in complete agreement with his analysis: he therefore pressed him long enough until he got the results that he expected. Once Einstein believed that Rupp had found such confirmation, he apparently felt no further need to scrutinize the latter’s work—or, for that matter, to attend to the Atkinson publication. This does suggest a strong theoretical prejudice on Einstein’s part. This theoretical prejudice calls to mind the experimentalist who stops searching for systematic error in his arrangement once he gets the results that he expects on the grounds of theory or prior experimentation.

    If only Einstein had a CanalRayAudit.org blog to call on when he needed it.

    Hat tip to my mentor for pointing this article out to me.

  775. David Archibald
    Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 7:57 AM | Permalink

    A couple of months ago, there was a reference to a Finnish tree ring study, that, apart from showing a good MWP, projected out 20 years based on their spectral analysis. Try as I might, I can’t find it. Can anyone provide a reference to it?

  776. Mhaze
    Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 8:17 AM | Permalink

    Website / WordPress issue.

    I’ve found with both Firefox and IE that a link goes to the thread title, not the post. The post is “unfindable”, unless it is encoded in the link. Example:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2378#comment-167983

    How does one get to comment 167983 or otherwise locate it?

    Thanks.

  777. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 8:52 AM | Permalink

    David Archibald says:
    November 28th, 2007 at 7:57 am

    A couple of months ago, there was a reference to a Finnish tree ring study, that, apart from showing a good MWP, projected out 20 years based on their spectral analysis. Try as I might, I can’t find it. Can anyone provide a reference to it?

    Anything here look familiar?

  778. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 1:12 PM | Permalink

    # 778

    Jan,

    Yes, Fig. 5a is almost identical to Manniac Hockey Sticks.

  779. bender
    Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 2:35 PM | Permalink

    Fig. 5a is almost identical to Manniac Hockey Sticks

    No!
    1. The reconstructed temps in 5a peak in the 1930s, not 1990s.
    2. The proxy diverges from the latter part of the instrumental record, just like in other recons.
    3. The CWP is not nearly as warm as the Holocene climatic optimum.

    Also note:
    4. Fig 5b x-direction (dating) confidence intervals – what Loehle should have done.
    5. Note how the “forecast” in Fig 7 has no pseudoconfidence intervals. Is this “pseudoscience”?
    6. This is based on Scots pine, which may be drought-limited, and behave as bcp.
    7. This is all SUMMER temp recon. Summer vs annual temps are correlated by much less than 0.5.

    Lots of uncertainty around MWP magnitude.

  780. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 3:11 PM | Permalink

    A couple of months ago, there was a reference to a Finnish tree ring study, that, apart from showing a good MWP, projected out 20 years based on their spectral analysis. Try as I might, I can’t find it. Can anyone provide a reference to it?

    ref in 778, discussion in
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2304 , #32-37

    maybe something related in

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=675

  781. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 3:16 PM | Permalink

    # 780

    Bender,

    No!
    1. The reconstructed temps in 5a peak in the 1930s, not 1990s.

    Yes… How is it that I dismissed the marks? The peak is between 1925 and 1950 AD. You’re right.

    3. The CWP is not nearly as warm as the Holocene climatic optimum.

    But CWP is presented as warmer than the MWP.

    5. Note how the “forecast” in Fig 7 has no pseudoconfidence intervals. Is this “pseudoscience”?

    Have you noticed another LIA on the tentative forecast by 2040-2060 AD (Fig 7)?

  782. cbone
    Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 3:52 PM | Permalink

    This is classic:

    [Response: RC is a volunteer effort. No one gets paid for anything. Our annual expense are $30 for the domain name registration. - gavin]

    So RC runs on $30 a year??? Steve, are you lying to us about your operating costs??? Hitting us up for tips to offset the massive $30/year that it costs to host a blog like this.. /sarcasm

  783. cbone
    Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

    sorry here is the source of gavin’s comment

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/a-phenomenological-sequel/#comment-71643

  784. SteveSadlov
    Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 5:00 PM | Permalink

    RE: #783 – Pointing out the NRDC / hedge fund connections of RC is a real taboo over there. Someone should do an expose and publish it with abandon.

  785. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 6:11 PM | Permalink

    Yeah, but don’t put the expose’ here, this place being funded by big oil and all. And of course simply being a mouthpiece for E&E and everything.

    Puh-leaze.

  786. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 6:53 PM | Permalink

    # 783

    cbone,

    It’s not the hosting price, but the domain name registration. Biocab pays 17 US dlls per year to Register.com, and 580 US dlls per year for hosting the website to an American company(we need donors… Homestead will be part of Intuit.com. Hahaha).

  787. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 6:56 PM | Permalink

    # 783

    cbone,

    Biocab pays around 2500 US dlls per years for copyrights.

  788. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 6:59 PM | Permalink

    GoDaddy is less than $3.50 a month for hosting if you get it a couple years at a time.

  789. Francois Ouellette
    Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 7:07 PM | Permalink

    Steve,

    While browsing PloS-One, I found that one which I’m sure you’ll be interested in :

    Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial
    By Eric Cobo et al.
    (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000332)

    Abstract

    Background
    Although peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both.

    Methodology and Principal Findings

    Interventions were defined as 1) the addition of a statistical reviewer to the clinical peer review process, and 2) suggesting reporting guidelines to reviewers; with “no statistical expert” and “no checklist” as controls. The two interventions were crossed in a 2×2 balanced factorial design including original research articles consecutively selected, between May 2004 and March 2005, by the Medicina Clinica (Barc) editorial committee. We randomized manuscripts to minimize differences in terms of baseline quality and type of study (intervention, longitudinal, cross-sectional, others). Sample-size calculations indicated that 100 papers provide an 80% power to test a 55% standardized difference. We specified the main outcome as the increment in quality of papers as measured on the Goodman Scale. Two blinded evaluators rated the quality of manuscripts at initial submission and final post peer review version. Of the 327 manuscripts submitted to the journal, 131 were accepted for further review, and 129 were randomized. Of those, 14 that were lost to follow-up showed no differences in initial quality to the followed-up papers. Hence, 115 were included in the main analysis, with 16 rejected for publication after peer review. 21 (18.3%) of the 115 included papers were interventions, 46 (40.0%) were longitudinal designs, 28 (24.3%) cross-sectional and 20 (17.4%) others. The 16 (13.9%) rejected papers had a significantly lower initial score on the overall Goodman scale than accepted papers (difference 15.0, 95% CI: 4.6–24.4). The effect of suggesting a guideline to the reviewers had no effect on change in overall quality as measured by the Goodman scale (0.9, 95% CI: −0.3–+2.1). The estimated effect of adding a statistical reviewer was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.3–6.7), showing a significant improvement in quality.

    Conclusions and Significance

    This prospective randomized study shows the positive effect of adding a statistical reviewer to the field-expert peers in improving manuscript quality. We did not find a statistically significant positive effect by suggesting reviewers use reporting guidelines.

    What if they repeated the study with climate science papers?

  790. Larry
    Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 7:13 PM | Permalink

    Don’t get much bandwidth for $3.50/mo.

    Speaking of bandwidth, need UT #26. Browser dying.

  791. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 7:58 PM | Permalink

    # 789

    GoDaddy is a host also? I think Larry is right about bandwidth.

  792. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 8:03 PM | Permalink

    Biocab is allowed for 27 Gb in bandwidth, but it was short the last week because one of our articles was quoted in an article for the senate in September. Now our host will be part of Intuit.com and we are afraid on prices.

  793. Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 4:33 PM | Permalink

    #22 welikerocks:
    This is off-topic, so I won’t

    A lag is expected and required for a feedback term. There’s no mystery. Basically the sun (or something else, but probably the sun due to orbital cycles) causes the temperature to begin increasing. The increasing temperature causes CO2 to be released from the oceans, since the solubility drops as the temperature rises. The CO2 amplifies the solar warming.

    Conversely, the other side of the solar cycle causes the temperature to begin dropping. This causes CO2 levels to drop, and the temperature goes back to where it was.

    Many people have been over this many times (I’ve posted graphs here from basic simulations done in Excel). Many others refuse to accept a basic tenet of feedback mechanisms — that they must lag.

  794. Larry
    Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 4:42 PM | Permalink

    30, the lag can be anywhere from seconds to centuries. As a practical matter, what you said doesn’t mean anything.

  795. Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 5:04 PM | Permalink

    #30 Larry:
    Unless I misunderstood, welikerocks was proud that her husband points people to the CO2 lag article because she and her husband misunderstand feedback.

  796. MarkW
    Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 5:12 PM | Permalink

    JohnV,

    The only problem with your scenario is the claim that the CO2 amplifies solar warming. There is no evidence to support such a conclusion.

  797. Pat Keating
    Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 5:16 PM | Permalink

    33 John V
    Not that hairy old crust of bread again!
    Your feedbacks don’t explain how it’s only after 800 years (32 generations of humans) of planetary warm-up that CO2 decides it’s time to rise.

  798. braddles
    Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 5:52 PM | Permalink

    #16. Couldn’t help bringing up the quote from Nineteen Eighty-Four

    “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”

  799. yorick
    Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 7:04 PM | Permalink

    since the solubility drops as the temperature rises. The CO2 amplifies the solar warming.

    Fine except that the rise in CO2 following the temp rise was used as evidence that the CO2 caused the rise. The argument that you are making goes more under the heading of a rationalization for Gore’s clumsy deciet. The whole issue is seen in the light of Gore’s claim. RealClimate was in full spin mode on that one, as are you.

  800. jeez
    Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 7:05 PM | Permalink

    RE: 43 and 44.

    Worldwide glacier retreat — begun long before increase in CO2

    TOA radiative imbalance — yes, but caused by what CO2? water vapor? cloud formation? land use?

    satellite, ground, and radiosonde data — ground data becoming more and more dubious. satellite and radiosonde show much less and do not agree with model predictions of tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures.

    sea level rise — begun long before C02 rise, minimal and no significant change in rate.

    increased ocean heat content — short term measurement, data constantly being adjusted, no real trends so to speak.

    radiative physics — exists, but doesn’t make the models accurate nor do they really take into account heat transport to upper atmosphere via convection to radiate out into space and the potential negative feedbacks of increased water vapor.

    A big difference in tone between studies that show a MWP and those that don’t is that for hundreds of years studies were all in agreement about MWP existing until it became politically inconvenient on or about 1998, and now bias, perhaps unconscious, has attempted to rewrite history often using dubious statistical methods.

  801. Chris
    Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 7:33 PM | Permalink

    47

    Correlation is not that convincing on its own…it only helps the idea that CO2 causes warming which is now beyond doubt, and is not dependent on what happened in the past, it is only supported by what happened in the past. The ice core “lag” disproves absolutely nothing. chicken and the egg.

  802. Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

    Re CO2 Lagging Temperature:
    My extremely simple little model was not intended to demonstrate every detail of the ice age cycles. Its purpose is to refute those who believe that CO2 lagging temperature somehow disproves anything.

    As to whether CO2 causes temperatures to increase, I have been assured that only a very small minority of people here doubt that. The only question if how much warming it causes.

  803. yorick
    Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 7:49 PM | Permalink

    John V,
    I would also like to say that I don’t doubt that CO2 causes warming. You may have noticed that the arguments here are almost entirely about the magnitude of such a warming, which, until the models do a better job of predictin anything at all except for the problematic surface tems, to which they are tuned, remains an open question.

  804. Boris
    Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 8:18 PM | Permalink

    The laggers are out in full force. Tamino points out that Hansen predicted the lag before it was found.

    Also, I’m pretty sure that Wikipedia’s definition of plagiarism is plagiarized from somewhere.

One Trackback

  1. [...] “How to teach yourself R lesson” involves calculating annual average temperatures from a string of daily [...]