Continued

1. Steve McIntyre
Posted Apr 7, 2008 at 3:49 PM | Permalink

The server has gotten balky. Hope this helps.

2. jae
Posted Apr 7, 2008 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

Tidbit: Was reading a book on trees today, while the dentist was torturing me. It said that Ginko Biloba has been around for about 245 million years. So it must be tolerant to a very wide range of CO2 levels. In fact, trees have been on Earth for only about 300 million years, so Ginko must be tolerant of about everything!

3. Posted Apr 7, 2008 at 5:28 PM | Permalink

A press release issued by climateprediction.net in 2005, which resulted in sensational headlines warning of an 11C temperature increase, is under the microscope again at RC. Interesting, and very surprising, contributions from Gavin, Myles Allen of climateprediction.net(and IPCC Review Editor), and the producer of ‘Overselling Climate Change’, a BBC program which criticised the press release. Even Gavin seems to find Myles Allen’s defense of the press release unconvincing.

Blogs and peer-review

4. jae
Posted Apr 7, 2008 at 5:57 PM | Permalink

Sorry, but I can’t get past the first paragraph:

). My piece tries to make the point that most of what scientists know is “tacit” (i.e. not explicitly or often written down in the technical literature) and it is that knowledge that allows them to quickly distinguish (with reasonable accuracy) what new papers are worth looking at in detail and which are not. This context is what provides RC (and other science sites) with the confidence to comment both on new scientific papers and on the media coverage they receive.

This “tacit” knowledge is often just a form of bias, IMHO.

5. Pat Keating
Posted Apr 7, 2008 at 6:02 PM | Permalink

It’s not a chicken-and-egg situation, at all.

The high-resolution ice-core data clearly shows that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise. Surely a time lag 800 years (32 generations of humans) is long enough to settle that issue.

6. Gary
Posted Apr 7, 2008 at 8:01 PM | Permalink
7. Ron
Posted Apr 7, 2008 at 11:22 PM | Permalink

Jae, re(#4) your difficulties with Gavin’s first paragraph.
The question then becomes, how do they know this “tacit” knowledge?

If this knowledge is not acquired from the body of public published material then there are only two other sources, 1-personal private conversations with others, or 2-personal private conversations with oneself. Both ways have the serious practical problem of being able to test the truth of what one thinks one knows, but the 2nd one risks the danger of the insanity of ending up knowing everything, or doubting everything.

1-If the tacit knowledge is acquired with personal conversations with a few others then experience tells us (or least it tells me) that one’s confidence in one’s knowledge is continuously reinforced by others of similar mind. Usually any serious challenge to the status quo of one’s knowledge results in the exclusion of the challenger from the network of reinforces, and quickly becomes what most objective outsiders would regard as a bias, if not an outright prejudice. “Circling-the-wagons”, rather than seeking truth, becomes the chief purpose for intellectual labour. Then we get statements like the following (taken from Tamino’s post #4 in this RC thread)
“We’re in a “propaganda war” in which one of the strategies used by the forces of ignorance and greed to sabotage action, is to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. We’re not just scientists (climate or otherwise), we’re also human beings with a moral obligation to leave the next generation a world worth inheriting. The blogosphere has been a primary target of the disinformation campaign; it’s the “trenches” of the propoganda war. We have to fight the enemy on this crucial battleground.” This is science?

2- If the personal private conversations become our only source of this tacit knowledge then we can all come up with a favourite illustration of the sad ending for this Cartesian trap of being a mind with no connection to the body (the connecting tool between the person and the rest of the world). I’m reminded of the “The Strange Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst” – by Nicholas Tomalin & Ron Hall.
(Below is my condensation of a review by Jim Loy)
“Donald Crowhurst was involved in a round-the-world, non-stop, solo sailing race. He at first sailed at a disappointingly slow speed then reported amazingly fast days. Radio communications halted as he approached the Cape of Good Hope, then resumed as he re-entered the South Atlantic, leading the race, and seemed assured of the trophy and the cash prize of 5000 pounds. Then, on July 10, 1969, his boat was found drifting in the Atlantic, with no one on board.
This book is the sad detective story of this voyage. Donald Crowhurst never left the Atlantic Ocean, he did not sail around the world. He left massive documentation which showed that he had cheated. Presumably, rather than complete his fraudulent voyage, he stepped into the ocean, and left the evidence for people to examine.”
Please excuse my longish post here, but this book (about a guy building a model with all the inputs needed to report he was someplace where he really wasn’t) is such a great read I feel conscience bound to mention it.
Ron

8. Posted Apr 7, 2008 at 11:31 PM | Permalink

Leif Svalgaard, a well respected solar physicist, perpetuates the notion that a drop in CO2 concentration, some tens of millions of years ago, started the current ice age.
I kindly invite him to set aside just for a moment carbon dioxide and consider the displacement at that time of Antarctica to where it is now, right at the South Pole.
Circa ten milion square kilometers of relatively warm ocean were replaced by a high albedo, as cold as -30 °C white surface.
Don’t you think that is enough to put the climate system of that time into crisis and set the stage for the cold phase of the last million years?

9. OzThommo
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 12:25 AM | Permalink

Following up on the comments re wombats in Unthreaded 32, Antipodean humour has in the past referred to certain individuals as wombats: “eats, roots and leaves”.

10. Dr Slop
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 1:16 AM | Permalink

Ron #7. There is a third possibility, namely that the knowledge is in some sense genetically given, but I’d agree this is unlikely. What the discussion goes to show is that, just as realclimatescientists tacitly know that anyone who is not a realclimatescientist is a rank amateur (and quite possibly Canadian to boot) and is therefore to be attacked with all ferocity (if Canadian) or otherwise condescended to in the manner exquisitely developed by Eli Rabbett, so realepistemologists and realcognitivescientists will correctly characterize Gavin’s amateur theorizing as, technically, pants (to borrow John Fleck’s beautiful phrase ). Note: condescended to, and not attacked, because Gavin is not Canadian, as far as I know. Is this helping to clarify his ideas?

11. Gerry Morrow
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 1:25 AM | Permalink

“Tacit knowledge” = religious belief

12. Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 5:55 AM | Permalink

8 (Paolo): Having Antarctica near the South Pole will certainly have climatic effect. Trouble is that it has been there for about 100 million years. Here is what it looked like 30 mya:

13. dover_beach
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 7:01 AM | Permalink

Before some of you go on talking about ‘tacit’ knowledge you might like to consult the work of people like Michael Polanyi on personal knowledge or Gilbert Ryle on the distincition between knowing that and knowing how or Michael Oakeshott on the difference between practical and technical knowledge. There is nothing magical or religious or peculiar about the idea of ‘tacit’ knowledge. Nonetheless, I’m not sure that Gavin’s use of this notion is at all illuminating or appropriate in this circumstance. I distinctly get the feeling that he’s groping somewhat blindly.

14. EW
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 8:28 AM | Permalink

16 (Paolo) Yes, the key moment was an isolated Antarctica. Until that happened, there was an exchange of plant and animal species between South America and Australia via Antarctica. After separation of S-Am, all wandering ceased.

15. Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 8:48 AM | Permalink

Leif, to let an ice age start you a need a simple factor: a land mass to let snow pile up on (please don’t go to the snow ball Earth)
And to put the ingredients all together, you can guess, require a certain amount of time, not just one year: Antartica and the northern land masses in the right places and the zonal ocean circulation cut off.
So, please, don’t say that this is an idea of mine.
I’m really surprised that you not consider albedo.

16. beng
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 9:01 AM | Permalink

RE 5:

Leif, CO2 doesn’t lead, it also lags temps at the end of interglacials by 1000+ yrs according to the ice cores.

A paper I read yrs ago presented some evidence that the rise of Central America roughly 2 mya to isolate the Atlantic didn’t have any appreciable effect on the slow, “background” global cooling. The cooling rate really plummited ~1 mya — a million yrs after the Atlantic “closing”.

17. Tony Edwards
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 11:23 AM | Permalink

OzThommo says:
April 8th, 2008 at 12:25 am

There is a funny little book about, of all things, punctuation, by Lynne Truss called “Eats, shoots and leaves”. She explains that title of the book relates to a panda who entered a diner, drew a gun and shot the cook, then left. Asked why he did that, he produced a badly produced book about animals and pointed to the entry on pandas. “Large mammal who eats, shoots and leaves.”

18. DocMartyn
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 12:31 PM | Permalink

I wonder if anyone had come across this:-

Dendrochronologia
Volume 21, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 41-45
Stradivari, violins, tree rings, and the Maunder Minimum: a hypothesis

L. Burckle and H.D. Grissino-Mayer

Summary
Instruments produced by the master violinmakers of the late 17th and early 18th centuries are reputed to have superior tonal qualities relative to more contemporary instruments. Many hypotheses have been proffered to explain this difference in sound quality, but all hypotheses were found wanting. We propose an alternative hypothesis based on the unique climate situation that existed between AD 1645–1715 known as the Maunder Minimum. This period of reduced solar activity was noted also for its lowered temperatures, which therefore caused reductions in tree growth rates. We hypothesize that the longer winters and cooler summers produced wood that had slower, more even growth, desirable properties for producing higher-quality sounding boards. During Stradivari’s latter decades, he used spruce wood that had grown mostly during the Maunder Minimum. These lowered temperatures, combined with the environmental setting (i. e., topography, elevation, and soil conditions) of the forest stands from where the spruce wood was obtained, produced unique wood properties and superior sound quality. This combination of climate and environmental properties has not occurred since Stradivari’s “Golden Period.”

19. Richard Sharpe
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM | Permalink

Tony Edwards says:

OzThommo says:
April 8th, 2008 at 12:25 am

There is a funny little book about, of all things, punctuation, by Lynne Truss called “Eats, shoots and leaves”. She explains that title of the book relates to a panda who entered a diner, drew a gun and shot the cook, then left. Asked why he did that, he produced a badly produced book about animals and pointed to the entry on pandas. “Large mammal who eats, shoots and leaves.”

Perhaps you know this already, but the Australian joke hinges on the colloquial meaning of “roots” in Australia. It’s meaning is interchangeable with “screw.”

20. Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 2:08 PM | Permalink

Ice ages: the way I see it is this [and there could be other explanations or contributing factors]. Isolated Antarctica and Northern Hemisphere landmasses have been in place for tens of millions of years [being necessary for the glaciation]. Yet no glaciation happened. In the summer at the poles the temperature was perhaps 20C. No ice, and CO2 stood at 450 ppm. 2.5 million years ago [or so] India collided with Asia and pushed up the Himalayas and Tibet for good measure. Since erosion is larger the larger the height differential [and hence potential energy] is, the new high mountains began to weather at a furious rate. This removes CO2 from the atmosphere, which in turns cools the Earth and the ocean which can now take up more CO2. So, given enough time for this cooling it finally gets cold enough that the snow doesn’t melt and there is now a further feedback [albedo and cold katabatic winds blowing off the ice caps]. So CO2 was leading. Once we get into that fix, Milankovic cycles modulate the temperature and CO2 now follows. I’m not a paleo-glaciologist so am not really qualified to elaborate or model this any further, but everybody has a certain mental image [and back-of-the-envelope simple theory] to make sense of the world. And the above is mine.

21. Craig Loehle
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 2:13 PM | Permalink

Re: predictions of 7 deg to 11 deg warming. To get this much warming in 100 years, you need .7 to 1.1 per decade. That is, we should be able to see in each and every decade more warming than the entire 20th century showed. Recent years are not cooperating so far…

22. Sam Urbinto
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 2:22 PM | Permalink

I would bet we’ll all be dead, and the next generation too, before (or even if) the anomaly or trend gets over +1 C

23. jae
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 2:29 PM | Permalink

Craig, 21:

Recent years are not cooperating so far…

By “recent,” you mean since 1945, or so, right?

24. Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 3:20 PM | Permalink

EW

After separation of S-Am, all wandering ceased.

Is this a continuation of the Theory Wombat-o-genic of Global Warming. (GGW?)

25. Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 3:20 PM | Permalink

Opps WGW?

26. Sam Urbinto
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 3:29 PM | Permalink

If you don’t have wombats, what do you have?

27. jae
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 3:59 PM | Permalink

Sam: dingbats.

28. steven mosher
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 7:37 PM | Permalink

RE 20. Hey Lief, did gavin every answer your question over at Tammy’s

that was a fun exchange

29. John M
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 8:03 PM | Permalink

GISS temp data in.

Discussion on the MB

http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=211

30. Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 8:10 PM | Permalink

28 (steven): no he has not responded. I repeated my question a day later, still no answer. Locals over there say Gavin is an infrequent visitor [yet he was right there when the really infrequent visitor - me - was there]

31. Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 9:18 PM | Permalink

Pardon if this was already put up in a previous unthread. It is too long to go back an look.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/2008_co2_monthly_maximum_at_mauna_loa_looks_like_will_be_lower_than_2007/

CO2 falls off trend line. Thought to be caused by ocean cooling.

32. dover_beach
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 9:27 PM | Permalink

Steven or Leif, could you please link to this exchange with Tamino, I’d be interested in reading it. Cheers.

33. dover_beach
Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 9:30 PM | Permalink

Correction: ‘at’ Tamino’s.

34. Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 9:44 PM | Permalink

33 (dover): here

then scroll down…

35. Posted Apr 8, 2008 at 10:04 PM | Permalink

Maybe this info can be of some help. Or not. The following is from a post by James Peden at this website: http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the “heat” passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don’t account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits – so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.

Here is his bio:

James A. Peden – better known as Jim or “Dad” – Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the “100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year” and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.

I can’t vouch for the accuracy of what he writes, but I thought it was interesting and was wondering if someone here could offer an educated opinion on the information Peden provides.

36. Paul Maynard
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 12:22 AM | Permalink

Climate sensitivity

I draw your attention to the guest post at Climate Science by Christopher Monckton and comment on Climate Skeptic.

Regards

Paul

37. Reference
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 7:42 AM | Permalink

GISS published a 0.4 °C increase in global temperature between February and March 2008, whereas satellite based measurements from UAH and RSS show a 0.1 °C increase. How much of the 0.3 °C difference can be attributed to anomalies within the surface station network?

38. jae
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 9:32 AM | Permalink

37, Reference: And how much, if any, is due to special “adjustments?”

39. Sam Urbinto
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

#30 (Leif) I’ve noticed for a long time that regardless if it’s here or there at RC, when the argument comes to a point where questions can’t be answered “in an appropriate manner” by certain participants in the discussion, the subject is dropped or the questions ignored. Typical.

40. steven mosher
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

the difference between GISS and both RSS and UAH is beyond 3sig this month.

From now on when I want to insult someone I will say ” Hey, NASA for brains…”

err, somebody double check my math, but I think I got it right

41. steven mosher
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 11:03 AM | Permalink

Leif, the reason why GAVIN came over was that TAMMY was out of his depth WRT to the time step
of the GCM ( these are on the order of 30 minutes, gavin has discussed this with me before
over on RC somewhere when I asked about calculations of GSMT from GCM)

So most likely Tammy shot him an email asking for help. Gavin swooped in. Answered your
question about time steps and then left.

Actually he didnt answer your exact question. He likely knows the answer, since he owns the code
and his name is all over the routines. If you can summarize the question for folks here
we could go on a code hunt for the answer. The GISS code is all open. Also, Dr Curry
might be interested since she works on NCAR.

42. Pat Frank
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 11:53 AM | Permalink

My article on the reliability of GCM projections, “A Climate of Belief” is out now in Skeptic 14(1). Interested readers who don’t want to buy Skeptic can find an on-line version here:

http://www.environmentalwars.org/articles_climate_of_belief.php

and the Supporting Information, which has all the analysis, is here:

Here’s the abstract: “Projections of CO2-caused future global warming are unreliable and simplistic. When accounting for the physical uncertainty from minimal cloud error, the IPCC SRES A2 global average temperature for the year 2100 is 3.7±111 C. The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current warming of Earth climate is scientifically insupportable.

The article survived a vigorous peer review, including hostile reviews by two unnamed climate scientists. In the same issue of Skeptic, Tapio Schneider of CalTech has a follow-on article about why we should believe in AGW. But it offers nothing new to readers here and doesn’t reference anything about limits of certainty.

43. Spence_UK
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

Re #41

Gavin is too busy posting canards over at wmbriggs place (here):

William Briggs:

People have the sense that, since so many “different” GCMs agree, we should have more confidence that what they say is true. Today I will discuss why this view is false.

Gavin:

Think about the converse of your claim – i.e. that disagreement among models makes their results more believable.

Gavin is arguing that this converse is a necessary consequence of William’s argument. D’you think someone should explain this link to Gavin?

44. Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 12:49 PM | Permalink

41 (steven(:

Actually he didn’t answer your exact question. He likely knows the answer, since he owns the code and his name is all over the routines. If you can summarize the question for folks here we could go on a code hunt for the answer. The GISS code is all open. Also, Dr Curry might be interested since she works on NCAR.

The question is this: At the TOA the Earth gets a variable amount of energy input from the Sun. On average the Total Solar Irradiance is 1366 W/m2 [or some number like that; the absolute calibration is in doubt by 5 to 10 W/m2, but doesn't matter]. Because of the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit this number varies by 90 W/m2 between January [perihelion] and July [aphelion]. I don’t want to see the usual comments along the line of “but you must divide by 4 because…, and not forget the albedo [several kinds. mind you], etc”. The annual variation is very regular and doesn’t change measurably over centuries and is completely predictable. On top of that there are a very small solar cycle variation of ~1 W/m2, with [rare, and random] excursions of several times that which can be neglected compared to the 90 W. The question is: is this variable, but very well known and predictable soalr forcing taken as external input to the models? When I first asked this question I got some hand waving about such a ‘very-high-frequency’ variation being rapidly dampened out. Hence the question about time step. If the time step is 20 mins [or shorter for some things] a one year variation does seem like ‘very-high-frequency’, so I asked if the dampening happened naturally as a result of the model or was either explicitly taken out or if TSI was simply not an input. No answer to that.
The real reason for my question was a discussion about a Camp and Tung paper here where I said this:
“Camp and Tung note that “there is a recurrent warming of the earth by the solar cycle. The periodic nature of the phenomenon allows the use of more sophisticated signal processing methods to establish the reality of the signal”. There is also a strictly periodic [hence known forcing] variation during each year of 90 W/m2 due to the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit. This variation, being strictly periodic, and 100 times larger than the solar cycle variation should allow for even more sophisticated analysis. It would seem to me that unless we can model and understand the response to this very large signal, it is premature to look for the much weaker solar cycle signal.”

45. Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

44 (me):

If the time step is 20 mins [or shorter for some things] a one year variation does not seem like ‘very-high-frequency’,

46. steven mosher
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 1:01 PM | Permalink

re 44. I’m suspecting that if this phenomena is modelled one would do so in the
orbital mechanics portions of the model. I can have a quick look at some other models
the MIT GCM has great documentation.

47. Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 2:44 PM | Permalink

Rahmstorf et al. 2007 IPCC Error?

There appears to be an error in the influential paper by Rahmstorf et al. (2007).

This will be of interest to filtering/smoothing experts here.

48. Phil.
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 4:16 PM | Permalink

Re #35

As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the “heat” passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don’t account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits – so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.

I can’t vouch for the accuracy of what he writes, but I thought it was interesting and was wondering if someone here could offer an educated opinion on the information Peden provides.

He underestimates the absorption by CO2 at 15 microns, it’s around 10% when done line by line.

49. Sam Urbinto
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 4:44 PM | Permalink

Pat @ 42 ” simplistic”

Exactly. We need to get out of the mindset we can pin the tail on the donkey for this.

Leif @ 44: ” It would seem to me that unless we can model and understand the response to this very large signal, it is premature to look for the much weaker solar cycle signal.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Phil @ 48: “He underestimates the absorption by CO2 at 15 microns”

Actually, LINEPAK + HITRAN2004 show a CO2 blip around 2 um that clearly has an influence on the tai end of water vapor from 1.5-1.9, a clear signal with no water vapor overlap of CO2 and nitrous oxide at 4.5-6 and a clear overlap of much of the 12-15 CO2 with water vapor’s tail end of its 12-70 range. Over the entire 68.8 um range, it’s obvious (at least visually) that we can directly account about about 3 um to CO2 So over the entire absorption/scattering range, carbon dioxide is more like around 5% (if we include visible and UV) for downgoing solar radiation and upgoing thermal radiation.

Still, we have the problem that this is further clouded by, well, clouds. Which aren’t included. And of course, radiative forcings and feedbacks, and few other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_albedo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#Clouds

50. Steve Case
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

Re: Phil #48

I know this, when someone uses Venus as an example of the effects of a nearly 100% CO2 atmosphere i.e., it’s so hot there it would melt lead and we’re headed in that direction, the one word retort is Mars which also has a nearly 100% CO2 atmosphere and it’s so cold there it snows dry ice.

51. Mark
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 4:55 PM | Permalink

I just watched Mr. Gore’ latest [snip\

[snip]
In the early part of his show, Al drones on about the record low area of the Northern “icecap” last year (funny he never mentioned the record high level of the Antarctic icecap!). Anyway at about the 7 minute mark he goes on to say “Already, along the Arctic Circle” and proceeds to show 2 pictures of buildings collapsing and falling off of cliffs. The first was from Alaska but, get this, the second was from Daniel’s Harbour Newfoundland! Now if you check your geography, you’ll find that the latitude for Daniel’s Harbour is lower than that for London, England! Now I’ve heard London described in many ways but never as being along the Arctic Circle! If you do the math you will find that Daniel’s Harbour is some 1800 kilometres from the Arctic Circle. It appears that Al Gore’s geoextrapolation skills are even more advanced than James Hansen’s!

Now as to the real cause of houses falling off cliffs in Daniel’s Harbour:

52. Andrew
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 6:50 PM | Permalink

Anyone seen this?
Seems to be strong evidence of urban contamination-at least in Melbourne, Australia.

Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 6:54 PM | Permalink

#51

That new Al Gore video is a MUST SEE for all.

It’s got specious graphs. It’s got a specious analogy about Earthy and Venus, “A Tale of Two Planets.” And another about Mercury. It’s obvious Gore is giving squishy info because he because when he talks about Mercury he does it inordinately quickly, indicating knowledge of the phoniness. He says Venus is hotter than Earth not because it is, as he says, “slightly closer” to sun, because “Venus is three times hotter than Mercury which is right next to the sun.” Really? Mercury has little atmosphere, which would matter just a bit…

Another classic is when he talks about “CSI Climate” – could there be a better ironic climateaudit thread title?

Interestingly he ways here the solution is “revenue neutral” carbon tax. Some of the warmer wonks surrounding him have loathed to hear him say he supports “cap and trade” too, and he stopped saying so, but has yet to criticize it, so for now I think he’s just avoiding conflict with his idealistic worker bees.

Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 6:57 PM | Permalink

Steve & Co

To reiterate, you all should look at the new Gore slide show linked in # 51.

55. Andrew
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 7:07 PM | Permalink

44 (Leif): perhaps this is a start?:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0403/0403271.pdf

Unsurprisingly (to me) they find that the annual cycle implies the opposite of what Camp and Tung think the 11 year cycle implies, that is, high positive feedback. The only logical conclusion I can draw is that the solar forcing over the eleven year cycle used by Camp and Tung is erroneous becuase they missed some amplifier. That is, the signal found by Camp and Tung is not a TSI signal, but a related signal (Cosmic Rays? Something else?).

I apologize if this is drifting a bit.

56. John Lang
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 7:26 PM | Permalink

Yikes, it looks like La Nina is ready to rebuild after a few months of weakening. Sea surface temperatures on average across the globe are well below normal. The southern oceans, Indian Ocean and North Pacific are quite cold and well off what global warming climate models predict.

Buy futures on any agricultural commodity because prices will go nowhere but up (even though they are almost all at a record already) because this map says crop production will not keep pace with population increases for the third year in a row. The stocks to use ratio for almost all agricultural products is already at historic lows and this map says northern and, especially southern hemisphere, production will not increase at the 2% needed to bring prices down.

57. Phil.
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 8:17 PM | Permalink

Re #50

Venus atmosphere

Atmospheric composition at surface level
Major components (by volume)
96.5% carbon dioxide (CO2)
3.5% nitrogen (N2)

Minor components (parts per million)
150 sulfur dioxide (SO2)
70 argon (Ar)
20 water vapor (H2O)
17 carbon monoxide (CO)
12 helium (He)
7 neon (Ne)
Surface pressure 92 bars
Surface density ~65 kg/m3

Mars atmosphere

95.32% carbon dioxide
2.7% nitrogen
1.6% argon
0.13% oxygen
0.07% carbon monoxide
0.03% water vapor
trace neon, krypton, xenon,
ozone, methane
Surface pressure 1-9 millibars, depending on altitude;
average 7 mb

I know this, when someone uses Venus as an example of the effects of a nearly 100% CO2 atmosphere i.e., it’s so hot there it would melt lead and we’re headed in that direction, the one word retort is Mars which also has a nearly 100% CO2 atmosphere and it’s so cold there it snows dry ice.

So the pressure ratio is over 13,000, therefore not much of a retort!

58. Phil.
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 8:22 PM | Permalink

Re #49

Phil @ 48: “He underestimates the absorption by CO2 at 15 microns”

Actually, LINEPAK + HITRAN2004 show a CO2 blip around 2 um that clearly has an influence on the tai end of water vapor from 1.5-1.9, a clear signal with no water vapor overlap of CO2 and nitrous oxide at 4.5-6 and a clear overlap of much of the 12-15 CO2 with water vapor’s tail end of its 12-70 range. Over the entire 68.8 um range, it’s obvious (at least visually) that we can directly account about about 3 um to CO2 So over the entire absorption/scattering range, carbon dioxide is more like around 5% (if we include visible and UV) for downgoing solar radiation and upgoing thermal radiation.

This isn’t how the absorption is calculated!

59. Erik Ramberg
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 8:28 PM | Permalink

I’m a little surprised at the claim in post #44 that there is a variation of 90 W/m^2 for solar irradiance in the yearly solar cycle due to the Earth’s orbit eccentricity. Did anyone really believe that? That isn’t correct. It’s measured to be 1.3 W/m^2.

The eccentricity of the orbit is 0.0167, meaning that the difference between perihelion and aphelion is about 3%. The insolation goes as the square of the radius, thus (.03)^2 times 1366 W/m^2 = 1.2 W/m^2. Wow! What a coincidence between theory and measurement!

And I’m sorry, but you do indeed have to divide by 4 to take into account the average insolation on the Earth’s surface and you do have to take into account the albedo.

The forcing due to increases in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere far outweigh the effect of the Sun.

60. Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 8:48 PM | Permalink

Lake Michigan looks warm. Maybe I didn’t start my seeds too soon?

61. Erik Ramberg
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 8:54 PM | Permalink

#60:

I am responding to the claim that was presented in post #44. That claim is incorrect by two orders of magnitude.

62. Kenneth Fritsch
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 9:11 PM | Permalink

The Solar constant is the amount of the Sun’s incoming electromagnetic radiation (Solar radiation) per unit area, measured on the outer surface of Earth’s atmosphere in an aircraft perpendicular to the rays. The Solar constant includes all types of Solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1,366 watts per square meter (W/m²),[2] though this fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1,412 W/m² in early January to 1,321 W/m² in early July) due to the earth’s varying distance from the Sun, and by a few parts per thousand from day to day.

63. Andrew
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 9:13 PM | Permalink

62 (Erik) I apologize for misconstruing your remarks.

64. Phil.
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 9:27 PM | Permalink

Re #59

I’m a little surprised at the claim in post #44 that there is a variation of 90 W/m^2 for solar irradiance in the yearly solar cycle due to the Earth’s orbit eccentricity. Did anyone really believe that? That isn’t correct. It’s measured to be 1.3 W/m^2.

The eccentricity of the orbit is 0.0167, meaning that the difference between perihelion and aphelion is about 3%. The insolation goes as the square of the radius, thus (.03)^2 times 1366 W/m^2 = 1.2 W/m^2. Wow! What a coincidence between theory and measurement!

Somewhat mathematically challenged Erik!
using Erik’s numbers: 1.03^2×1366-1366=83; actual figure 1.034^2 therefore = 94.4
Remember from HS, (1+x)^2=1+2x+x^2 NOT 1+x^2

65. Erik Ramberg
Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 9:44 PM | Permalink

#65, etc.

You are right. I am wrong. Mea culpa and apologies to Leif.

66. Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 9:52 PM | Permalink

59 (Erik):

The eccentricity of the orbit is 0.0167, meaning that the difference between perihelion and aphelion is about 3%. The insolation goes as the square of the radius, thus (.03)^2 times 1366 W/m^2 = 1.2 W/m^2. Wow! What a coincidence between theory and measurement!

You difference the squares, not square the difference. The difference between the squared perihelion and aphelion distances is thus 2*3% = 6%, so 0.06 * 1366 = 82. A more accurate calculation yields 91 W/m2.

And you don’t need to divide by 4 and include the albedo as long as you are just comparing the 90 to the 1366.

67. Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 11:50 PM | Permalink

re David,

There appears to be an error in the influential paper by Rahmstorf et al. (2007).

Does anyone have pdf of Moore, J.C., Grinsted, A., & Jevrejeva, S. 2005 New tools for analyzing time series relationships and trends. EOS, 86, 226 & 232 ?

I’d like to read that, uc_edit at yahoo.com

68. Posted Apr 9, 2008 at 11:55 PM | Permalink

( barents.ulapland.fi seems to be down )

69. Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 1:15 AM | Permalink

Try this one. Cheers

70. Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 1:21 AM | Permalink

Got it, thanks David!

71. Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 8:33 AM | Permalink

Re Moore 2005,

this is one of these papers where it is claimed that suggested method increases SNR, but signal and noise remain undefined. Mann is master of this topic. This leads to interesting statements;

The nonlinear trend shows a more rapid rise around 1920–1940 than at present and a slight decreasing of sea level prior to 1840 that is not detected by the linear trend.

(mean sea level)

Silly indeed. Anyway, I’d like to see the code that generated Fig. 3. uncertainties.

72. M. Jeff
Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 9:06 AM | Permalink

2008 Opinion:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120778860618203531.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

“More Global Warming Nonsense”

Today, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will hold a hearing on the implications of climate change for human health. Malaria will top the menu, but so will ignorance and disinformation. …

… It may come as a surprise that malaria was once common in most of Europe and North America. …

… Serious scientists rarely engage in public quarrels. Alarmists are therefore often unopposed in offering simplicity in place of complexity, ideology in place of scientific dialogue, and emotion in place of dry perspective. …

1935 information:

http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/s1-15/2/225

“Present Status of Malaria in Oklahoma”

… Not all of the seventy-seven counties in the state are affected, in fact, it is a serious problem in less than one-third of them. …

1935 Oklahoma is mentioned mainly as an aside. My mother contracted “the ague” there in that time frame. The disease was real, not just an imagined problem.

73. kim
Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 9:18 AM | Permalink

‘fever and ague’ is the classic phrase. See Little House on the Prairie.
========================================

74. kim
Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 9:20 AM | Permalink

The ethnic Indian doctor in that book had a will which took an immensely long time to settle. He often took part interest in land as payment for his services.
==============================

75. george h.
Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 10:56 AM | Permalink

Ok, now we’ve got trouble:

Climate change to impact beer: scientist

Associated Press

April 8, 2008 at 4:43 AM EDT

WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND — The price of beer is likely to rise in coming decades because climate change will hamper the production of a key grain needed for the brew — especially in Australia, a scientist warned Tuesday.

76. aurbo
Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 11:20 AM | Permalink

The chart above through March 2008 shows the mean, mean max and mean min temps for the 12-month periods between April and March. The blue lines with asterisks are the individual years, the fatter red line is a running mean.

In the operational forecasting field of meteorology we have found that the most expeditious (quick and dirty) way to extrapolate trends is to eyeball or draw lines separately through the peak maxes and the lowest mins and also through peaks and valleys of the running mean (ignoring the final “forced” few years where the running means may be be extrapolated from data yet to be observed)

This single graph contains some interesting information. First, the trend of the maxes is only barely +0.1°C between 1936-1998 while the slope of the mins are about +0.2°C between 1899-1979. This difference showing the mins rising more than the maxes is consistent with the idea of UHI rises in any of the data points not to mention other “issues” with changes in station instrumentation and relocation.

Of perhaps more significance is that this 100-year+ chart using the running means clearly shows the cyclical or quasi-cyclical representation of the 60-year PDO cycle in which the 20th Century contained two complete 30-year positive legs of the cycle (roughly 1910-1940 and 1975-2005*) and one negative phase (roughly 1945-1975). *The 2005 data point on the rising leg is suspect as it appears that NCDC is forcing the running mean to accommodate the most recent years using some sort of extrapolation that may include data not yet observed. In fact, with the increasingly well documented shift in the PDO into a negative phase which began at least a year ago, this small portion of the running mean will likely have to be adjusted.

Since we mere mortals mostly live within the Century scale of climate rather than the geologic, much less Epochal time scales, the effect of the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and its laggard and less well delineated AMO (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation) should be of more immediate interest in regard to how we order our lives and by extension, to our policy makers who govern increasingly more of it.

The chart above is hardly one that should engender any alarm, even for pessimists. The usual AGW reaction to this rather well known, but rarely publicized, real data is multifold. First, they will tell you that the US Lower 48 is not representative of the Globe being only 1.3% of the Global surface area. Once in a while they’ll admit that its 6.4% of the land area, but are unlikely to further mention that that includes the Arctic regions and largely uninhabited tundra and mountainous areas for which only a fraction of what few observations there are for those regions are long-period and/or consistent. The US also provides an overwhelming plurality of detailed and long-term observations accessible in the Global data bases. This is why the truly global coverage of satellite sounding data is much more reliable when considering analyzing global measurements albeit not as long-term. [Don't even think of getting me started on the reliability of thermal extraction from dendro-chronological sources].

77. Bruce
Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

Jan to Mar 2008 Global Warming does not seem to exist in the USA.

78. Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 12:31 PM | Permalink

77 (Bruce):

Jan to Mar 2008 Global Warming does not seem to exist in the USA.

Perhaps because the USA is not the ‘globe’, the World Series notwithstanding.

79. aurbo
Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

Re #56,

In my professional career I’ve provided meteorological information to agricultural interests from production to distribution, and by extension to ag commoditiy traders. My experience has taught me that the best way to wind up with 1 million dollars in trading commodities is to start off with 2 million.

80. Sam Urbinto
Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 12:44 PM | Permalink

Phil. @ 58 “This isn’t how the absorption is calculated!”

Then you should go edit wikipedia. Not my calculations or graph.

Leif @ 78

But it’s the best instrumented! :) (Reminds me of the joke of looking for a lost dime in the wrong place because the light is better. Too bad the person looking didn’t find Waldo though.)

But you are correct, it’s not the globe. But still, rather odd that in these times of steadily increasing dry long-lived IR absorbing gases that there’s so little change in the anomaly over the base period over such a large land area with so much UHI and UHI-related weather and the impact upon the monthly climate anomalies.

Still, “Global Warming” is a generic term, and Bruce did say “over the USA”. So.

81. kim
Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 12:47 PM | Permalink

79 (aurbo) I’m reminded of the place mat I saw in a cafe in Thermopolis about how to succeed at ranching. There were about 20 pointers, mostly relating to animal husbandry, land management, and weather, but the one highlighted as the most important was to “Have a wife with a good job at the County Courthouse”. Well, the best way to make a $100,000 in commodities is to start with a thousand dollars and have a husband with a good job at the Governor’s Mansion. ====================================================== 82. aurbo Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 12:51 PM | Permalink Re #78: I often hear that AGW deniers are disparaged as being flat-earthers. Isn’t the depiction of the “visually large” areas of cooling in Arctic and Antarctic regions on Mercator projections the real flat-earth argument? 83. kim Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 12:56 PM | Permalink The new ‘flat earthers’ will be the ‘invariable albedo earthers’. ===================================== 84. Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 2:20 PM | Permalink #71 UC, There is a relevant new post on confidence intervals of Mann’s minimum roughness criterion at http://landshape.org/enm. I agree there is more dirt to dig up here. 85. Bruce Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 2:37 PM | Permalink #78 Leif, Global Warming doesn’t show up much in the satellite record for Jan-Mar 2008 anymore either. The Globe is essentially back to zero. http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/uah-global-temp-anomaly-also-slightly-above-zero/ 86. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 2:50 PM | Permalink What is “global warming” anyway? How does one measure “the globe”? No doubt any warming (rise in energy levels) is at least partly due to 6+ billion people, their cities, their farms, their livestock, their industrial processes and their use of energy and production of waste heat. Although it’s not as clear the net result of any such contributions by people. Questioning the trend and/or its reflection of energy levels, and questioning the role of the dry IR absorbing gases compared to water vapor, or asking about how the hydrosphere and biosphere impact and are impacted by the atmosphere, or thinking of other possible explanations is hardly denying that there is (or might be) anthropogenic global warming. 87. Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 2:53 PM | Permalink 85 (Bruce): Please, you cannot ascribe any meaning to a few months. If you do, you show more about yourself than about the globe. Similarly, you cannot ascribe any meaning to the Jan 2007 maximum peak, either. 88. jae Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 3:02 PM | Permalink Leif: Do you have an opinion on just how long a cooling or flattening trend would have to be before one could say it is “quite likely” (IPPC-speak)that there is no longer a warming trend? 89. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 3:06 PM | Permalink I agree with you Leif. .25 or .50 or .75 up or down over period X isn’t particularly meaningful on a monthly or yearly basis. I’d tag trends at 10 years minimum. The issue here with that is that the longer you go along, the more the averaging not only smooths things out, but would tend it accentuate the averaging process over the physical one. My main “problem” with all of this is the general levels under the base period for the entire time before it, the flatness (go figure!) of it, and the general levels above it after. Is this reflecting a rise in energy levels as evidenced by a rise in temperatures using the samples as a proxy? I doubt it, or at least it’s not been proven as conclusivly as I feel comfortable with, all things considered. Especially given the observational evidence of UHI affecting weather patterns 10s of miles away. Attributing it to one or more dry trace IR absorbing gases seems less than logical. Not that it couldn’t be carbon dioxide causing warming. Something falsifiable would be nice. But hey. 90. Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 3:09 PM | Permalink 88 (jae): Yes I do, but it’s a long story and Lucia Liljegren tells it well. Start here and then follow her posts through March and April. 91. Bruce Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 3:31 PM | Permalink Leif, if I “take away” those “few months” (ok 12) in 1998 from the satellite record … global warming is a big joke. We are back to where we were in 1991. Only the big spike in 1998 gets anyones attention. Other than that, there is no warming in the last 18 years. A little up … a little down. 92. Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 3:40 PM | Permalink 91 (Bruce): Global Warming is not the last 18 years. It is that those 18 years were 0.3 degrees warmer than the previous 18 years, which were XXXX degrees warmer than the previous 18 years, which were YYYY degrees warmer than the previous 18 years, … back to, say 1850. And on top of all that you have the usual noise like 1998 and 2008, etc. The real issue is if the warming [and it is a bit warmer nowadays] is any bigger than, say, 900 years ago. 93. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 4:10 PM | Permalink Assuming the sampled averaged derived anomaly and anomaly trend reflect “warming” and that the numbers are accurate and that you can treat the globe as a single thing. 94. Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 4:18 PM | Permalink 93 (Sam): if I assume that the trend does not reflect “warming”, and that the numbers are not accurate, and that I cannot treat the globe as a single thing, then I’ll agree that “Global Warming” does not make any sense, but then, by the same token, neither does any other discussion involving these three elements. I consider that a bit too extreme. 95. Bruce Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 4:28 PM | Permalink Leif Global Warming is not the last 18 years Correct. There has not actually been any net warming in 18 years if you look at the satellite record. As for the previous 18 year periods … I think we are cooler than the 1930s now. Yes, the 70’s were a lot cooler. But the 40s were kind of warm too. The real issue is if the warming [and it is a bit warmer nowadays] is any bigger than, say, 900 years ago. I think the real issue is whether it was CO2 or not. Some people want to squander 20 trillion+ to fix the CO2 problem when it wasn’t CO2’s fault. 96. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 4:47 PM | Permalink Leif: I’m not saying we should assume the trend does NOT reflect warming, rather we should speak in terms of an anomaly that is over or under the base period. Certainly I agree that it probably reflects something in some way, I’m not totally convinced it’s not over or under representating what’s really going on. I’m of the mindset, like many others involved in this subject, that the anomaly is a rather poor and inexact way to track the energy levels of the planet. Is it warming over time? Probably. Observational evidence of human activities (as I’ve said, population, farmland, livestock, urbanization, industrialization, and waste heat from diesel, gasoline, kerosene, natural gas, and coal) is pretty convincing we’re adding something. If it’s net or not is another issue. As is the appropriateness and accuracy of the anomaly accurately reflecting it. Certainly you must agree that there are bias issues with the sampling locations, a probable differences between air temperatures of locations even in close proximity to each other, what a mean of a day’s high and low tells us, the side-effects of gathering means over and over, and attempting to reflect a complex dynamic system as a whole over the entire planet in chunks of a month or more? As well as the way the oceans have surface water gathered through engines only where shipping lanes are. And the apparent inconsistencies with this and various satellite readings. I consider under repesenting the effects of humanity upon the climate even worse than over representing it, and until we stop over simplifing the issue by equating some anomaly to energy levels and not questioning both the results and the possible (probable) causes, we are not doing science. I’m simply asking that it not be taken for granted that the trend is warming, that the numbers might not be accurate, and that we might not be able to phrase this as physical when discussing the entire planet at once. Not to assume that all these things are wrong, but rather that we might be assuming too much about them. 97. Anna Lang Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 4:52 PM | Permalink The findings of a study of climate models published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society is being reported in the news media. Below is a link to the press release, as well as a link to the article. Press Release http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=040208-1 Models Look Good when Predicting Climate Change April 2, 2008 – The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the subject of debate among politicians, environmentalists, and even scientists. A new study by meteorologists at the University of Utah shows that current climate models are quite accurate and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions on reversing global warming trends. Most of these models project a global warming trend that amounts to about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years. The study titled “How Well do Coupled Models Simulate Today’s Climate?” is due to be published this Friday in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. In the study, co-authors Thomas Reichler and Junsu Kim from the Department of Meteorology at the University of Utah investigate how well climate models actually do their job in simulating climate. To this end, they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate. The authors apply this method to about 50 different national and international models that were developed over the past two decades at major climate research centers in China, Russia, Australia, Canada, France, Korea, Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. Of course, also included is the very latest model generation that was used for the very recent (2007) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change, and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations,” said Reichler. “We can now place a much higher level of confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past.” The many hours of studying models and comparing them with actual climate changes fulfills the increasing wish to know how much one can trust climate models and their predictions. Given the significance of climate change research in public policy, the study’s results also provide important response to critics of global warming. Earlier this year, working group one of the IPCC released its fourth global warming report. The University of Utah study results directly relate to this highly publicized report by showing that the models used for the IPCC paper have reached an unprecedented level of realism. Another important aspect of the research is that climate models built in the U.S. are now some of the best models worldwide. Increased efforts in the U.S. over the past few years to build better climate models have paid off, and according to the authors’ measure of reliability, one of the U.S. models is now one of the leading climate models worldwide. Although model-based projections of future climate are now more credible than ever before, the authors note they have no way to say exactly how reliable those projections are. There are simply too many unknowns involved in the future evolution of climate, such as how much humans will curb their future greenhouse gas emissions. To view the full study on climate models, please visit: http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~reichler/publications/papers/Reichler_07_BAMS_CMIP.pdf 98. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 4:53 PM | Permalink Bruce: GHCN+ERSST shows a clear anomaly trend that is up over many periods. While I have made it quite clear I consider the sampling of air as a proxy of ground temperatures, and the sampling of sea lanes as a proxy of water temperatures, and then combining the mean samples over 2×2 or 5×5 degree grids as less than an optimal way of getting what energy levels are doing, the fact is that the trend is up for thsese. Sampling mean levels of oxygen brightness at levels of the atmosphere isn’t any more a fantastic way of trying to get a handle on the system either, and arguing about lemons and cherries isn’t particularly helpful in trying to determine what exactly is going on. So is everything warming, cooling or staying flat? I don’t know, what are the combined energy levels of the entire system doing exactly? How is the energy budget and balance behaving? The anomaly trend is up though. 99. Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 6:28 PM | Permalink 96 (Sam): I have an issue with the very concept and calculation of the ‘anomaly’. It is funny how words change: 150-100 years ago the word used was ‘inequality’, being defined as the deviation from some mean value. If I understand correctly, for each month the anomaly is calculated as A = Aobs – Amean, where Amean is the average A for that month [for that location]. Now, when you calculate a mean, you have to select an interval over which to do this. There are many ways to chose the interval and the averaging method, but in the end, they all come down to one assumption: that the ‘seasonal’ variation is constant over the interval. There is an analogous situation in analyzing geomagnetic activity. If you plot the deviation of the compass needle from true North, say every hour or minute, you’ll find that there is a ‘regular’ variation through the day. Here is last March [look at the middle graph, the East component]: What you see is that although there is a certain regularity to it, the daily curve changes in amplitude from day to day, and on top of the curve there are completely irregular wiggles. These wiggles are called geomagnetic activity and are due to the solar wind, while the varying from day-to-day ‘regular’ curve is due to thermal winds in the ionosphere at 110 km height blowing across the Earth’s magnetic field, creating electric currents by dynamo action. It has been a perennial problem [not quite solved today] to distinguish between these two completely different variations. We want to do this because we want to come up with two time series, one that gives the amplitude of the ‘daily’ ionospheric variation [which by the way depends on the sun's zenith angle and solar activity in the Far Ultraviolet of which the f10.7 radio flux or the sunspot number are good proxies], and one that gives the amplitude of the additional wiggles [which are proportional to the product of the interplanetary magnetic field, IMF, strength and of the square of the solar wind speed {times several smaller second-order things, including dependencies on the angle between the IMF and the Earth's magnetic field and the orientation of the Earth's axis, which we'll all ignore for now]. Now, if we could separate ['decompose'] the observed curve into those two parts we would have a very powerful method of actually determining both the FUV flux and the IMF and solar wind properties as far back as our observations go, which is all the way back to the 1830s [and less reliably to the 1740s]. So how to do this? One method [actually a device] that people used first was the ‘iron curve’. One would compute the average variation for, say, each month and then overlay that with the actual curve and ‘scale’ the activity as the difference between the actual curve and the iron-cure average, the ‘anomaly’ as it were. Only problem is that the ‘real’ daily variation varies from day to day because the FUV varies from day to day, while the wiggles vary from hour to hour because the solar wind varies from hour to hour [actually on a much smaller time scale, but the Earth is so big that we sample a large chunk of the solar wind]. Because the FUV and the solar wind are not correlated on a short time scale [the FUV left the sun 8 minutes ago, while the solar wind left the sun four days ago] if we get one of the two values [the amplitude of the daily variation or of the wiggles] wrong, it feeds into the other one and we have ‘cross-talk’ between the two. This problem arises because there are more than one mechanism that generate the curve. If the same is the case, that the atmosphere in reality responds to more than one stimulus, then we’ll have the same problem with the atmospheric anomalies and we’ll conflate things and confound ourselves by believing that the anomaly represents one single reality, when in fact there could be two, three, or more. Modeling and understanding this becomes much harder. In fact, it took scientists almost a hundred years to disentangle and understand the geomagnetic variations resulting from the simultaneous responses to two different stimuli. [and we are not quite there yet]. So, the very concept of an ‘anomaly’ is fraught with difficulties. 100. John Lang Posted Apr 10, 2008 at 8:30 PM | Permalink In terms of the trends for global temperatures, it seems your definition of the length of the timeline is what is important. – last 2 months – large increase – last 14 months – very large decrease – last 10 years – large reduction – last 33 years – increasing – last 64 years – very small increase – last 128 years – small increase – last 130 years – down then up but no change overall – last 158 years – small increase – last 8,000 years – small decrease – last 12,000 years – very large increase – last 125,000 years – very large decrease, then very large increase – lower overall – last 3 million years – down considerably – last 55 million years – very large decrease – last 300 million years – about the same – last 540 million years – down substantially So cherrypick your timeline and you’ve got your answer. I believe if today’s temperature is the same as the average under the satellite temperature measurement era, then there has been no change (or more precisely, an increase then a decrease but no change overall.) 101. MarkW Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 7:34 AM | Permalink I see that Leif is still cherry picking which years to use. Years where temperatures are rising, are proof that CO2 is causing global warming. Any other period, regardless of how long, is just a blip in the rising trend. How about from the 30’s till today. That’s 70 years with no net warming. How about from the MWP till today. That’s 1000 years with no net warming. How about from the Roman warm period till today. That’s 2000 years with a net cooling. The only way to create a global warming trend, is to be very selective in how you pick your start and end points. 102. aurbo Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 7:38 AM | Permalink Re #2; Ginko Bilboa Growing up in Manhattan prior to and through WWII, there were Ginkos on many uptown streets decorating the areas on the street side of the sidewalks. They occupied about one pavement-sized square and were the only growing things that could tolerate the heavy pollution…mostly fly-ash…that rained down on them as well as being the main tarket…after hydrants…for the dog populaion that were walked on the sidewalks decades before there were pooper-scooper laws. Their light green fan-shaped leaves were unique among city flora, and despite their general broad leaf appearance they are actually monocots. They are a living testament to basic Darwinism. 103. aurbo Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 7:52 AM | Permalink Correction on my prior post #102: The subject should have been spelled Ginkgo Biloba. (As a kid back then I didn’t know any better). 104. M. Jeff Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 8:11 AM | Permalink - next 1 billion years – very large increase? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24051247/ Like most stars, as it progresses along the main sequence, the sun’s output increases (it is believed to be about 25 percent brighter now than when Earth formed). Within at most 1 billion years, this will raise Earth’s average temperature to 122 degrees Fahrenheit (50 degrees Celsius), rendering the planet uninhabitable. 105. Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 8:14 AM | Permalink 101 (MarkW): I said back in #91 thgat Global Warming is not the last 18 years. It is that those 18 years were 0.3 degrees warmer than the previous 18 years, which were XXXX degrees warmer than the previous 18 years, which were YYYY degrees warmer than the previous 18 years, … back to, say 1850. And on top of all that you have the usual noise like 1998 and 2008, etc. The real issue is if the warming [and it is a bit warmer nowadays] is any bigger than, say, 900 years ago. I thought it was clear from that that my opinion is that whatever we have now is no different from 900 years ago, hence that the current warm climate [which only deniers can deny] is not unusual because we had something like that 900 years ago, and 2000 years ago, and 4000 years ago, etc. How is it even remotely possible that you can misinterpret that? [snip] 106. Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 8:23 AM | Permalink 101 (MarkW): Years where temperatures are rising, are proof that CO2 is causing global warming. How can you promulgate such nonsense? I have been lectured over in the Ice Age thread on how Temperature drives CO2 with a 900 year lag, so isn’t it clear that the current increase in CO2 is caused by the MWP 900 years ago? Fits beautifully, no? 107. EW Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 8:34 AM | Permalink despite their general broad leaf appearance they are actually monocots. No, they aren’t. You probably wanted to say that ginkgos are gymnosperms, no? Like pines and bristlecones. 108. Barney Frank Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 9:47 AM | Permalink 106, Leif: I’m very willing to discuss any and all of them in detail, but it has to be done with civility [windandsea: nobody is 'flinging nonsense'. People are either ignorant (which is no shame) or have other hidden motives (which is no shame either)]. I have learned that civility is a precious commodity in the GW debate, but we can all do our part. How can you promulgate such nonsense? Leif, I have really enjoyed your comments here and find them well reasoned and agree with a lot of them. I have also enjoyed your calls for civility, but have been a little concerned you very occasionally apply them more strictly to others than yourself. Your admonition to windandsea in Svalgaard #1 in the first quote above was, I thought, appropriate. Mightn’t it help matters were you to apply it to your own comments a little more assiduously? 109. Barney Frank Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 9:49 AM | Permalink 108 (me): Unless of course you were just cracking wise, in which case disregard. 110. MarkW Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 9:57 AM | Permalink Let’s see, temperatures today are virtually the same as 900 years ago. We have no idea what caused the warming of 900 years ago. However the currrent warming MUST be caused by CO2, because CO2 is increasing. 111. Bernie Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 10:00 AM | Permalink There seems to be an interesting discussion on the nature of models brewing at http://www.wmbriggs.com and at Roger Pielke Snr’s site 112. Michael Smith Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 10:21 AM | Permalink Anna Lang, posting an article with this headline in #97: Models Look Good when Predicting Climate Change Anna, whenever I see articles like that, I have to wonder whether they are including the model that predicts virtually no tropical tropospheric warming. I am referring to the model that RealClimate cited to rebut Douglas’ paper showing that warming of the tropical troposphere is not occurring as predicted by the models. 113. Anna Lang Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 10:57 AM | Permalink Mike Smith #112: The PDF link to the article follows the press release. I am hoping perhaps Pat Frank or others who have an understanding of the models, and the methods these authors used to evaluate them, could comment. It’s not my area of expertise and I would appreciate their insights. Thanks, Anna. 114. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 11:05 AM | Permalink I just got back from a lengthy time travel back to the 11th century, and I can tell you, those vikings know how to party. Oh, and the period from 1085 to 1115 felt a lot warmer than it does now. Maybe next time I’ll bring a thermometer with me. Dang, I always forget something. Why, this one time… Oh. Nevermind. Did I mention the beer is good and the girls are cute back them, too? 115. Michael Jankowski Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 11:11 AM | Permalink Models Look Good when Predicting Climate Change If they didn’t look good, they wouldn’t get paid lots of money to show off on runways and appear in photo ads. But just because they look good doing something doesn’t mean they are good AT doing something. :) 116. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM | Permalink What if the models just got up, would they still look good when they’re predicting climate change? How about in a swimming pool reporting bowling scores? 117. Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 1:42 PM | Permalink 109 (Barney): what do you think :-) See below for more… 110 (MarkW): Let’s see, temperatures today are virtually the same as 900 years ago. We have no idea what caused the warming of 900 years ago. However the currrent warming MUST be caused by CO2, because CO2 is increasing. As before you got this backwards; the MWP was warm, CO2 lags by 900 years [add here zillions of links to Vostok ice cores], therefore CO2 must now be increasing which it indeed is, QED. 118. Mark T. Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 2:35 PM | Permalink I think MarkW is either being sarcastic, or attempting to paraphrase what he thought you were saying. I’ve never seen either of you post anything that is markedly different (in terms of overall viewpoint). Btw, I wouldn’t call that a QED, just a good correlation, but it “sure provides a hint” (as stated on the wiki regarding correlation/causation). ;) Mark 119. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 3:34 PM | Permalink As I’ve said before, you long-haired hippy freak deniers make me sick. Think of the children! 120. Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 5:05 PM | Permalink 117,118: gee, one can’t even crack a joke without being misinterpreted… 121. John M Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 6:15 PM | Permalink #119 Speaking of long-haired hippy freak deniers. (Warning, George Carlin, with language as one would expect.) 122. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 6:20 PM | Permalink I find your sense of humor very much like my own Leif, so I won’t worry about it. At least you’re not in Germany or Denmark or Belgium or Houston Texas or one of those types of places. I’d lose all hope for you then. 123. Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 7:02 PM | Permalink 122 (Sam): Ha! I’m moving out to California [a daughter is there] so I’m safe. 124. Andrew Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 7:26 PM | Permalink Thought I’d draw everyone’s attention to Nir Shaviv’s reply to Sloan and Wolfendale: http://sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale BTW 106 (Leif): I’m pretty sure you’re joking, but in case you aren’t, the problem is that by no estimate of the magnitude of the Medieval Warm Period’s warmth is it sufficient to explain the increase in GHG’s, based on the relation inferred from the Vostok data. 125. Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 7:57 PM | Permalink 124 (Andrew): On 106 :-) On Shaviv: I can live with a 0.10 degree as the average solar cycle effect on temperature which I would consider down in the noise anyway. But what means is that for a small cycle [say half the spots] I would expect an effect of 0.05 degree and for a very, very small cycle [e.g. as during the Maunder Minimum] I would expect an effect of effectively 0.00 degree. So the increase in temperature since the Maunder Minimum would be 0.10 degree, even assuming that modern cycles have twice the spots than the average cycle. This is fine with me and is not worth wasting time on quibbling with. 126. Andrew Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 8:05 PM | Permalink Well, Leif, That would only be the case if sunspots were what you should go by. Since Shaviv says 2/3rds (of the warming), I’d wager that he doesn’t think so. .1 C sounds small, but it is much less than would be expected. Not that I’m asking you to quibble with anything… 127. Andrew Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 8:13 PM | Permalink Er, more than would be expected, sorry. 128. Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 8:31 PM | Permalink 127 (Andrew): No, not at all. If I read his paper correctly he says that there is a solar cycle variation of 0.1C from minimum to maximum. If this is for an average cycle (sunspot number S=100), then we can write that the average increase dT due to a cycle of strength S is dT = 0.1/2 * S/100, which for S=0 [Maunder minimum] is dT=0, and for the modern super cycles S=200 is dT = 0.1, so the total increase since the Maunder minimum is from T+0 to T+0.1 = 0.1 if T is the temperature there would have been if the solar cycle didn’t have any effect. As I write this, I’m struck by the fact that this is what I just posted, but maybe expressing it in a different way may help. I’m willing to try two or three more ways of saying the same thing, should it be necessary. I don’t see what that has to do with the sunspots as I say they should be. Everybody says S=0 in Maunder Minimum and S=200 for the modern large cycles. 129. Andrew Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 8:55 PM | Permalink 128 (Leif): Well, the way I see, you are interpreting Shaviv to say something which he explicitly contradicts by saying that 2/3rds of the warming is explained by the cosmic ray flux/climate link. I think you have misinterpreted the meaning of that statement. 130. Posted Apr 11, 2008 at 9:06 PM | Permalink 129 (Andrew): Why is it so difficult to communicate? The following is copy/paste from the comment by Shaviv: We also know that the global temperature changes by about 0.1°C between solar maximum and solar minimum, with a delay of a 1/8 cycle Although it is somewhat clumsily stated as the change presumably is negative. I would have said [about a positive change]: “We also know that the global temperature changes by about 0.1°C between solar minimum and solar maximum, with a delay of a 1/8 cycle.” How did I misinterpret that? What other meaning can this simple statement have than the one I said it had? 131. Niels A Nielsen Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 6:33 AM | Permalink In 125 Leif Svalggard is misinterpreting Shaviv to say that the solar effect (from a solar minimum to a solar maximum) on global temperature change is in in the range of 0.1C – on any time scale. Leif interpreting Shaviv: So the increase in temperature since the Maunder Minimum would be 0.10 degree, even assuming that modern cycles have twice the spots than the average cycle. This is fine with me and is not worth wasting time on quibbling with. Leif is assuming the temperature effect to be the same on a centennial time scale as it is on an eleven year scale. But Shaviv is not saying that. He estimates the solar contribution to the 20th century warming to be 0.5±0.2°C as he also explains in the linked article (2/3rds of the warming). 132. Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 6:59 AM | Permalink oldest tree now in sweden http://www.thelocal.se/11054/20080411/ ‘World’s oldest tree’ discovered in Dalarna Published: 11 Apr 08 14:57 CET Swedish researchers have uncovered a stand of spruce trees with an 8,000-year-old tree root system in Dalarna, making it among the oldest in the world. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest living individual tree is a bristlecone pine in California’s White Mountains estimated to be 4,733-years-old. location http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/norway/map/m400163/harjehogna.html 133. Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 8:08 AM | Permalink 131 (Niels): Shaviv claims that there is a 0.1C change from solar max to solar min. I’ll assume [could go and read his paper, but I think it is a good assumption] that this claim is based on observations of some modern cycles, where we have good measurements of both temperature and solar activity. I also assume that at the end of a cycle the temperature is down to what it was at the beginning of the cycle, otherwise I [and he] would hardly talk about a cycle. So, stringing two cycles together, since the temperature at the end of the first cycle is down to what it was at the beginning of the first cycle, and is equal to what it is at the beginning of the second cycle [since those two times are the same], and since the temperature at the end of the second cycle is down to what it was at the start of that second cycle, which is equal to what it was at the start of the first cycle, there is no net increase in temperature over the two cycles. Now, stringing together three, four, …, twenty, thirty, …, cycles, the same conclusion holds. The issue is not that there is a variation over the cycle [as Shaviv says] but if there is a secular, underlying trend that is independent of the individual cycles. Some people say there is [or want there to be] and other people [incl. me] say that there is not [see Svalgaard#1 on this very blog]. 134. kim Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 8:15 AM | Permalink You force ‘cycle’ into a Procrustean Bed. Why must the sine wave generating the ‘cycle’ adhere to a baseline? ================================================================== 135. Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 8:24 AM | Permalink 134 (kim): “Why must the sine wave generating the ‘cycle’ adhere to a baseline?” Because that is what we observe when we look at the Sun. At each solar minimum, when all the sunspots have died away, the Sun looks the same as it did before the cycle started. On a centennial scale that is true as well: we have photographs of the ‘chromospheric network’ [shows the strength and extent of solar magnetic fields] going back a hundred years [from Mt. Wilson Obs.] and those are indistinguishable from modern photographs. 136. kim Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 8:29 AM | Permalink 135 (Leif) I thought you were talking about temperature cycles. Sure, recently, radiation cycles have a steady baseline. ================================================================== 137. Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 8:36 AM | Permalink 136 (kim): the temperature does what it does. I was commenting on the part of the temperature that people suppose [actually Shaviv said "we know"] is due to solar activity. I mean, if solar activity doesn’t vary why would the temperature that is caused by solar activity vary? Maybe it does, but you’ll have a hard uphill slug convincing me of that. 138. Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 8:42 AM | Permalink 136 (kim): “Sure, recently, radiation cycles have a steady baseline”. ‘Recently’, I presume, is the last several hundred years. See Svalgaard#1 for the arguments for that. What the Sun is doing on a much longer time scale is less certain, except on the very longest time scale [we are all going to be burned to a crisp]. 139. Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 8:54 AM | Permalink Leif– Have you read my recent stuff? Turns out monthly data exists, and I learned how to deal with serial autocorrelation in lagged residuals. The current trend doesn’t exclude warming, but it does exclude the IPCC’s more recent projections of 2C/century. Of course, the big dip in the temperatures in January contributed to the result. But the dip by itself would have been ambiguous if it weren’t at the tail end of a rather sustained period of just-not-refusing-to warm. My speculation (and all in science speculate as to causes) is that the PDO switch has a sufficiently large influence on GMST to cause a pause. Warming will likely renew, but it’s also likely that the warming rate was over estimated for a variety of reasons. The relatively rapid warming trend during the past decade may have been due to the collective action of a) GHGs which really do have a warming effect b) clearing off of sun blocking anthropogenic aerosols c) to a lesser extent, clearing off the haze effect of volcanos which started with Agung(sp?) blowing its top near the beginning of the period that people like to highlight in empirical verification of warming and then paused more recently and d) the PDO being in a warm phase. During this century, we are left (on average) with only the GHG warming effect, and countered by the cool phase of the PDO. Warming will likely resume, but at a lower rate than we saw during the 90s. But, I will admit this is speculation. 140. Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 9:25 AM | Permalink 139 (lucia): I read all your great stuff. Have even referred other people to it. One of the problems is what causes the PDO. There are some that claim it is an internal swing in the ‘system’. Others, that it is solar cycle related. I’m personally agnostic, although leaning away from the solar theory for this [as the solar variations are VERY small]. Many people make a big deal out of the sun being less active recently and the climate not warming as much as expected [note the politically correct wording: "cooling"="less warming"]. There are reasonably good reasons to believe that solar activity will remain low for the next 20-30 years. 141. Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 9:30 AM | Permalink Hadley CRUT3 has March 2008 at +0.43, a rise of 0.24 from February. I haven’t seen their NH/SH split. 142. Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 9:36 AM | Permalink Re #139 lucia, part of my “working model” for the last 30 years includes an effect from increased flow of warm water to the far North Atlantic, probably as part of a natural oscillation. This was roughly 1995-2000 and injected both sensible heat and water vapor into the northern NH. I suspect that has a particularly large effect “downwind” in northern Asia. 143. steven mosher Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 9:38 AM | Permalink 141. To be consistent with GISS they should have been at .58C 144. Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 10:23 AM | Permalink Leif– I am mostly agnositic on the cause for PDO swings. That said I am not completely agnostic. I lean toward the theory that oscillations, which by definition have swings, would be expected to occur in climate system. Large portions of climatology involve the general area of “continuum mechanics” and phenomena are goverened by the Navier Stokes. We expect oscillations and swings for the same reason we see vortex shedding behind bridges, which, in the case of bridges once resulted in the famous disasterous collapse of Galloping Gertie. So, while there may be a solar connection for the swings, I don’t believe that connection is required for swings to exist. That said, I’ll happily let anyone seek any connection they like. If the prove them, more power to them! :) 145. bender Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 10:44 AM | Permalink Re #144 I am agnostic on the existence of circulatory modes (such as PDO). They are an after-the-fact construct with no demonstrated predictive value. When PDO and NAO redefine themselves vis a vis AO, for example, then what does the new NH circulatory regime look like? Nobody knows. That’s the internal variability in your terawatt heat engine; you had better know something about how the engine chaotically reconfigures itself if you want to say something serious about global temperature trends vs noise. 146. Andrew Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 11:59 AM | Permalink Bender, I have notice you have a strange reaction whenever someone proposes that some mode of internal variability like PDO etc. have an impact on climate. I now think I see why. You just don’t believe in them! Well, would you concede that at least one mode-ENSO-is well established to have widespread impacts on the worlds weather, and even its temperature? It seems to me that if ENSO can do all that, its long period cousin, the PDO, should not be given the short shrift by you. 147. bender Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 12:16 PM | Permalink #146 You don’t understand what I’m saying. There is a difference between post-hoc deduction that a pattern has existed in the past and has a physical cause vs. presuming by induction that that particular pattern will continue to play itself out as it has in the past. What does it mean to guess whether PDO will go negative or positive if PDO as we know it ceases to behave as advertised? These modes *don’t* have an “impact on climate”; they are climate. What they impact is our impression of the coarsely sampled surface GMT field. So, you tell me why fluctuations in heat flux through these pathways – or even structural changes in the pathways themselves – could not be a product of GHG forcing. Dismissing fluctuations in GMT as being caused by such “internal variability” is absurd. You can not distinguish between that which is internal vs extermal if the internal*external interaction is very strong. It’s as silly an argument as “nature vs nurture” in cases where the nature*nurture interaction dominates. 148. Andrew Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 12:27 PM | Permalink Bender, try correlating these modes to CO2 or other GHG’s and you’ll see why they can’t be “consequences” of GHG forcing. Reconstructions tell us that the PDO, AMO, etc. have behave the same way (switching in and out of positive modes regularly) for hundreds, probably thousands of years. They have not been measurably impacted by external effects to date. 149. bender Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 12:30 PM | Permalink Andrew, your novice is showing. It’s bender you’re talking to, not Boris. You believe in PDO? You tell me all about it. 150. Kenneth Fritsch Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 12:47 PM | Permalink In my view our differing perspectives and assumptions may guide us as to how we look at historical temperature trends. If one is convinced that recent past temperatures are overwhelmingly controlled by increasing GHG levels, then I would think that one might concentrate on global trends as the GHGs are everywhere nearly of the same concentrations and simplistically have a global effect. Regional and seasonal differences would of course be of interest to those of the consensus views on AGW as a means of verifying these differences agreement with climate models. The lack of spatial and temporal resolution of current climate models then gets this group back to concentrating on global trends. Other views of the manifestations of the recent past climate that look at it as the result of a temperature trend due in part to GHGs and in part, or near total, to cyclical long term changes in climate/temperature arising from events such as the PDO would be less interested in global averages and more likely attempt to explain climate change in terms of regional and seasonal variations. For my own curiosity I broke down the UAH temperature data sets from 1979-2007 into zones and seasons and plotted the trends in the graphs below. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt For zones I used tropical from 30S to 30N, NH extra tropical from 30N to 60N, SH extra tropical from 30S to 60S, NH polar from 60N to 90N and SH polar from 60S to 90S. For seasons I divided the years by the months Dec, Jan, Feb and Mar, Apr, May and Jun, Jul, Aug and Sep, Oct, Nov. Since there appeared to be some rather obvious change points in the plotted data I used a previously utilized method described here: http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes to determine change points using a statistical probability of 0.05, a Huber weight parameter of 2 for fitting outliers, a cut-off length of 10 and a IP4 and pre-whitening method to account for serial correlations. I re-plotted the data to account for the change points that I calculated in this manner. I see some rather abrupt regime changes in the temperature trends and was curious whether these changes have been analyzed and noted in the climate literature. The deconstruction of temperature trends into zonal and seasonal makes these trends, to me anyway, appear more complex and contradictory. 151. Andrew Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 12:51 PM | Permalink The PDO is defined as the pattern and time series of the first empirical orthogonal function of SST over the North Pacific north of 20ºN (Mantua et al., 1997), see also Deser et al. (2004). IPCC chapter 3 defined the circulation indices including the short term and decadal scale oscillations in the Pacific, and Atlantic and attributed their origin as natural. It noted that the decadal variability in the Pacific (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO) is likely due to oceanic processes. “Extratropical ocean influences are likely to play a role as changes in the ocean gyre evolve and heat anomalies are subducted and reemerge”. Like the Pacific, the Atlantic undergoes decadal scale changes in ocean temperatures with a period that averages 60 -70 years or so. It can be seen to extend back to at least the 1850s. Both Delworth and Mann (2000) and Gray etal. (2004) showed proxy evidence of its existence at least back four centuries. Lastly, I’d love to know how this happened without a PDO circa 1976. BTW, I anticipate that the IPCC ref for attributing natural origins to these phenomenon is not good enough for you. 152. bender Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 1:00 PM | Permalink #151 You’re not listening. Tell me how are correlation and subtraction – YOUR chosen methods – supposed to work in a fluid world that you obviously accept is nonlinear and nonstationary? Listen to yourself. 153. Andrew Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 1:16 PM | Permalink Bender, if you choose to believe that PDO is “caused” by Greenhouse Gases, that is your business. If you don’t believe my simple method proposed above is good enough, fine. It probably is not. Why don’t you present evidence that it is influenced by external forces. For instance, provide evidence that there is something unusual about PDO in the present, such that it must be (or is likely to be) human induced. Or show me what process involving the greenhouse effect changes the processes of upwelling of cold and warm water in the Pacific. Otherwise, I’ll really stop listening. 154. bender Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 1:20 PM | Permalink Andrew: PDO etc. are algebraic constructs. You know that, don’t you? Although they have a physical cause, their definition and patterning is not carved in stone by the laws of physics (or IPCC). They are carved in H20 by the laws of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics. Tell me, now, how this nonlinearly-generated eigenthing will change when forced upon by a GHG trend. As the arctic sea ice melts, how do the northern oceans neighbouring the arctic respond? Where is your precious eigenconstruct now? 155. bender Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 1:21 PM | Permalink #153 You’re STILL not listening. 156. bender Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM | Permalink #153 “Stop listening?” You never started! Choose ignorance if you like. Doesn’t bother me. 157. Niels A Nielsen Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 1:48 PM | Permalink 135 (Leif) That is not what I meant. When you interpret Shaviv to say: So the increase in temperature since the Maunder Minimum would be 0.10 degree, even assuming that modern cycles have twice the spots than the average cycle. This is fine with me and is not worth wasting time on quibbling with. you assume instant and full global temperature response to solar variations! You asume that if the sun was stable at its maximum activity (the level at the top of the cycle) for fifty years, it would not raise global temperature any more than the regular, cyclical 11 year solar peak does. That is very surprising to me. If solar activity is affecting cloud cover through its effect on cosmic rays, I wouldn’t expect instant and full temperature response to a change in activity level (like the Maunder Minimum, you mention). Would you? Are you really sure you don’t want to quibble with Shavivs results? If so, I don’t think you are far from accepting his views on the size of the solar/climate link ;-) I will go read the Svalgaard 1 thread. (Leif Svalgaard – er det et dansk navn?) 158. Raven Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 2:06 PM | Permalink Andrew, Claiming that the PDO causes the the climate to change is like saying sunspots cause the sun to emit more TSI. In both cases, the statement makes no sense since we are talking about observations that are proxies for some underlying phenomena. In the case of the sun, the sunspots reflect changes in sun’s magnetic field. In the case of PDO we believe it reflects changes in the circulation patterns of the oceans. Bender’s point is we cannot have any meaningful discussion of fractional changes in the GMST unless we understand the circulation patterns of the oceans and why they change. My personal opinion is the PDO is an echo of everything that has gone on in the past which is amplified by the natural harmonic frequecy of the ocean basin. This means that the PDO may have been ’caused’ by events that happened 1000, 10000 or even 10000 years ago. 159. bender Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 3:08 PM | Permalink Thank you, Raven, for taking the time to read what is written and for bothering to specify a physical mechanism that could account for this historical eigenthing that a few climate-taxonomists have chosen to deify as “PDO”. (I believe, I believe!) “PDO” is what has emerged over the last century, but what comes next? Andrew, since you know PDO so well, tell me how you would tell the difference between an unforced and GHG-forced fluid-filled Pacfic basin echo chamber? Recalling that this is just one module in the terawatt heat engine. 160. bender Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 3:20 PM | Permalink To be clear: PDO, ENSO, etc (i.e. internal climate variability) and GHGs are not “alternatives” in the competition to explain the surface GMT record. These effects co-exist and possibly interact. It drives me nuts when skeptics treat them as alternatives to be believed in. 161. Raven Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 6:21 PM | Permalink bender says: To be clear: PDO, ENSO, etc (i.e. internal climate variability) and GHGs are not “alternatives” in the competition to explain the surface GMT record. These effects co-exist and possibly interact. It drives me nuts when skeptics treat them as alternatives to be believed in. I agree on the need to be much more precise talking about the PDO. For example, showing correlations between the sea surface termperature anonomly (a.k.a. ENSO Index) and the GMST strikes me as futile exercise since the sea surface termperature anonomly is used to calculate the GMST. 162. Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 7:02 PM | Permalink 157 (Niels): 135 (Leif) That is not what I meant. When you interpret Shaviv to say: “So the increase in temperature since the Maunder Minimum would be 0.10 degree, even assuming that modern cycles have twice the spots than the average cycle. This is fine with me and is not worth wasting time on quibbling with.” you assume instant and full global temperature response to solar variations! No, I’ll even buy Shaviv delay of 1/8th of a cycle. He is the one who says that the response follows that quickly. You assume that if the sun was stable at its maximum activity (the level at the top of the cycle) for fifty years, it would not raise global temperature any more than the regular, cyclical 11 year solar peak does. That is very surprising to me. And to me too. I am [not I, actually Shaviv is] saying that observations show that the temperature cycles up and down as the sun in an 11-year cycle. If solar activity is affecting cloud cover through its effect on cosmic rays, I wouldn’t expect instant and full temperature response to a change in activity level (like the Maunder Minimum, you mention). Would you? I don’t know. How long does a cloud last? Shaviv says that there is a delay of 1/8th of a cycle between solar activity and temperature. I take that to mean that when activity goes up, 1/8th of a cycle later the temperature goes up, and when activty goes down, 1/8th of a cycle later the temperature goes down. Are you really sure you don’t want to quibble with Shavivs results? If so, I don’t think you are far from accepting his views on the size of the solar/climate link ;-) To the extent that he says it is 0.1C betyween maxmum solar activty [e.g. recently] and minimum solar activity [e.g. Maunder Minimum], I would not take the trouble to disagree as this size is at or below the noise level. I will go read the Svalgaard#1 thread. and Svalgaard#2, and #3, and #4 :-) (Leif Svalgaard – er det et dansk navn?) Ja, men jeg bor i Texas. Prøv at google. 163. bender Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 7:44 PM | Permalink Go Habs Go! Snip me! 164. Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 7:57 PM | Permalink Bender: <blockquote>It drives me nuts when skeptics treat them as alternatives to be believed in.</blockquote> I recognize the arguments that you often see; I see them also. I don’t mean to suggest that any oscillation is an alternative to GHG’s. I think “weather” is the real signal. It is not “noise” with “climate” being the signal. The distinction of “climate” vs. “weather” is a modeling construct people use to try to explain certain things; in many ways, the distinction is arbitrary. All I mean to say is that, given the laws of nature, we expect to see things like “oscillations” in systems touched on by the Navier Stokes equations. So, I don’t seek a solar connection as a trigger event for “turns” in the periodicity. Quite a few of these behaviors can be explained (partially) based on the non-linear nature of the NS. Of course, complications ensue because, though we can explain some individual oscillations in isolation of the rest of the weather, they all end up interacting. BTW: I like the “eigen thing” description of the PDO. I think the PDO is likely a real physical thing (albeit somewhat difficult to nail down). The index used to ‘measure’ it is certainly an “eigen thing’. 165. Andrew Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 7:59 PM | Permalink 162 (Leif): No, I think I see what has you confused. Shaviv is talking about observations of the last three cycles, he does not mean .1 C more generally, and does not (as you do) apply this to the Maunder Minimum Bender, Raven, I still want <a href=”http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/10/temp_dep4906f.jpg”>this</a> explained to me. How did an algebraic construct (“eigenthingy”) do this? BTW, obviously no one knows how external effects might influence these phenomenon, but it isn’t clear that they do at all. These shifts occur quite spontaneously, and are not new. I’m not sure why you wish to insist that these are not natural. BTW, why should ENSO stand out in temperatures averaged over the whole Earth if it is only in there becuase it was included in the calculation? 166. bender Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 8:14 PM | Permalink #164 No quibble with you, lucia. Your comments are so clear I don’t believe I’ve ever misinterpreted you. I just noticed some weak-headed commentary elsewhere on PFO and GMT and decided to make something of it here on “unthreaded”. Andrew is taking the bait. When do I set the hook and start reeling him in? 167. Andrew Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 8:19 PM | Permalink Bender, if you choose not to believe in internal variability, that’s fine with me. This fish is dropping the bait. 168. bender Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 8:26 PM | Permalink #167 “You wish to insist these are not natural”. There goes Andrew arguing with the words he’s put in my mouth. Andrew, what difference does it make if you call PDO an “EOF” or an “eigenthingy”? Do these mean differnt things to you? 169. bender Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 8:36 PM | Permalink #167 Andrew accusing bender of not believing in internal climate variability. Comical. Andrew, read the blog. And read the comments before replying. 170. maksimovich Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 8:38 PM | Permalink re 165 (Andrew) BTW, obviously no one knows how external effects might influence these phenomenon, The PDO (a recurrent state)does not require an external influence to return to its initial or previous state.It can so it does. 171. Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 11:28 PM | Permalink 170 (maks): The PDO (a recurrent state)does not require an external influence to return to its initial or previous state.It can so it does. Other way around: it does, so it can. Known as Leighton’s law 172. Raven Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 11:33 PM | Permalink Andrew, The PDO is a measure of sea surface temperature. We know that the temperature of the sea affects the temperature of the land. Therefore we would expect to see land temperatures follow sea surface temperatures. The interesting question is why do the sea surface temperatures change. I called it harmonic reasonance. Bender calls it an eigen thingy. The concepts are similar: the planet’s climate probably oscillates naturally over long periods of time. To illustrate: think about a bottle filled with water with a wind blowing. The wind will cause the bottle to vibrate at a frequency that depends on the physical characteristics of the bottle. These oscillations will create waves in the water. An observer who can measure the frequence of the waves and the wind would never see the causal relationship between the two because the waves would have a specific frequency but the wind is constant. 173. Posted Apr 12, 2008 at 11:51 PM | Permalink 165 (Andrew): I think I see what has you confused. Shaviv is talking about observations of the last three cycles, he does not mean .1 C more generally, and does not (as you do) apply this to the Maunder Minimum What he shows is that for the cycles for which we have data the minimum to maximum amplitude is 0.1C. We shall denote the temperature at maximum by T+0.1C and thus at minimum the temperature is T+0.0C. There is no confusion here. Now, if the Sun returns to the same condition at every minimum, then at every minimum the temperature is T+0.0, i.e. T. This holds for the minimum just before cycle 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, and by now we are back in the Maunder minimum and the temperature is still T+0.0C. I know this is very difficult, so I’ll try this way too: 24: T+0C = T, dT = 0 23: T+0C = T, dT = 0 22: T+0C = T, dT = 0 21: T+0C = T, dT = 0 -4: T+0C = T, dT = 0 -5: T+0C = T, dT = 0 -6: T+0C = T, dT = 0 If T is different between the current minimum [24] and a minimum during the Maunder minimum [say, -6], then some of these dTs must be different from zero. Which ones? and why? 174. Niels A Nielsen Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 2:04 AM | Permalink A short comment to Leif (162). If you don’t want to quibble with Shavivs result that the minimum to maximum amplitude is 0.1C for a modern cycle then I think Shavivs explanation for this surprisingly strong effect is quite convincing. Do you have a better one? And if the GCR’s effect on cloud cover variation is the mechanism, it is not hard to imagine that an extended cloud cover for 70 years (Maunder Minimum) would lower temperatures much more than would a short dip to the solar minimum. 175. Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 2:59 AM | Permalink Someone pointed me out to this discussion. Anyway, perhaps later today I’ll have time for longer comments… in the meantime, here are a few points regarding the solar contribution over the 11-year solar cycle and the 20th century. First, the 0.1°C variations over the solar cycle are observed. True, they normally drown under noise. This only means that one has to be a little smart to dig it out of the data. The two methods are either to look for an eigenmode which varies togeter with the solar cycle (i.e., a spatial pattern varying in sync), or alternatively, average over many solar cycles. One can see two graphs from such analyses here (scroll down about 1/3 of the page to two side by side figures in one gray box). Second, the response on different time scale is different. This is because the climate system is like a low pass filter because of its oceanic heat capacity (at least on the relevant time scales). This means that the same radiative forcing variations operating on different time scales will give a different response. Specifically, the same solar forcing operating on the 11-year solar cycle, and giving an 0.1°C amplitude, can give a 0.4°C on the centennial time scale. Third, the 1/8 cycle lag is measured in Shaviv (2005) reference in the above link, and previously by others too (e.g., White et al. 1997, in the ocean sea surface temperatures). I didn’t invent the wheel here. Fourth, the discussion in S&W is over cycle 22, which was a very large one. I hope this helps. Cheers, — Nir 176. Andrey Levin Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 6:10 AM | Permalink Re139, Judith Curry: The relatively rapid warming trend during the past decade may have been due to the collective action of b) clearing off of sun blocking anthropogenic aerosols During this century, we are left (on average) with only the GHG warming effect, and countered by the cool phase of the PDO. But, I will admit this is speculation. It is not speculation, it is plain wrong. Warming trend was not rapid. Last decade demonstrated zero warming. Emissions of antropogenic aerosols increased in last 20 years due to substantial increase of coal burning in China and India, practically without SOx scrubbing. During last century two warm and only one cool phase of PDO occurred, making it naturally warming biased. According even to IPCC, only second part of 20 century was possibly influenced by increase in CO2 and other GHG increase in atmosphere, making 1910-1940 warming purely natural phenomena. Tell me where I am wrong. 177. steven mosher Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 7:14 AM | Permalink easy. you say judith curry 139. it was lucia. 178. Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 8:26 AM | Permalink 175 (Nir): The response on different time scale is different. This is because the climate system is like a low pass filter because of its oceanic heat capacity (at least on the relevant time scales). This means that the same radiative forcing variations operating on different time scales will give a different response. Specifically, the same solar forcing operating on the 11-year solar cycle, and giving an 0.1°C amplitude, can give a 0.4°C on the centennial time scale. Imagine, if you will, a situation where the Sun would have a succession of cycles equal to cycle 22, say, 10,000 cycles all like SC22. Each cycle causes a 0.1C cycle in Temperature. How would the filter work on this sequence? What is so special about the centennial time scale? What would be the effect on a 50-year scale, 0.2C? On a 200-year scale, 0.8C?, on a 1000-year scale, 4C, on a 10,000-year scale, 40C? And a bit more seriously, a filter transforms one spectrum into another. For the power at each frequency in, there is a transfer function to power at that frequency out. Please, describe what the transfer function looks like and how it is derived. 179. Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 8:42 AM | Permalink 174 (Niels): If you don’t want to quibble with Shavivs result that the minimum to maximum amplitude is 0.1C for a modern cycle then I think Shavivs explanation for this surprisingly strong effect is quite convincing. I think you misunderstood me. A 0.1C effect is not ‘surprisingly strong’ in my book. It is sufficiently low and weak to be so buried in the noise that, as Nir points out, it takes sophisticated analysis to tease it out. 180. bender Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 9:09 AM | Permalink #172 Raven, I would be happy if someone could prove to me that PDO really IS an “oscillation” in the sense you describe. Has this been proven? (To my knowledge, PDO etc. do not emerge from AOGCMs, although the ITCZ does). Until that time I see no reason to call it a PD“O”. Unless someone can prove otherwise, I am going to continue to think of it as a PD“E” – a Pacific Decadal Eigenthingy. In other words – exhibiting no real predictable oscillatory behavior whatsoever. Just internal chaotic noise. Ditto for the other so-called “modes”. Why should I accept the terminology handed down to me by the high priests of climate taxonomy? 181. pochas Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 9:20 AM | Permalink #175 (Nir): Does the 0.1 C variation include a contribution from TSI? 182. bender Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 9:37 AM | Permalink Recall, people, that these circulatory modes are inferred from very, very little data. A few decades’ worth at best. The PDE may have a PDO as its basis, but you would have to observe this thing for thousands of years to be able to infer the sort of behavioral pattern Raven & Svalgaard & maksimovich are suggesting: a robust (i.e. spatially persistent), Lorenz-like oscillator that switches states deterministically at unpredictable times. Are 5-10 decades’ worth of data sufficient to understand the basis of the unforced PDO and to predict how it would react in a warming world? Of course not. This is why Andrew’s protests (#146) and admonishments (#167) are nonsensical. Higher internal climate variability makes it HARDER to figure out what GHGs might be doing to GMT, not easier. Moreover, it is fully wrong-headed to think you can subtract EOFs off of the GMT and expect the residual to contain your GHG-forced trend. You can expect that at least some (and possible all!) of the forcing might be balled up in one of your EOFs. Finally, if the additional heat is driving a change in circulation (either flux through the pathway, or the shape of the pathway itself) then your characteristic “warming” signal is NOT a temperature trend, but some change in state. In short, attribution ain’t as easy as some would like to believe. 183. bender Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 10:04 AM | Permalink Rejoinder to #182 (which was a rejoinder to #180): Prove to me that GHGs can’t jointly – possibly alternately - impact convection and GMT. A temporary change in convection could easily absorb what would otherwise have showed up in the GMT field. According to this scheme, once the convective absorbing phase is over, GMT returns to its rise. I’m highly skeptical of skeptics like Andrew that assume (knowingly or unknowingly) that convection and GMT are independent of one another. Punctuated warming is not only possible, it would have important statistical implications for the width of the confidence envelope on IPCC’s projected warming trend line. (See lucia’s blog.) Specifically, it would widen them severely – possibly to the point of enveloping the current trendless behavior of the GMT field. Then what would be the status of lucia’s “refutation”? I have no sense for how plausible this is. It’s not a pet theory. I am merely pointing out that “internal climate variability” is a far more nuanced issue than Andrew et al. are making it out to be. (If you like, you can blame IPCC for that. They have never taken the issue seriously. You can tell by their graphics, their statistics, their rhetoric.) 184. Boris Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 11:17 AM | Permalink 183: I’d like to see the IPCC get more clear about this too. In their discussion of tipping points, they also talk about periods of stasis; I guess these are “inertia points” the climate system has to get over in order to warm–or points that delay warming for a while, speedbumpish. I’m getting ready to go to a baseball game, so I don’t have time to look this up. It could be the IPCC talks about it in detail and I’ve just missed it. But I recall it being too vague to be helpful. 185. Raven Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 11:27 AM | Permalink Bender says: Raven, I would be happy if someone could prove to me that PDO really IS an “oscillation” in the sense you describe. Has this been proven? Proven? Not as far as I know. However, it is a resonable hypothesis given the number of periodic variables in climate science. We also have ice core records that show a warming every 1000 years or so – an observation that just screams oscillation. I have also see some proxy studies that show ENSO behavoir over the last 1000 years: http://res.uniandes.edu.co/_load/aherrer1/data/Sandweiss2004.pdf 186. Andrew Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 12:07 PM | Permalink Bender, I do not wish to quarrel with you on this issue further. Clearly you have had some incredible insight which I dare not question. Anyway, some of your statements lead me to suspect we are more or less in violent agreement. However, if you truly feel that we can’t think of PDO as even an “O” you surely must realize the shear incredibly significant nature of this observation? Everyone from Spencer, Lubos, Lindzen, D’Aleo, Me, all the way down the line have said that PDO represents a dominant mode of internal variability that could be at least partly responsible for what we are seeing. If you really believe they are all wrong, RC should get you on the line, to do a blog post finally putting that damn PDO myth to rest… 187. Niels A Nielsen Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 12:24 PM | Permalink Leif, 179 I think you misunderstood me. A 0.1C effect is not ‘surprisingly strong’ in my book. It is sufficiently low and weak to be so buried in the noise that, as Nir points out, it takes sophisticated analysis to tease it out. It was my impression that a 0.1C effect is about an order of magnitude higher than what would be expected from the change in solar luminosity alone. But anyway, if the sun over a short 11 year cycle has a 0,1C effect despite the heat capacity of the oceans that will tend to dampen/delay the temperature effect of any forcing, it seems rational to expect that if the sun stays at its minimum (or maximum) activity for more than just a short blip (like it did for 70 years during the Maunder Minimum) the system will continue its cooling or heating far beyond its normal 0,1C range of variation. In this line of thinking, a change in average solar activity up or down over several cycles could also have temperature effects beyond the 0,1C range. No? 188. maksimovich Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 1:02 PM | Permalink re 186(Andrew) PDO represents a dominant mode of internal variability Reverseable Process’s with a change of phase state are also a significant problem for “state of the art” GCM.(IE how to capture phase changes that are not responsive to external flows when you can only modulate forcing’s) Loschmidts Paradox and the fluctuation theorem are not insignificant problems for “modelworld” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluctuation_theorem 189. Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 4:29 PM | Permalink 187 (Niels): it seems rational to expect that if the sun stays at its minimum (or maximum) activity for more than just a short blip (like it did for 70 years during the Maunder Minimum) the system will continue its cooling or heating far beyond its normal 0,1C range of variation. Assume the Sun was absolutely constant for millions of years, would the system continue cooling or heating? 190. aurbo Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 5:45 PM | Permalink Re the PDO/PDE controversy, I’m having a problem with understanding the heat of the discussion which seems to be little more than an argument among the taxonomical clergy. Nomenclature contrived in haste often engenders lengthy periods of tortuous repentance. Perhaps most of this could have been avoided if one started out with less ambiguous definitions. Let me stir up the coals. The word “oscillation” derives from the Latin oscillare meaning “to swing”. A good dictionary will list a number of definitions for the verb form of “swing”. A frequent, but not requisite component of the infinitive is the phrase “back and forth”. Therefore, an object may swing in an arc from A to B without ever heading back to A. (Many failed baseball hitters often wish it were reversible.) The ambiguity of the term “oscillation” stems from this characteristic. Most of us brought up in the sciences perceive the term to include a back and forth character that may be periodic (regular) or aperiodic (secular). In fact, in physics, the word “oscillation” is so often related to periodicity, “aperiodic” is sometimes defined as “non-oscillatory”! Bender seems to have the view that unless the Pacific decadal fluctuations can be shown to be periodic (which would presumably render it amenable to a mathematical solution to describe its period) the term PDO is a misnomer. [PD”E” appears to be a somewhat snarky alternative to underscore the former requirement]. My sense is that the term PDO can be used less specifically to describe a phenomenon in a way that comports to Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography. So much for this prior exercise in trivialities; let’s get down to something meaningful. About 50 years ago in the process of using climate data operationally, we uncovered a whole spectrum of weather phenomena that appeared in the form of unusually persistent episodes of anomalous conditions. The parameters involved included individual elements such as temperature, precipitation, winds and atmospheric pressure, along with some more complex anomalies involving storm tracks, tornado frequency, ENSO, and even trends of various parameters. These secular anomalies would often last from several years to a decade or more and we would define them simply by their attributes…wet, cold, droughty, cooling…etc. We were certainly curious about why they occurred, but were more interested in using them to develop forecast skill since skill can be defined as an improvement of a forecast over climatology. The term we would use to describe these anomalous events was “regime”. The vast majority of these regimes were non-recurrent. Some of the more persistent ones would by nature of their longevity often be perceived by less senior forecasters as the “normal” state of weather. When such a regime would end they would have great difficulty in adapting to the fact that what they thought was the “way things are” might not recur for many years, if ever, during their professional careers. This may explain why skepticism about the longevity climate change based on just a decade, or several decades of local or far-reaching anomalies and trends might be more prevalent among the older generations of operational meteorologists. What has recently taken place in the North Pacific is certainly a regime change. If climate history proves it to be a recurrent and/or a predictably periodic phenomenon, then the term “oscillation” might describe it better. But a change it is and, as was the previous change back in 1976, it should not be ignored. 191. Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 6:00 PM | Permalink 190 (aurbo): ENSO also has an ‘O’ in it, so does ‘SOI’. I presume that all of these loosely refer to much the same thing. There are those [e.g. Erl in the Svalgaard#5 thread] who insists that these ‘O’s are externally driven by the solar cycle. If so that would justify the ‘O’. If these ‘O’ are just random, internal, and basically chaotic fluctuations, misnaming them ‘O’ does not seem helpful. On the other hand, the ‘O’s have long standing in use, and should therefore not be lightly changed. ‘Cosmic Rays’ are not rays, but the name endures after a 100 years. 192. Kenneth Fritsch Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 6:05 PM | Permalink I learn little about the PDO or any other potential evidence for long term global storage of heat from these exchanges. That the globe is capable of storing heat for periods of time where it would not impact temperature/climate immediately and in effect giving it up at a later is time is not the question here as I see the discussion. The question appears to be whether the measured properties of the PDO global patterns give any evidence at all of a heat storage and release process. And further, even if it did show evidence of temporary global heat storage but for relatively long times, the question would remain whether this storage characteristic merely temporarily covered up long term temperature trends such as those proposed for increasing levels of GHGs. Given that my view of the situation is reasonably accurate and in agreement with the participants of the discussion would not a more fruitful path be to discuss what evidence (we would hope available evidence) would be required to substantiate, or at least clarify, our views on this matter. Also what evidence does the literature hold on this matter and what are the basic elements of any theories on the matter? 193. Andrew Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 7:15 PM | Permalink aurbo, if all that is necessary is to satisfy bender is to show that these phenomenon are periodic then he should have been satisfied long ago, becuase, as I stated above, we know from proxy evidence that these phenomenon have persisted in there pattern of more or less regular switching from one phase to another in a more or less cyclic manner for hundreds of years. I suspect bender’s concern runs deeper, and has to do with the concept itself… 194. Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 8:17 PM | Permalink Andrey: ee139, Judith Curry: The relatively rapid warming trend during the past decade may have been due to the collective action of b) clearing off of sun blocking anthropogenic aerosols During this century, we are left (on average) with only the GHG warming effect, and countered by the cool phase of the PDO. But, I will admit this is speculation. It is not speculation, it is plain wrong. Andrey, That was my comment, not Judy’s. Warming trend was not rapid. In my opinion, the trend in 1990-2000 was ‘rapid’. At the very least, it was rapid compared to the earlier 90 years. Last decade demonstrated zero warming. Do you mean the trend since 2000? The trend since 2000 is not rapid. I call this period “this” decade, not “last” decase. Emissions of antropogenic aerosols increased in last 20 years due to substantial increase of coal burning in China and India, practically without SOx scrubbing. Possibly. During last century two warm and only one cool phase of PDO occurred, making it naturally warming biased. Yes. And the lastdecade (meaning 1990-2000) appears to have been totally enclosed in a warm phase of the PDO. This may have influenced the temperature trend, resulting in some degree of warming due to natural causes. That’s what I suggested in my speculations. According even to IPCC, only second part of 20 century was possibly influenced by increase in CO2 and other GHG increase in atmosphere, making 1910-1940 warming purely natural phenomena. Mostly true. :) 195. Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 9:22 PM | Permalink # 50 Steve Case, It will never happen… Venus has no oceans. 196. Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 9:24 PM | Permalink Comparing Venus with Earth is like comparing pears with apples. 197. Posted Apr 13, 2008 at 9:25 PM | Permalink By the way, biocab.org is again in the game… Thanks by your support ;) 198. Andrey Levin Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 1:17 AM | Permalink Re#194, Lucia My apology for mistaken attribution of your post. Appears we agree on most points, except for this one: In my opinion, the trend in 1990-2000 was ‘rapid’. At the very least, it was rapid compared to the earlier 90 years. I would say that correct comparison would be between rate of warming in two periods of positive PDO of 1906-1944 and 1976-1998. Rate of warming in both periods were comparable, which puts 1976-1998 warming as “not unnaturally rapid”. 199. Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 3:02 AM | Permalink Re Andrey Levin says: Re#194, Lucia Appears we agree on most points, except for this one: In my opinion, the trend in 1990-2000 was ‘rapid’. At the very least, it was rapid compared to the earlier 90 years. I would say that correct comparison would be between rate of warming in two periods of positive PDO of 1906-1944 and 1976-1998. Rate of warming in both periods were comparable, which puts 1976-1998 warming as “not unnaturally rapid”. If you look at SSTs without the big correction pre about 1940, then the phrase might well be ‘identical’. The graph, available on this blog, is a straight line with excursions, slope .14 deg/decade. If I were in the forecasting business, had a major computer and wanted to use it for other things, I’d draw a straight line, see where the current cooling rate gets down to the line and predict that there, give or take a year, is where the cooling trend will stop. I wonder if that’s what the Met Office did. JF 200. Ross Nixon Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 4:11 AM | Permalink Slightly off-topic… here is some Mannian new math perhaps? 201. Anna Lang Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 10:33 AM | Permalink Nature News (11 April 2008) has piece highlighting the work of Verosub and Lippman regarding the human and climatic impacts of the eruption of Huaynaputina volcano (Peru) in 1600. The AGU (2007) abstract of their presentation is copied below. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.747.html http://paleomag.geology.ucdavis.edu/Publications/AGU2007a-abstracts.html “A critical test of the new understanding of volcanic aerosols developed since 1982 is to determine if it can predict the effects of larger eruptions than those that have occurred since El Chichon. To do that, requires detailed information about the effects of specific large eruptions. We have been investigating the human and climatic impacts of the 1600 eruption of Huaynaputina volcano in Peru. The estimated Volcanic Explosivity Index for this eruption is 6, which is comparable to that of the 1815 eruption of Tambora volcano in Indonesia, which produced global cooling and led to crop failures, famine and social unrest. On the basis of tree-ring data, Briffa et al. (1998) suggested that the most severe short-term Northern Hemisphere cooling event of the past 600 years occurred in 1601, the year following the Huaynaputina eruption. In order gain a better understanding of the nature and extent of this cooling, we have been collecting annual time series that provide information about climatic conditions during time intervals that bracket the Huaynaputina eruption. Among the time series that we have examined (or plan to examine) are ice conditions in the harbors of Tallinn, Estonia, and Riga, Latvia and in Lake Suwa in Japan: cherry blossom blooming (sakura) dates from Kyoto, Japan; records of agricultural production from China and Russia; tithe records from the Spanish colonial empire; dates of the beginning of the wine harvest in France and the rye harvest in Sweden; prices of agricultural commodities in Europe; and river flows from the Nile and the Colorado. Often, in the records we have examined, 1601 shows up as one of the coldest years, if not the coldest year. In addition, the worst famines in Russian history took place between 1601 and 1603, which eventually led to the overthrow of Tsar Boris Gudonov. Thus, there is considerable evidence that the climatic impacts of the Huaynaputina eruption were comparable to those from the Tambora eruption. This result is important because it documents that significant global cooling events can be generated by South American volcanoes as well as Indonesian ones and that such events might occur with a return frequency of as little as 200 years.” 202. Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 10:46 AM | Permalink RE Anna Lang, #201, While volcanic eruptions undoubtedly have a cooling effect, they may also reduce photosynthesis and therefore impair crop and tree growth through their direct effect on insolation. Has anyone tried to hold this constant? I say this because many of the MBH99/LNA treering proxies (esp. PC1) show big downspikes in 1816 and/or 1602. Does this mean they are picking up temperature, or just insolation? 203. Anna Lang Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 11:46 AM | Permalink RE Hu #202, What attracted me to this article was the variety of sources these geologists were willing to consider incorporating in their research. Your question is an interesting one and I don’t know that literature well enough to answer it. However, a quick search of some studies done following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption seems to indicate the relationships are not simple to sort out. Perhaps this will generate some additional comments. A couple of links http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5615/2035?siteid=sci&ijkey=KQBz6k7EisCDI&keytype=ref Response of a Deciduous Forest to the Mount Pinatubo Eruption: Enhanced Photosynthesis Lianhong Gu,1* Dennis D. Baldocchi,2 Steve C. Wofsy,3 J. William Munger,3 Joseph J. Michalsky,4 Shawn P. Urbanski,3 Thomas A. Boden1 Volcanic aerosols from the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption greatly increased diffuse radiation worldwide for the following 2 years. We estimated that this increase in diffuse radiation alone enhanced noontime photosynthesis of a deciduous forest by 23% in 1992 and 8% in 1993 under cloudless conditions. This finding indicates that the aerosol-induced increase in diffuse radiation by the volcano enhanced the terrestrial carbon sink and contributed to the temporary decline in the growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide after the eruption. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUFM.B33A0241A Angert, et al, AGU 2004 Was the Enhanced CO2 Sink Following the Mt. Pinatubo Eruption Driven by an Increase in Diffuse Radiation? Following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 there was a sharp decrease in the atmospheric CO2 growth rate. It is believed that this decrease was caused by an anomalous strong terrestrial sink (approx. 2PgC/yr) in the northern hemisphere. This strong sink is hard to explain, since the global low temperatures that followed the eruption (as a result of the injecting of volcanic aerosols to the stratosphere) were expected to reduce photosynthesis rate. There are currently two competing explanations for the enhanced sink. The first is that soil respiration rate declined more than photosynthesis rate, while the second suggests that the increase in the fraction of diffused radiation, as a result of the aerosol loading, caused an increase in photosynthesis. In this study we used a biogeochemical model (CASA) linked to an atmospheric tracer model (MATCH) with interannually varying transport, to predict the atmospheric CO2 response to the various hypotheses for the enhanced sink. By comparing the modeled CO2 growth rate, and seasonal minimum with observation from the CMDL global CO2 monitoring network, we found that global Net Primary Production could not have increased following the eruption. We also found that the enhanced sink cannot be explained by decreased respiration alone, and thus can be only explained by several land and ocean sink mechanisms acting in concert. 204. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 12:44 PM | Permalink I hadn’t read this when I starting pointing out that the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere (and all the attendant micro-processes that go along with one or more of them). But looks like I ended up coming to the same basic conclusion about weather/cliamte. Nature’s air conditioner. But what is NOT understood (yet is critical to understanding feedbacks and climate sensitivity) are the myriad ‘microphysical’ processes within clouds — the behavior of water drops and ice crystals. These microphysical processes determine just how much water substance will be removed as precipitation, and thus how much will be left over to be exhausted out of the weather systems as water vapor and clouds. For it is the moisture properties of the air flowing out of precipitation systems that then determine most of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, since that air slowly fills in the huge areas between the relatively small precipitation systems. Another reason why the idea that UHI doesn’t affect weather/climate is a non-sensical idea. And disproven by the heat and rain effects over very large areas. Lucia, others; The last decade is April 1998 to March 2008, at least anomaly-wise. :) While certainly “PDO” (whatever it is, and regardless if it oscillates or not) might (and seems to) need longer than the last 10 years to be discernable or to do its swing or whatever. But I am of the opinion that the anomaly trend doesn’t. I suppose it depends what one is interested in looking at. But it is clear; going from the yearly anomaly trend of GHCN+ERSST from 1998-2007 the trend over the last decade on a yearly basis is from .42 to .58 or a trend of +.16, mainly due to 1999 and 2000. So to say the last decade isn’t trending up is incorrect. (If it’s meaningful or out of the margin of error is another question) If I remember correctly, the UAH numbers overall for the four bands are only an average of something like +.02 though, I think. Whatever, the point is there’s different numbers from different metrics, but they are “up” overall within some narrow band of yearly anomalies or trends. Doing it by last 12 (12 before that ,12 before that…) months instead of a calendar year, we get the following yearly Apr-Mar anomalies (truncated to 3 digits): .516 .315 .347 .555 .509 .560 .499 .590 .580 .480 For an average anomaly of (entire number used) .4955833333 (of course we know that string of numbers is simply a by-product of the averaging process; Apr 1998 – Mar 2008 are all whole numbers, but come out .5166667) Again, mainly due to ’99 and ’00 Anyway, we still get a trend of +.14 over the period And of course, all the anomaly numbers are above the 1951-1980 base period, so it is still “warmer” if you equate the two (which I don’t, which is why I almost never call it “warming” but rather a trend rise and the numbers being in above 0 territory). And as I’ve mentioned before, all the months jump into positive territory starting right at the end of the base period and I can’t attribute that to some sudden leap of man-made carbon dioxide equivalents some period of whatever silly lead time is being postulated this particular week. And also, the anomaly has, since 1880, been constrained to +/- .62 as a yearly value. Now, my question is; since whatever period of 10 20 30 40 50… 120 years you pick, the longer the pierod, the higher the anomaly trend. What are the chances that it is not simply a side effect of the trend period itself? It looks more like that to me. Bender: These modes *don’t* have an “impact on climate”; they are climate. What they impact is our impression of the coarsely sampled surface GMT field. Exactly. How do you decouple the SST as a proxy for temperature from the SST as the weather/climate itself? Since of course weather and climate only are different on temporal and spatial scales, with certain long-term weather events blurring the line between the two. But most folks call them long-term weather, but whatever, same thing. The question then becomes; can we predict changes ahead of time? If not, what good is talking about effects? It’s like saying we know it’s going to snow in Northern Sweeden next winter and not in the Sahara. 205. Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 12:53 PM | Permalink Anna #203, it’s hard for me to see how an increase in aerosols could increase net radiation reaching the earth. Is the argument of the Gu et al paper that diffuse radiation is in frequencies that favor photosynthesis more than direct radiation? 206. Anna Lang Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 1:54 PM | Permalink RE: Hu #205: Strange as it may seem, the notion is there in the literature. Here is another example: Science 28 March 2003, Vol. 299. no. 5615, pp. 1997 – 1998 DOI: 10.1126/science.1080681 Pinatubo, Diffuse Light, and the Carbon Cycle “Similar to clouds, volcanic eruptions increase the proportion of diffuse light reaching Earth’s surface. As Farquhar and Roderick show in their Perspective, this change in the geometry (rather than intensity) of light can have a profound influence on photosynthesis and the carbon cycle. They highlight the research article by Gu et al., who have measured changes in net CO2 exchange following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. Volcanoes, pollution, and greenhouse gases may all increase diffuse light, with important consequences for Earth’s carbon cycle and climate.” In contrast, here is a tree-ring study of the impact of a volcanic eruption on a precipitation limited tree-line community in the tropics. http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/fbiondi/Biondietal2003.pdf Tree growth response to the 1913 eruption of Volca´n de Fuego de Colima, Mexico Franco Biondi et al. Abstract “The impact of volcanic eruptions on forest ecosystems can be investigated using dendrochronological records. While long-range effects are usually mediated by decreased air temperatures, resulting in frost rings or reduced maximum latewood density, local effects include abrupt suppression of radial growth, occasionally followed by greater than normal growth rates. Annual rings in Mexican mountain pine (Pinus hartwegii Lindl.) on Nevado de Colima, at the western end of the Mexican Neovolcanic Belt, indicate extremely low growth in 1913 and 1914, following the January 1913 Plinian eruption of Volca´n de Fuego, 7.7 km to the south. That event, which is listed among the largest explosive eruptions since A.D. 1500, produced ashflow deposits up to 40 m thick and blanketed our study area on Nevado de Colima with a tephra fallout 15–30 cm deep. Radial growth reduction in 1913–14 was 30% in 73% of the sampled trees. We geostatistically investigated the ecological impact of the eruption by mapping the decrease in xylem increment and found no evidence of a spatial structure in growth reduction. Little information has been available to date on forest species as biological archives of past environments in the North American tropics, yet this historical case study suggests that treeline tropical sites hold valuable records of prehistoric phenomena, including volcanic eruptions.” 207. Craig Loehle Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM | Permalink Hu and Anna: diffuse light is not better for plants per se, but is better able to penetrate farther into the canopy than direct overhead light, which tends to get absorbed by the top layer of leaves. So it is a geometry effect. 208. Phil. Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 5:04 PM | Permalink Re #204 Lucia, others; The last decade is April 1998 to March 2008, at least anomaly-wise. That would be the current decade, although technically it should be 2001-present, the last decade would be 1991-2000 209. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 5:23 PM | Permalink Phil.: No. A decade is any period of 10 years. The last 10 years would be last month’s anomaly to the monthly anomaly 10 years before. You’re talking about a fixed period of 10 years limited to some artificial start and end point, which in this case is a calendar year ending in 0 or 1. But yes, the decade of the 1990’s (1990-1999) or the 200th decade (1991-2000) can also be a period. I’m talking about getting the latest readings, which would be April 1998 to March 2008, the last 120 months. Which is also “a decade”. The point is the anomaly trend for 1998-2007 is +.16 and for the last 120 months is +.14 If you want to go for periods of 10 years otherwise stated, 1991-2000 had a trend of +.22 to +.42; +.20 1981-1990 was +.15 and 1971-1980 was +.13 and 1961-1970 was about -.01 1961-2000 was +.26 and 2001-2007 was +.06 Minutia, verbiage, rhetoric, implications with inferations. ! 210. Anna Lang Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 7:19 PM | Permalink RE: Craig #207 Thank you, Craig. In explaining Gu’s findings Farquhar indicates, “whole-canopy photosynthesis is sensitive to the geometry of light,” pointing out that “photosynthesis is typically greater if two leaves receive moderate light than if one receives bright light while the other in deep shade.” An increase in diffuse light is supposed to promote such conditions by increasing penetration of the canopy. I have not been able to pull up Gu’s article from my library’s data base, so I have not read the details, which is why I delayed a response to Hu. However, these ideas prompted me to recall a model created by Werner Terjung and Stella Louie (“Energy Budget and Photosynthesis of Canopy Leaves,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 63, No. 1, Mar. 1973, pp. 109-130), which considers numerous variables affecting photosynthesis in broadleaf and needle leaf trees. BTW, in the following number of the same journal (June 1973, pp. 181-207) Terjung & Louie have another substantial article, “Solar Radiation and Urban Heat Islands.” 211. Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 7:34 PM | Permalink So, RC criticize Pielke for looking at 1990 to now data using: If in the 2040s the Earth gets hit by a meteorite shower and dramatically cools, or if humanity has installed mirrors in space to prevent the warming, then the above scenario was not wrong (the calculations may have been perfectly accurate). It has merely become obsolete, and it cannot be verified or falsified by observed data, because the observed data have become dominated by other effects not included in the scenario. But, ahem did the earth get hit by a meteorite shower between 1990 and now? Did they install mirrors? In fact, did anything dramatically unexpected happen to forcings to suddenly veer out of the SRES scenario forcings? . No. Since these things did not occur, and we know they did not, Pielke can show how IPCC projections the data compare exactly as Stefan Rahmstorf compared the two in his 2007 paper. Why Stefan wants to bring up hypotheticals of why Pielke might not be able to do comparisons in 2040 to explain why he can’t compare today is is beyond me. But there seem to be those who buy this. Should that happen, then yes, one won’t be able to say anything about climate models. Rather, one will be able to note that predicting forcings is uncertain because we never know when meteorite showers hit! 212. Andrew Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 8:41 PM | Permalink Lucia, although this isn’t the place for this, in fairness to RC, they couldn’t pass up the chance to lecture a Pielke, rather than the other way around. ;) Also in fairness to them, it is good to have the details of what comparisons can and cannot be done “out there” so that we all definitely know the rules in the future, and don’t make obvious mistakes. That said, does RC really believe any rational person wouldn’t come to exactly their conclusions without having to think like them or read their blog? Everything they said was ridiculously obvious, such that believing he actually made those mistakes could only be done by someone predisposed to think he is dumb (which, I grant, RC readers are). 213. Andrew Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 8:44 PM | Permalink Does anyone know why I can’t sign up for a blog at auditblogs.com? I tried asking JohnA over there, but he hasn’t yet responded. It seems to be rejecting my email addresses. ALL of them! 214. Posted Apr 14, 2008 at 10:56 PM | Permalink According to a research the poorest people in the world’s poorest countries will suffer the earliest and the most from climate change, according to this year’s edition of the Environmental Review. The report says that, due to their geographical location, low incomes, and low institutional capacity, as well as their greater reliance on climate-sensitive sectors like agriculture, the poorest countries and people are suffering earliest and are poised to suffer most. ryanm …this general type of comment can go to unthreaded 215. Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 1:16 AM | Permalink The following was posted at realclimate 18 hrs ago. Still awaiting moderation, according to the message. Stefan I would be grateful if you would clarify for me a puzzling aspect of your Rahmstorf et al. ‘07 Science paper. You state in the figure caption that the ‘minimum roughness criterion’ was used to get the temperature trend line. Use of this method of data padding as described by Mann 2004 should ‘pin’ the trend line to the 2006 temperature value. However, while the 2006 value lies in the center of the IPCC range, the trend line shown on the figure lies above the 2006 value, in the upper IPCC range. I would like to clarify this apparent inconsistency. This an important paper for the case that ‘the climate system is responding more quickly than climate models indicate’ and it is important to verify its technical correctness. More details and graphs can be found here: http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-et-al-2007-ipcc-error/ 216. John A Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 3:53 AM | Permalink Re #211: Because Andrew (linkcrazy543@hotmail.com) the software is set to reject certain domains from registering blogs as these domains are used to produce spam blogs, not legitimate blogs as I had intended. Since I am not in the business of hosting blogs whose sole purpose is to game the Google search engine, then you’ll have to find a legitimate e-mail host and a legitimate reason for starting a blog at auditblogs.com 217. MarkW Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 4:53 AM | Permalink to Rush Limbaugh who has probably not read And you know this how?? The fact that he hasn’t reached the same conclusion as you? 218. Andrew Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 5:24 AM | Permalink You make it sound like I was trying to create a bogus blog. I’ll have you know I had legitimate reasons. I just don’t have email addresses that don’t come from places you’d think are spam. :( 219. Michael Jankowski Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 6:08 AM | Permalink If in the 2040s the Earth gets hit by a meteorite shower and dramatically cools, or if humanity has installed mirrors in space to prevent the warming, then the above scenario was not wrong (the calculations may have been perfectly accurate). It has merely become obsolete, and it cannot be verified or falsified by observed data, because the observed data have become dominated by other effects not included in the scenario. That’s pretty funny. I guess that RC would also have to support the idea that “the observed data may have become dominated by other effects not included in the scenario” when it comes to underestimating nature and over-estimating GHGs. Yet for some reason, even if the effects of clouds may be poorly understood, natural phenomena such as the PDO, El Nino/La Nina are poorly modeled, weightings of forcings and feedbacks have wide ranges of errors in the first place, etc, RC has no problem “verifying” GCMs so long as they produce the desired results. 220. James Erlandson Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 8:31 AM | Permalink Kristen Byrnes was interviewed by David Kestenbaum on NPR’s Morning Edition. If you’re a scientist trying to convince people they are making the world warmer, Kristen Byrnes is your worst nightmare. She’s articulate, intelligent, she has a Web site, and one day her people will be running the world. Her people, meaning 16-year-olds. 221. Judith Curry Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 9:25 AM | Permalink Another interesting article in this month’s Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society “How well do coupled models simulate today’s climate?” http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/3/pdf/i1520-0477-89-3-303.pdf 222. Kenneth Fritsch Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 9:40 AM | Permalink Andrew, I do not like seeing these discussions, such as the one on this thread dealing with PDO come to an end without at least getting some detailed background information out. I went back into the thread (since I sometimes do not follow the multi-topical discussions with any completeness on the Unthreaded) attempting to follow links and to determine what were the claims being made for the PDO vis a vis global mean temperature trends. Firstly, what is your claim for PDO and any effects it might have on global mean temperature trends? In the links above I saw the one showing the step change in the temperature series for Alaska with correspondence with the PDO index repeated a few times. As I recall I have seen a back of the envelop type dissertation on this phenomena handled on another blog where the residuals of a regression are used along with the global mean temperature trend to determine that: (1) The PDO contributes significantly to Alaska having increasing temperatures over the past 20-30 years. (2) Backing out the global mean trend and PDO shows that the Alaskan temperature increases can be attributed in part to the PDO and in part to a background increasing trend that is increasing faster than the global mean. Which gets me to my second question and that is whether you and/or your literature findings are showing the PDO to affect more than primarily the North America climate? The above question also has implications for the PDO being a manifestation of a heat transfer (over time) from one part of the globe to another, but without affecting any long term global mean temperature trends. I selfishly am interested in any expositions on theories pertaining to mechanisms for global heat storage and releases over long time periods something in the realm of Bill Gray’s theory along these lines using theromohaline transport which has little support in the main stream climate science community due mainly, I believe, to lack of any fundamental basis and explanations for it. My interest comes from some of those globally zonal and seasonal temperature trends I showed in the graphs I posted above that exhibit some rather interesting change points — even though the changes have occurred over the relatively short time period that the UAH has existed (1979-2008). 223. Kenneth Fritsch Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 9:46 AM | Permalink I forgot to add to my previous post that I am a general skeptic to the point of being skeptical of Bender’s skepticism of skeptics. 224. Kenneth Fritsch Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 9:55 AM | Permalink Re: #218 That article on first read looks enough like a previously posted article to be its twin. 225. Bill P Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 10:13 AM | Permalink Re: Kristen Byrnes Thanks for the link. I’ve heard a number of NPR’s “Climate Connection” stories over the past year, though I missed this one. Kristen is a breath of fresh air in a series that has been depressingly one-sided in its view. And of course the moderator set the record straight after her interview by reminding listeners what they should actually believe, based on the consensus of scientists. 226. Andrew Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 10:27 AM | Permalink Not sure I can help you, there, Kenneth Fritsch, I am basing my claims on the importance of PDO (actually, my non claims, since I never explicitly articulated them) on the basis that there seems to be a good overall sign correlation of the PDO with the first derivative of the GMST (temperature rises when PDO is positive and falls when negative). Incidentally, the analysis of which you speak is interesting, but how far back did they extend the data? You can see on this old graphic: http://www.john-daly.com/alaska/composite.gif that the thirties were quite warm, to. I’d buy an underlying trend, but I’d like to know if ALL the data was used. The “physical” basis of my claims, especially pertaining to Alaskan climate, comes from our knowledge of the impacts of El Ninos, and knowing that when the PDO shifted (great pacific climate shift) there have been more El Ninos since. Well, El Nino leads to warm Alaskan winters (among lot of other things): 227. Stan Palmer Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 11:02 AM | Permalink re 211 quoting from RC If in the 2040s the Earth gets hit by a meteorite shower It would not be unusual for the earth to be hit by a meteor shower in the 2040s since it is hit by mulitple meteor showers every year. I suppose they meant that the earth would be struck by a major meteor. Possibly this could be a meteor of the size that has caused multiple mass extinctions. I suppose that in that case the world population would be very likely to switch to CO2-free energy sources. Could one imagine if the Tunguska event had happened in 1972 instead of 1912 and perhaps a little bit to the west. This would be a major explosion over the Soviet Union. This was a government that had several times overkill in its nuclear arsenal. Global warming would not have been a top priority for us then. 228. Stan Palmer Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 11:08 AM | Permalink The point of 227 is that the next time there is an explosive eruption of the scale of 1815 Mount Tambora eruption there are going to be crop failures causing unprecedented starvation. In that case, the dislocation caused by a 3C rise in temperature will be trivial in comparison. The world economy will collapse and there will be an unprecedented amount of armed conflict. Several of the countries that will be starving will possess nuclear weapons. A 1 meter rise in sea level causing loss of great amounts of beachfront property is nothing compared to a starving country with nuclear weapons. 229. Kenneth Fritsch Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 11:12 AM | Permalink Re: #224 Naw, I was confusing it with the much longer article below. The similarity was the graph comparing the CMIP series. I’ll now need to look for differences. “How Well do Coupled Models Simulate Today’s Climate?” by Thomas Reichler and Junsu Kim 230. Kenneth Fritsch Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 11:19 AM | Permalink Re: #229 Naw, Naw, I was right the first time the one linked above by Judith is the same one linked earlier by Judith with the second being a shorter version of the first. 231. brian in irvine Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 6:43 PM | Permalink Steve McIntyre is the New Debian Project Leader Apr 14, 2008 The results of the election are confirmed: Debian veteran Steve McIntyre has won the Debian Project Leader (DPL) election in the third round of voting. doppelganger? Steve: Nothing to do with me. 232. Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 8:00 PM | Permalink Last Monday I found a Corydalus luteus in the neighborhood. I was so nosy that I had the audacity of asking him about his opinion on climate change. The Corydalus told me, “what climate change?”… I tried to explain him all about the global warming and climate change, and how El Niño y La Niña were affecting the life on Earth. He listened courteously my explanation and soon he responded my dissertation. He said, “Well Nasif… I have to tell you that you are given to think that “normal” things are those that fit well with your comfort, as if there were not other living beings on Earth besides you; however, all the changes that you consider “atypical” or “abnormal” are absolutely normal for the remaining living beings. Perhaps, some of us die when nature changes, but that’s not a reason for us to think that those changes are “abnormal” changes of nature. All changes in nature are normal; even the extinction of your species.” After his reply, I had not words for refuting his logics, so I took him from his wings and put him into a bottle with one quarter of 60°-alcohol. 233. MarkR Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 8:52 PM | Permalink Hansen is trying to create a plausible theoretical and empirical basis for the so far unjustified 2 x CO2 speculation in the “Warmer” literature. He obviously realises that the justification at the moment is unsatisfactory or missing, and that people (SteveMC) have noticed. This whole thing is being orchestrated. As soon as a paper is published showing weakness in the Warmers’ argument they rush out some half baked counter to muddy the waters. PS Why has no clever experimentalist devised a probative experiment for 2 X CO2? 234. Phil. Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 9:06 PM | Permalink PS Why has no clever experimentalist devised a probative experiment for 2 X CO2? They did but the current US administration decided not to launch it! 235. Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 9:56 PM | Permalink 426 (MarkR): what has Hansen and the warmer debate to do with measurements of CO2 and Temperatures in the deep past? nothing, nada, zip. Now, I can see why you might think so: If I go to CA and say that 2xCO2 gives a heating of 3K, I’m attacked for saying it is too much. If I’m over at Tamino’s and say that 2xCO2 is 3K, I’m attacked for saying it is too little. Both places feel in their bones that if CO2 is ‘thresholding’ the initiation of ice ages then one can use the relationship between CO2 drops and Temperature drops to calibrate [if done over several events] the sensitivity and actually come up with a reasonable number [I don't know what that number is yet, but the possibility exists of getting a handle on this]. If that number is halfway between 1 and 6, BOTH camps will feel threatened. Just the possibility of getting a good number is potentially a threat, because that number could clash with sacred beliefs. Better to say: it’s too complicated, too many factors, we don’t know the exactly analytical formulae, etc, etc, the data’s no good, etc. That way we can go back to tired old, but well-trodden [and therefore less threatening] debate and have business as usual. The discussion in both places would be exactly the same, except with everything reversed: if paper A says something, then paper B will be dredged up to counter. Over at the other place, it is the other way around. I find this a fascinating sociological experiment. 236. Raven Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 10:13 PM | Permalink cba says: Now you’re into Svensmark and Shaviv territory. These depend upon the somewhat ellusive CR / cloud connection. We have a correlation in the data and a plausible physical effect that has been demonstrated in the lab. I don’t see how a discussion about past ice house phases can exclude it as a possibility. Including it may actually address some of the inconsitencies. 237. MarkR Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 10:20 PM | Permalink Leif. It may have escaped your notice, but if the Warmers can’t prove any Temperature sensitivity to CO2, the whole edifice collapses. Recent temperature v CO2 data seems to show that there is no connection between the two, and that the dominant forcing is not CO2. 238. Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 10:34 PM | Permalink 430 (MarkR): it may have escaped your notice, but if the Warmers can’t prove any Temperature sensitivity to CO2, the whole edifice collapses. This is a logical fallacy. Just because somebody can’t prove something, does not mean that it is not true. A murder’s B. The police cannot prove that he did it, but he did. 239. MarkR Posted Apr 15, 2008 at 11:39 PM | Permalink #427 Phil. One has to laugh. The link below is to multiple double CO2 level environmental experiments, but they don’t seem to record temperature. Ooops. Must have just forgotten that was what the hoohah was about. http://public.ornl.gov/face/results.shtml 240. Mark T Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 12:13 AM | Permalink This is a logical fallacy. Just because somebody can’t prove something, does not mean that it is not true. A murder’s B. The police cannot prove that he did it, but he did. False assumption on your part. He did not say “because it cannot be proved it is not true,” he merely stated that the edifice falls apart, implying that everything based on an unproven assumption can no longer be supported, which is true. Particularly vexing since he followed it up with the lack of recent correlation (referenced or not, we all know there is a lack), i.e., contrary evidence. Be careful when criticizing others’ logical missteps, they may turn out to be your own. ;) Mark 241. Tom Vonk Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 3:08 AM | Permalink Hans Erren # 434 No, IMHO It just shows that CO2 is a good paleothermometer. I was going to say a similar thing in other words . Again people confusing correlation with causation . The most obvious explanation of the correlation has been known for centuries – if water is hot there is less CO2 in it than if it is cold . As there is a whole lot of CO2 in the water , it is so trivial that there is correlation between CO2 in the air and the water temperature that one wonders why people still get paid for writing about a fact known since centuries that everybody can experimentaly prove in his kitchen . As for Leif’s statement , it seems that he still didn’t integrate another well known fact which is that if one doesn’t know the orbital parameters of a body , it is really an exercice in futility to try to reconstruct “energy balances” . They are bound to be completely wrong and irrelevant . Geoff Sherrington # 406 My field is Quantum Mechanics . I am pursuing (privately) a project related to the paper we discuss with John Nicol and I am looking for good data/theories concerning the inelastic collisional cross sections of CO2 molecules . This is with the goal to make a simplified model of the equilibrium between translationnal and vibro/rotationnal modes in a N2/CO2 gas mixture . I have some data for high temperature gases or plasmas but I’d need it for room temperatures and below . As collisionaly induced quantum transitions play a major role in CO2 lasers , I would like to ask you if you had something (papers , data …) concerning those collisional cross sections . Thanks . 242. Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 3:15 AM | Permalink Sam #418, I don’t pretend that someone read all my posts (who am I? Leif Svalgaard? :-) ), but in #355 I wrote: I’m not engaging in the CO2 controversy. Water concerns me. Now, I’m not concerned by details, the effect of water on local climate, but by the big picture. I remind you that, no modesty of me, this 400 post long thread started because in Unthreaded 33, post #8, I questioned a Leif’s statement and wrote that he perpetuates the notion that a drop in CO2 concentration, some tens of millions of years ago, started the current ice age. I have three questions for you. 1) Do you agree that Leif’s vision, post #265, “more heat, more water,…still more heat, still more water…”is too simple? 2)Do you agree that the bulk of atmospheric warming, as suggested by GCMs, should be in the tropical upper troposphere, due to the higher water content there? 3)Do you agree with Lindzen and Spencer that more heat at the surface doesn’t mean, automatically, more water in the upper troposphere? If your answers to these 3 questions are 3 “yes”, I think we could give up. cba #415, a moister low level air mass has more buoyancy with respect to surrounding and aloft air, not in absolute sense. 243. MarkW Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 4:52 AM | Permalink Buoyancy only has meaning in respect to the surrounding environment. Wood is buoyant compared to water, but not compared to air. Gaseous helium is buoyant compared to both. 244. Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 5:02 AM | Permalink 433 (MarkT): False assumption on your part. He did not say “because it cannot be proved it is not true,” he merely stated that the edifice falls apart, implying that everything based on an unproven assumption can no longer be supported, No, something based on a false assumption falls apart. Just because it is unproven does not mean that it is false. 245. MarkW Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 5:05 AM | Permalink Steve: What’s a Debian, and how do you join? 246. Geoff Sherrington Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 5:48 AM | Permalink Re 407 cha Beer-Lambert relates to decrease in intensity with path length. The CO2 doubling logarthmic postulate refers to CO2 and temperature. What is worse, it does not use a log of degrees K, as science should, otherwise we’d all be out in the midday sun, dead. The spectroscopic bevaviour of the atmosphere at different light frequencies, down to individual line widths, is quite complex. So I can only comment on portions of what is aired. One noticeable common assumption is to take vertically incident sunlight and a tropical atmosphere and then extrapolate that to whole globe. That’s an easier first approximation, but fertile ground for error in the derivation of constants at other latitudes. re # 421 Raven, nice graph, but correlation/causation? Keep looking, of course, because one day there will be a graph that starts out like this and leads to a plausible, important cause. 247. cba Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 6:00 AM | Permalink 436 (Paolo): 1. More heat More moisture more convection more clouds more precipitation less heat = negative feedback with sensitivity of 0.75 deg C per 4 W/m^2 of ghg absorption (=2x CO2) for current atmosphere (33 deg K ghg warming total/ 160 W/m^2 outgoing surface absorption total). 2. I believe that is the case for gcms, however there seems to be better uses for supercomputers calculating data for imaginary worlds = video games. 3. I agree. The addition of ghgs causes a shortening of optical path lengths so virtually all the additional absorption occurs near the surface anyway so it’s easily subject to additional convection. #415 – obviously, sorry to not make it clearer. 248. MarkW Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 6:13 AM | Permalink So I can make any claim I want, and so long as nobody successfully proves me wrong, we must use my claims as operating assumptions???? 249. Geoff Sherrington Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 6:15 AM | Permalink Re Tom Vonk # 435 I’ve been retired a few years so no Company library. Then we downsized homes, so small personal library. I miss them. In brief, my answer is that I’m reliant upon search after search on the Net. It’s like the old aphorism, “The mind is willing but the flesh is weak”. My approach was also more from the classical rather than quantum mechanics side. In any case, I got lost at about Schrodinger’s derivation. My main activity is now to spot inconsistencies in presentations and ask why. If you think I can help, I’ll send a private email address but I suspect you are streets ahead of me. Age. 250. Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 6:36 AM | Permalink 441 (MarkW): we must use my claims as operating assumptions? No, you must use your claims. We don’t have to. We also do not need to take them seriously. What we do has little to do with what wild claims you make, yes? 251. cba Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 6:46 AM | Permalink 439 (Geoff): No, the log does refer to spectroscopic absorption. efforts had been made as earlier as (I think it was ) Buddyko back in the 60s to establish a linear relationship between T and power absorption. Using that empirical relation – usually with slightly altered constants seems to be prevalent still. Of course T is a 4th power factor for total absorbed power – as shown by stefan’s law. There are undoubtedly some using this linear eqn to related power to T. The problem with taking measurements is that many of the wavelengths – at the peaks are such that you’re dealing with cm not meters at longer wavelengths such as what is radiated out. What I did was to construct a model (not time iterative)called a one dimensional model using the Hitran database – that contains roughly a million absorption lines with line widths and intensities based upon T and p and concentrations and then established a spectrum array of 1nm resolution to bin all of the contributions for of about 50 slabs of atmosphere, each assumed to be at a uniform T and p – based upon the 1976 std atmosphere for the runs I’ve done. Then using classical radiative transfer theory (Eddington approx. plane), created the total absorption reradiation matrix for the column. Unfortunately, at present I don’t have anything but a p4 laptop at 3ghz so one run takes about a day and the heat load on the laptop is dangerously high so I’ve only done it twice. I can still get an occaisional whiff of the thermal grease after 2 months. I’m hoping to solve that in the near future but so far, no decent computer available yet. Despite the resolution, there are many possible problems and error sources involved. Everything from imperfections in measurement/calculation of lines and variations of the wing calculations – especially further out from the peaks aare just the beginning. In the real world 50-60% cloud cover is nominal and that has a major impact. So does the actual nature of the atmospheric T, p and content which varies over the globe – nevermind the particulates and scattering. One thing I’ve found is just how unexpectedly good the crudest of analyses are when compared to the results of the far more sophisticated. Most of what you’ve stated, I can’t disagree with and have already been involved with. I think the posts most recently are starting to put the finger on causality versus correlation. Our current world is far from 2.8 deg/doubling and infact would appear to be no more than 0.8 deg per. Then it’s quite likely that it’s actually less than that as clouds may participate in heating as well as cooling and that is not part of the ghg considerations. 252. John A Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 6:57 AM | Permalink Steve’s too busy running for City office in Burlington, Vermont, playing ice hockey in Massachusetts (although he’s luckily suspended at the moment) to spend time developing a key Linux distribution. 253. D Johnson Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 7:07 AM | Permalink JohnA, He was probably suspended for playing with a broken hockey stick. 254. Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 7:14 AM | Permalink # 233 MarkW, Debian is an operating system. 255. Richard Sharpe Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 7:32 AM | Permalink Nasif says: Debian is an operating system. To be more precise, Debian is a Linux distribution. Linux is the OS. 256. Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 7:50 AM | Permalink cba #440 if I follow your thoughts, it would seem that more low level heat would produce widespread deep convection. This is not what has been observed. More heat increases the efficiency of convective towers along the ITCZ (or other hot spots), increasing also the drying and the downlift of tropical troposphere outside the ITCZ (eventually reinforcing the cap). 257. cba Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 8:15 AM | Permalink Paolo I would expect there is already significant convection going on and that the ghg increases so far are well down in the noise. Any drying of the troposphere elsewhere would result in reduced absorption due to h2o vapor there. That would tend to offset the added power factor as well as cloud cover variation might. My point is/was that it seems there is a strong counterbalance or negative feedback going on and not a positive feedback with water vapor as assumed in gcms. Also, that these factors do not have to be controlled only or even primarily by co2. It’s not totally inconceivable (though extremely unlikely) that the net effect of added co2 could even be negative or 0 in effects on T. 258. Mark T. Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 8:45 AM | Permalink Debian is one of the more popular ones. Ubuntu is big now too, and apparently easy to use. Mark 259. Dennis Wingo Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 8:47 AM | Permalink (427) They did but the current US administration decided not to launch it! The Orbiting Carbon Observatory will be flying in just a few months. Perhaps you are talking about Triana, which was a non peer reviewed, non science mission that ran so far over budget that it is the equivalent to the space bridge to no where? 260. Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 8:57 AM | Permalink cba, evidently I’m not very clear. When did I ever say that more water has a positive feedback? I’m trying to say the opposite, with no success! It was Leif! Anyway, in today world, convection variability is outside the noise and, whenever some area is warmer, convection efficiency increases. To conclude: more heat doesn’t mean, automatically, more water, in particular in the upper tropical troposphere, which is where AGW advocates put their interest. You have to take into account atmospheric dynamic too. 261. MarkW Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 9:12 AM | Permalink So Leif, you believe that the unsupported assumptions that you make are somehow more creditworthy than the unsupported assumptions that anyone else might make? 262. Pat Keating Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 9:12 AM | Permalink 446 cba I suspect that at low humidity levels (polar regions, or during glaciations), water vapor may be a positive feedback factor (as a ghg, little cloud formation), but at high humidity levels it provides negative feedback, by cloud albedo and precipitation cooling. Curry’s group empirically found positive feedback in the polar regions, while Lindzen’s found negative in the tropics. 263. MarkW Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 9:16 AM | Permalink For example, the relationship between CR’s and clouds has not been proven, so it must be ignored until it is. The claim that H2O creates a positive feedback has not been disproven, therefore it’s OK to use it, until it is disproven. 264. MarkW Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 9:19 AM | Permalink Debian is an operating system. Dang, I was hoping it was some kind of cult. Though I have heard Linux guys being accussed of being a bit cultish. 265. Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 10:05 AM | Permalink 451 (MarkW): It is not about proving or disproving. It is about doing science right. Scientists may disagree, but they eventually figure it out. You can help by letting them do so. 266. cba Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 10:09 AM | Permalink 448 Paolo I’m trying to say the same thing – but not from any understanding of atmospheric dynamics other than basic concepts of radiative origin and conservation of energy. 450 Pat That sounds quite believable. 267. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 10:11 AM | Permalink A bit cultish? ! :) 268. Andrew Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 10:23 AM | Permalink The guy you guys are talking about is the Steve that comes up first when you search Wiki, after which it gives you the option to read about the “mining executive” (our host). Apparently the software guy is more famous (and wiki is biased, but we already knew that). 269. Not sure Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 10:30 AM | Permalink Hey now, I resemble that remark. I the unlikely event that anyone gives a …, Debian is a distribution and a distribution is an OS. Linux is just a kernel (interface with the hardware, basically.) You need many other pieces besides a kernel to make an operating system. In the Windows world there’s just one choice for each of these pieces, but in the open source world there are often many choices for these pieces. A distribution is a canned set of choices, with tools to manage choice-making in case you want to customize. Ubuntu is based on Debian, BTW. As an illustration, you can have Debian without Linux, as there are choices for kernels, too. 270. Richard Sharpe Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 10:45 AM | Permalink Is that you RMS? Linux is just a kernel (interface with the hardware, basically.) You need many other pieces besides a kernel to make an operating system. In the Windows world there’s just one choice for each of these pieces, but in the open source world there are often many choices for these pieces. You mean like init and gcc and so forth. I guess I will defer to your superior knowledge. 271. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 1:15 PM | Permalink I wrote this in numerical order, but am putting the answers in reverse numerical order. various @ 441 + See below. I guess we’re all basically agreeing. Mainly. Sorta kinda like. cba @ 440 I basically agree with you. Paolo @ 436 I’m also concerned about the big picture when it comes to water. 1) A ‘more heat more water cycle’ is too simplistic, since my opinion is that it is a negative feedback in most cases. I agree with Tom, this is simple; the bulk of the planet is covered with water, how warm or cold it is dictates how much carbon dioxide it holds or not. There is much more water vapor in the atmosphere, so it holds a lot of energy also, compared to any of the dry gases, and it absorbs IR like some of them do. The wind moves it around to where needed to keep things at whatever level they’re at, negative feeback (although “equilibrium levels” can and do go up and down of course). I don’t know, maybe that’s the same thing. 2) If the atmosphere is warming overall hasn’t been sufficiently established to me. I’m not interested in incomplete computer simulations that don’t reflect well the “5 spheres” (see below remarks) or what those simulations tell me, other than on an operational idea to work from. But they’re not physical. Real world, do sampled temperature readings over the surface reflect energy levels even at the sample location much less over the randomly sized area the sample supposedly represents? Or in other words, do the samples account for the energy being held in the ground (wet or dry) and in the air (according to relative humidity)? No, they reflect the maximum and minimum air temperature for the day without regard to how much energy is going in and out and they only do it for one place. My opinion is that the atmosphere under 100 kilometers (almost 100% of it) (or even the 90% under 16 km or the 50% under 6 km) holds some amount of energy that changes and shifts, making modeling it (accurately) impossible although able to give us some idea. Whatever you take from that. 3) Why should more heat at the surface mean anything about how much water vapor is in the upper troposhere? How about less heat at the surface means it just rained, the clouds blocked the sunlight, it’s nighttime, the ground is frozen and the air is cold, the wind blowing in is cold, the albedo is high, or any number of things not related directly to water as vapor? You have to remember part of the discussion about vertical cumulonimbus clouds, one single simple part of the system, and how water and energy and gravity and lapse rates act: When the warm air rises (often the Earth’s surface is heated by terrestrial radiation) above the typically cooler air above it, it starts to cool (as the heat rises it expands and cools, this is due to pressure at different altitudes), and the water vapor condenses into water droplets. This condensation heats the surrounding air by releasing latent heat, thus continuing the rise of air. As the air mass continues to rise, the water droplets continue to cool and form ice crystals. Gravity causes these droplets and crystals to start to fall, causing a downward movement to compete with the upward lift. Leif @ 428 As I go into detail below, I have reasons for concluding it’s too complex in the system to physically isolate at to the number, but I have no problem with an operational estimate of 3 K, which is after all about 1% of the liquid/solid K level. Is it -5 K, 0 K, 5 K, 3 K +/-3, 10 K, -10 K? I don’t care. You are correct about the social aspect (as a generalization) but there are more than two camps. There are those that aren’t threatened at all whatever the answer is, and are either content with taking everything and throwing it against the wall and seeing if it sticks, or withholding judgement. Certainly it’s not so clear, or somebody would have some sort of definitive scientific answer, not just computer simulations or stand alone lab experiments or whatever. But given everything, it hardly seems illogical that carbon dioxide might indeed have added 1% of K, or that it could be more or less or even negative (if carbon dioxide (or any of the equivalents) in operation in the system is better at sending energy up from the ground than it is sending energy down to the ground). My conclusion is that the rise in the anomaly trend is due to the monthly anomalies moving up to a new level over the baseline after the baseline period ends because of the way they’re measured, gathered, massaged and combined. This seems to be born out by the relativly flat UAH averaging of the four atmosphere band oxygen brightness level calculations. But it’s not a hypothesis, because I can’t prove or disprove it. Leif @ #419 More or less on water, it does what it does. So why or how or when is moot when faced with, well, what happens. So there’s nothing to slug out, really. :) Water Wind That said, my conclusion is that the top four factors that influence weather (short-term and long-term cycles/oscillations), and therefore over the course of 1 month to millions of years (depending on the process(es) you’re discussing), the climate, are: Sun Wind Water The other 1% Needless to say, sun wind water ratios vary in time and intensity in different predictable (seasons, night/day) and random, chaotic manners on various time periods. We’re discussing .04% of just the atmosphere (everything but oxygen, nitrogen, argon and water vapor), as being more ‘powerful’ than the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere put together and added to the lithosphere and biosphere and how they all interact? Yeah, right. So, what are some of the variables and factors? Core Plates Liquid water up to surface “Sea” surface water in liquid and solid form Land cover water in liquid and solid form Human land covering change from various uses, materials and heights Waste heat, by-products of various kinds (IR UV and other gases) and pollution (particulates, gases) from urbanization and industrialization et al Farming (food, livestock, irrigation) Industrial processes (air pollution, GHG, chemicals, runoff pollution) Surface height variations (mountains, valleys, buildings) Wind and rain patterns due to large areas of land covered with asphalt and concrete et al Wind and sun patterns in bands and areas due to orbit, rotation Oxygen, nitrogen, argon, water vapor, trace gases Clouds at various heights, precipitation, temperature, relative humidity Lapse rate, temperature of given part of atmosphere Sun cycle, intensity, relative position Cosmic rays External events (meteors, comets, unforseen other things, etc) If we’re just talking atmosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere, more or less water is the major portion. The lithosphere and biosphere and all their components and interactions with each other and the atmosphere and hydrosphere and cryosphere are of course important also. If we’re talking about the system, all this chatter on the composition of the atmosphere alone (a complex system in and of itself, but certainly not a stand-alone one) is rather pointless without considering the other ‘spheres’. Especially if we’re talking about a fraction of a percentage of the atmosphere of gases that (other than as part of the chemical and kinetic processes going on) only function to absorb and emit IR (thus moving energy up and down). Earth’s Atmosphere (wikipedia): Nitrogen 78.0842% Oxygen 20.9463% Water vapor about 1% * Argon 0.93422% Carbon dioxide 0.03811% Other 0.002% * Another place they have: Water vapor (H2O) ~0.25% over full atmosphere, typically 1% to 4% near surface. 272. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 1:28 PM | Permalink So, the Gerlich+Tscheuschner paper; it doesn’t consider water vapor, but I thought it interesting that the isochoric thermal diffusivity calculated was 3.0166*10-5 and when doubling CO2 (taking it from a mass of .06 to .12 by reducing the oxygen mass by .06) it got smaller at 3.0146*10-5 My question is do you think it’s correct to assume that radiative heat transfer dominates thermal conductivity, convection, condensation and the like? Quite the interesting subject. So back to ice ages and Ice Ages. What causes them? More cold, more ice. What stops them? Less cold, less ice. Problem solved! 273. Pat Keating Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 2:14 PM | Permalink 451 MarkW Your post, restated: - The relationship between CR’s and clouds has not been proven, so it must be ignored until it is. – The claim that H2O creates a positive feedback has not been proven, but it’s OK to use it. All hypotheses are equal, but some are more equal than others….. 274. Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 2:23 PM | Permalink ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land.00N.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat There is something very strange that is happening with our global warming environment. If you look up the above web page, you will find that NCDC/NOAA report that our Northern Hemisphere land temperature anomaly has gone up to a new record warm level during March 2008. Most of us know what March was like in North America. It was very cold with record snow. This global warming machine http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7561 must have been working overtime during MARCH or the greenhouse gases were really thick? The greatest ionospheric heater ever built. I wonder why and for what purpose? Could it do global warming chores? JANUARY -0.0886 FEBRUARY 0.6930 MARCH 2.2354[new high?] 275. Philip_B Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 2:28 PM | Permalink NOAA temps for March 2008 are out. March 2008 NH land warmest on record. SH land and ocean both 22nd warmest (probably slightly cooler than the satellite era average). ‘Global’ warming continues to be concentrated on NH land. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/global.html#temp 276. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 2:44 PM | Permalink I’d say empirical evidence disproves that H20 overall creates a positive feedback. CR, sun, clouds, the planet’s magnetic field and the like are certainly part of things. The difficulty is quantifying things, since it doesn’t even seem it’s been qualified well in the first place. 277. cba Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 3:01 PM | Permalink 455 (Sam): Consider that a chunk of ice at 223 K (about as cold as you can get on the earth’s surface) is going to radiate about 140 W/m^2 – the radiation of over 2 60 W light bulbs. By the time you reach typical T of 288K, you’re at 390 W/m^2. When compared to geothermal average leaking out – your power flow is at levels that are in a fraction of a W/m^2. The earth is, down deep, about the same T as the radiative surface or T of the sun. Evidently, it’s been that way since it formed a solid surface. Air is a better insulator than ground without convection. That leaves convection. Convection can be extremely powerful or almost a non starter, depending on differences in T etc. All solar radiation energy transits a region – the convection zone – where it dominates radiation for energy transfer. For the situation we’re in, it should dominate (radiation that is) but with anything limiting it, more convection will help allieviate problems as well as increasing T that will up the radiation rate. 278. Bruce Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 4:08 PM | Permalink ‘Global’ warming continues to be concentrated on NH land. But not the USA 48 part of the NH. For the contiguous United States, the average temperature for March was 42°F (6°C), which was 0.4°F (0.2°C) below the 20th century mean and ranked as the 52nd coolest March on record, based on preliminary data. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/national.html 279. Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 4:27 PM | Permalink philip It would appear that NOAA is the only one reporting that March 2008 is the warmest month for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE [LAND] , a record.I checked CRU, UAH, RSS and GISS they do not say this. I have a problem with the amount of temperature rise, 2.3 degrees C in two months . Where did all this sudden heat come from and where did it go . I did not see any of this in my part of the country as I was using my snow blower almost every second day during March 280. Jedwards Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 4:41 PM | Permalink Large (HUGE) haet anomaly over Northen Eurasia. It shows on the RSS images here: http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html 281. Phil. Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM | Permalink Re #244 If you look up the above web page, you will find that NCDC/NOAA report that our Northern Hemisphere land temperature anomaly has gone up to a new record warm level during March 2008. Most of us know what March was like in North America. It was very cold with record snow. Not in my part of North America, here it was a very mild winter/early spring with virtually no snow! 282. Andrey Levin Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 4:58 PM | Permalink Re#450, Pat Keating: Curry’s group empirically found positive feedback in the polar regions, while Lindzen’s found negative in the tropics. As I remember, Judith Curry at least twice said on other threads that in tropics water vapor likely does not produce positive feedback at all. I do not know if it includes clouds. 283. Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 5:14 PM | Permalink Philip Yes I see on the NOAA ANOMALIES MAP that the record March 2008 warming was mostly in Asia ,Russia and Europe[5 degrees +]. Canada shows mostly cooling and quite correctly 4-5 degrees cooler where I live in Canada [ Hamilton area]. I still cannot understand where the extra heat came so suddenly to heat the entire Northern Hemisphere some 2 degrees in such a short period . The sun is in a minimum period and the disk is spotless 284. Pat Keating Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 5:26 PM | Permalink 460 Andrey Judith Curry at least twice said on other threads that in tropics water vapor likely does not produce positive feedback I’m not sure what your point is. Judith Curry can of course say what she wants, but saying it doesn’t make it so. 285. Raven Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 5:56 PM | Permalink matt vooro says: I still cannot understand where the extra heat came so suddenly to heat the entire Northern Hemisphere some 2 degrees in such a short period From the oceans. El Nino/La Nina events move heat around rapidly. 286. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM | Permalink Perhaps the assumption that the anomaly reflects temperature as a proxy for energy levels is…. Wrong. 287. Sam Urbinto Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 6:01 PM | Permalink cba: Any postulations on energy absorption and release that don’t include the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, biosphere and lithosphere (much less the movements of Earth, and the strength and relative position of the sun) are rather, let’s say, incomplete. I doubt we could even get anywhere near to understanding what the system is doing as a whole with energy in versus energy out. An over-reliance on the anomaly, and conjecture on its possible causes isn’t helpful to getting closer, I don’t think. 288. bender Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 6:37 PM | Permalink #193: as I stated above, we know from proxy evidence that these phenomenon have persisted in there pattern of more or less regular switching from one phase to another in a more or less cyclic manner for hundreds of years 1. Citations, please. 2. Also, please address the issue of stability of spatial patterning through time. 289. cba Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 7:20 PM | Permalink 462 (Sam): My comment is related to radiative emission. It’s not about what is being absorbed but what happens if you have an object at a temperature. Given a temperature, it will emit. Without some energy to replace what was emitted, then the object will have to cool down. as for energy in/ energy out – it’s either going to balance over the moderate run or it’s going to cool off or heat up. Concerning the earth, it’s very complex and capable of operating for a while out of balance. Also, it doesn’t have to have uniform balance everywhere. Some areas can absorb more, other areas less and the balance is made up by energy transfer. I don’t know what you’re referring to as anomoly because I generally don’t use anomolies when commenting. 290. Phil. Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 10:06 PM | Permalink Re #249 Yes I see on the NOAA ANOMALIES MAP that the record March 2008 warming was mostly in Asia ,Russia and Europe[5 degrees +]. Canada shows mostly cooling and quite correctly 4-5 degrees cooler where I live in Canada [ Hamilton area]. I still cannot understand where the extra heat came so suddenly to heat the entire Northern Hemisphere some 2 degrees in such a short period . It’s consistent with the data for snow coverage for the northern hemisphere which shows an ~average Jan followed by a near record low March. 291. Phil. Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 10:08 PM | Permalink Sorry, I meant near average February not January. 292. VG Posted Apr 16, 2008 at 11:06 PM | Permalink If NOAA is calculating mean global temps like this… its a joke. Its obvious 60-85% earth cooled and 10-15% superheated (asia). This aint global anything http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html?channel=tlt 293. maksimovich Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 12:02 AM | Permalink I still cannot understand where the extra heat came so suddenly to heat the entire Northern Hemisphere some 2 degrees in such a short period 294. Geoff Sherrington Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 3:45 AM | Permalink re # 465 Tom Vonk I would not be too hasty to dismiss the climate work on spectroscopy, because some clever people have done recent work with better instruments. You are bound to encounter some who know little but are afraid to ‘fess up. It’s been like that ever since I can remember. My Uni times were pre-laser and pre-satellite and we did not cover wing theory then. IR spectrometers commonly used a glass ball filled with gas, whose pressure was measured after incidicent IR. If you are arriving at a conclusion that important processes happen in the first few m above ground, that is excellent because it provides an opportunity for direct measurements. It is already well known that some IR is absorbed in under mm of surface water, (but what has that done for ocean heat transfer models?) My approach would be more experimental, to build enclosures with numerous sensors responsive at different energies and heights then vary factors like day, night, cover, circulation, ground albedo, water. Remember that a lot a famous work was done before and soon after 1900 by deductive reasoning, sealing wax and string. Your work is fascinating, but I’m increasingly meeting limits to my recall of past work. As we say here, my eyes get bigger than my tummy. Don’t stop here – we’re taking about Ice Ages and they have to have undergone radiation changes. re cba 444 Don’t forget the sealing wax and string. It can place brackets around possible values from simulations. Remember also that spectral data bases can reflect conditions during collection, like pure gas versus trace gas in air. Last think I want to do is dampen your enthusiasm. 295. Edward Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 6:25 AM | Permalink Below is a wild shot I took on solar effects on temp. Flame away. Solar Effects on Long Term Temperature Purpose: A very simplified attempt to quantify the difference between a long period of high solar activity and a long period of very low (zero) solar activity Assumptions: Solar cycle is a sine wave Solar cycles have a constant length The temperature difference between recent solar max and min is .1C Minimum is assumed to be Zero sunspot activity (or other effects) Calculation: For a single solar cycle starting at the min temp, one half a cycle is needed to raise the temperature by .1C and one half again is needed to reduce the temperature by .1C assuming no response time delays. I would like to introduce a term “Wolf-Years” that would correspond to the area under the sunspot number (or whatever proxy you would like) curve that would be indicative of the amount of energy (or other effects) that the earth would gain or lose relative to a previous state that is assumed to be in quasi static equilibrium. Let: H= Solar Cycle Max L = Cycle Length The energy gained going up from min (assumed Zero) to max would then be related to the area under the sine wave which is H/2 + [L/2(H/2) –H/2] = LH/4 The same would be true going down except in reverse. Actual curves are not sine waves and are not symmetric, but it would seem that the area under the curves from min to max and then from max to min might be nearly the same with constant solar cycles over a long period of time. So this LH/4 corresponds to a .1C temp rise or fall. Now if one considers the steady state contribution of a long period of high solar cycles as being indicative of the average valve of the solar cycles over a time period as H/2(L)/cycle. Now for the Long period of Zero activity one would have a value of “Zero”. The difference between the high and low is HL/2. If HL/4 corresponds to .1C then HL/2 corresponds to .2C. Taken over 3 cycles this would correspond to a temp decrease or increase of .6C. This is not that tiny. Additionally, if one considers the earth atmosphere does have a response time to a solar input such as when oceans heat up the atmosphere responds in time and also heats up but not to the full extent since the oceans begin to cool before the total affect is felt. Therefore, the above .1C sensitivity could be higher. How high? If it was .2C, then the rise would be 1.2C or approx 2F. This is definitely not small. 296. Bernie Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 6:35 AM | Permalink maksimovich: I am not sure what I am looking at. Can you say a little more? 297. PaulM Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 6:48 AM | Permalink # 247 JEdwards, As a resident of ‘Northern Eurasia’ (just about) I can confirm that there was no ‘huge heat anomoly’ here in March. In fact quite the reverse, late March was very cold with snow. March 2008 CET data confirms this – it was cooler than 8 of the 10 previous years. 298. cba Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 6:50 AM | Permalink 465 (Tom): Those values are (as I recall) part of the database, line by line. I guess to you question, I used what was supplied in the Hitran database and implemented as explained in the write-ups concerning the data base. As for the bottom layer, I used Planck calculations for surface emissions. The radiative transfer between layers has an absorption based upon T, p, and molecular concentrations. It’s emission is then the Planck distribution times the absorption factor (hope I said that right). Atmospheric distribution currently used is the 1976 standard atmosphere with a surface T of 288.2K. Concentrations, T, p are configurable inputs by layer. Corrections to lines and widths for T, p are done per the Hitran documentation. Exact w/m^2 over your specific wavelengths exists on another computer but I’ve no time at present to get it. Total should be around 390w/m^2. One should realize too the point of any fine detail virtually becomes moot once a cloud gets in the way. 466 (Geoff): I think here it’s called chewing gum and baling wire. The hitran database was developed for atmospheric analysis and took 20 years + to develop. It’s both calculated and measured in many cases. whether it’s good to better than 3% may yet be another thing but it pretty much is as good as it gets for dealing with the atmospheric transparency. It evidently has some use significantly beyond earth’s atmosphere with effort. For practical purposes, it’s pretty much well beyond what can be done in a gcm video game. As for your thoughts concerning radiative emissions in the past, they may or may not have undergone tremendous change since then. Once one reaches peak output wavelengths for surface temperatures, the emissivity of snow and ice starts to approach 1.0. Just about everything on the surface has over 0.95 emissivity for that, regardless of whether they are highly reflective in the visible (extremely low emissivity). Hence, it’s going to be a matter of localized T for the amount and peak of the radiation. There should be less h2o vapor in the air due to glaciation (in that region) which permits more radiation to escape. Colder oceans should absorpb more co2 – dropping the overall concentrations. All in all, I don’t think I see reason for there to be much difference. The ice and snow cover replaces the clouds short circuiting the albedo cloud effects and keeping the higher lattitudes ice bound. The tropics goes on as usual conveying insufficient energy to melt down the albedo shorting glaciers. Ultimately, it eventually prevails with the aide of little to no precipitation to replace sublimation of ice and the older ice/snow eventually compacts into ice reducing albedo til finally the glacial cycle is broken, probably with additional help from the changes in orbital conditions bringing in more solar insolation. 464 (Hans): As for Veizer and Shaviv’s paper, it looked good as usual. I still think they’re high by 2x although they may stress the upper end of their sigma range to kow tow some to be more palitable for those in the mainstream whose faith is in video games. 299. Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 6:54 AM | Permalink #250 raven Where I have a problem is that we have an extended La Nina since last year which tends to cool rather than heat, the ocean temperatures are down, the sun is still in a solar minimum and lower in irradiance , the solar disk is spotless most of the time and there were no major solar ram pressure spikes in March and yet the temperature change for a single month was the highest on record after a record cold in January.Is someone monkeying with the weather ? 300. Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 7:40 AM | Permalink This article calling for a cooler year in 2008 sort of confirms what I was saying. Cooling is the prevaling trend so how can you have record warming unless the boys in Alaska turned on their weather machine, the largest ionospheric warming machine ever built. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm 301. bender Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 8:02 AM | Permalink #257 This aint global anything Skeptic fallacy #12. The reality is that global phenomena can have regional manifestations. Heating, even if it is “global”, is redistributed in regional packets via the global circulation. So stop asking for a “global” fingerprint. That ain’t how it works. 302. Reference Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 8:16 AM | Permalink #263 bender Either there is a fingerprint or there isn’t. If there isn’t then why is there a underlying global positive trend in the surface temperature measurements from both satellite and ground stations? 303. Phil. Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 8:46 AM | Permalink Re #260 # 247 JEdwards, As a resident of ‘Northern Eurasia’ (just about) I can confirm that there was no ‘huge heat anomoly’ here in March. In fact quite the reverse, late March was very cold with snow. March 2008 CET data confirms this – it was cooler than 8 of the 10 previous years. If by CET you mean the Central England Temperature it’s not in the ‘Northern Eurasia’ region referred to in the post above, from that graphic the CET was slightly below normal (I make the CET for March below 7 of the last 10 years). I suspect that you are about 2000 miles W of the area in question? 304. Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 8:46 AM | Permalink and why the sea is boiling hot. 305. Tom Vonk Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 9:00 AM | Permalink cba # 467 Those values are (as I recall) part of the database, line by line. I guess to you question, I used what was supplied in the Hitran database and implemented as explained in the write-ups concerning the data base. As for the bottom layer, I used Planck calculations for surface emissions. The radiative transfer between layers has an absorption based upon T, p, and molecular concentrations. It’s emission is then the Planck distribution times the absorption factor (hope I said that right). Atmospheric distribution currently used is the 1976 standard atmosphere with a surface T of 288.2K. Concentrations, T, p are configurable inputs by layer. Corrections to lines and widths for T, p are done per the Hitran documentation Well I have never used Hitran because I do more pencil intensive than processor intensive work :) But I am relatively familar with it and have sometimes looked there to get some numerical values . From what I know , there are NO collisional cross sections and I do not think that they even consider the process . It is more of a “classical” data base giving intensities , line widths , (recently even Einstein coefficients) and such that allow to simulate absorptions/transmissions in a gas mixture . So more of an empirical work that says nothing about emissions and therefore is only a small part of the story (about 1 fourth) when one wants to write an energy balance for a gas volume . It is not Hitran where I will find anything about collisional cross sections . I don’t quite see what you mean by “Its emission is then the Planck distribution times the absorption factor You surely don’t mean that the atmosphere (a gas mixture) emits like a black (or gray) body , right ? If I ask that , it is because to the contrary of absorption where Hitran helps , emission is a highly non trivial matter where Hitran says nothing . 306. jae Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 10:19 AM | Permalink 470, Tom Vonk: It appears to me that most of the “physical principles” underlying climate science are based on these same assumptions and ideas. If you are correct, there is an AWFUL lot of nonsense in the climate science literature. 307. cba Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM | Permalink 470 (Tom): My understanding of radiative transfer and of the einstein coefficents etc. is that the T of the gas creates a planck energy distribution which when multiplied by the absorption at each wavelength yields an emission spectra. The special case where the original surface emission is at the same temperature as a gas body yields neither absorption nor emission which would occur if the gas were either colder or hotter than the body. For a planck distribution spectrum, one would need to get a gas energized sufficiently so that higher states would be populated – such as the example of the photosphere of the sun which is a moderately good vacuum pressure level gas at 6000K. I think you underestimate the Hitran project and the relationship of absorption and emission under LTE and the consequences of not having LTE. 308. jae Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 12:45 PM | Permalink cba: maybe I don’t understand this issue well, but isn’t the question about whether collisional effects and convection are being included in these emission calculations? 309. cba Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 1:22 PM | Permalink jae, that’s where the planck distribution comes in – that is the thermal distribution of energy spread around by collisions and the absorption curve is the liklihood of a transition between states at that energy – absorbed or emitted assuming LTE (local thermodynamic equilibrium). LTE exists where one can define a unique temperature which is the vast majority of matter in the atmosphere. convection doesn’t enter in as that is not a radiative effect and can be dealt with separately. otherwise I may not understand what Tom is driving at either although it seems a bit nit picky and over the top for this thread. 310. MarkR Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 1:35 PM | Permalink Tom and Geoff. Have you looked at: FACE is a method and infrastructure used to experimentally enrich the atmosphere enveloping portions of a terrestrial ecosystem with controlled amounts of carbon dioxide (and in some cases, other gases), without using chambers or walls. The Brookhaven FACE team operates the Duke Forest FACE experiment, provides engineering and operations support for the DOE/BER FACE facility and technical support for other non-DOE global climate change experiments. http://www.bnl.gov/face/ It they have proper temperature records it should be possible to empirically calculate the CO2 sensitivity over a wide range od test sites. 311. Pat Keating Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 1:37 PM | Permalink 474 cba absorbed or emitted assuming LTE I suspect you are at a point where you are better off looking at statistical mechanics and probabilities, rather than invoking more-macroscopic concepts, such as LTE. 312. Philip_B Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 1:40 PM | Permalink Warmer fallacy #12: Temperature data from NH, particularly land, averaged over the entire globe, particularly the SH, proves global warming. It doesn’t matter how much the NH warms, if the SH isn’t warming then it aint global warming. 313. Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 1:40 PM | Permalink re 475: Don’t think so because the optical depth of that CO2 is far to thin to have any measurable radiative effect. 314. Bruce Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 2:14 PM | Permalink Steve, right now the Continental USA is around .55C below the long term average (UAH), while parts of Asia are something like 1.3C above the long term average. We also know the 30’s were very warm in the USA while the rest of world … not so much. Who can say for sure the USA “Medieval Warm” was not in the 15th century? :) 315. MarkR Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 2:18 PM | Permalink Hans. I reckon that at 500ppm CO2, a couple of mtrs blanket would give a pretty good test environment, as it’s said that CO2 is so efficient at absorbing/redirecting heat. 316. cba Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 2:27 PM | Permalink 476 (Pat): Why? I’ve got the planck dist. for energy at a temp T. If an area has no T (not LTE) it’s screwed up royally anyway and is doubtlessly well above the vast majority of the atmosphere with non thermal energy input going on. I’m computationally bound already. The purpose of the effort was not to advance spectroscopic analysis or QM but to get a better handle on atmospheric transparency/opacity as it pertains to climate. My yet to be verified efforts are not complete but look reasonable. 477 (Hans): Co2 thick optical depth of strong lines can be extremely short – like in cm rather than meters. 317. Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 3:58 PM | Permalink show me how short cba and at which wavelenghts here is the spectral data at 7.5 ppm meters: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/ftir/aedcdat1.html given the canopy at 20 m I challenge you to calculate the absorption difference between 380 ppm * 20 m and 500 ppm * 20 m 318. Andrew Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 4:05 PM | Permalink I don’t know if anyone has pointed this out before, but I may have noticed something important: The IPCC’s Global Mean Radiative Forcing numbers don’t seem to add up! First, see figure 5 here: http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf Now, if we add up all the forcings at their highest possible values (following the chart, the total net anthropogenic forcing could be up to 3.19 W/m2 (add the max solar (which I disagree with) and you get 3.49 W/m2) but the chart says that the max net anthropogenic is 2.4 W/m2! What’s going on here? Also of note, the total GMRF could be as low as -.49 W/m2, not .66 W/m2 as the chart implies (low total net anthropogenic +solar) according to this chart. Am I doing something wrong, or are they that bad a simple arithmetic? 319. Dave Dardinger Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 4:10 PM | Permalink re: #474 cba, I think this is what I’ve talked about several times without getting a discussion going. The plank distribution is how the energy is spread around by collision at a given temperature. But the collisional emission is, I think, what happens during the collision process itself. Some sort of transitional complex forms lasting a very short time. Then the individual molecules separate again after having exchanged (usually) some energy. However it may be that things are arranged right to emit a photon in the IR section of the spectra during the collision. I’d love to read something about what can and does occur, preferably via a web link or perhaps a .pdf paper. It may be that such emission is rare or it may be quite common. How such emission relates to the spectra of a low pressure gas would be nice to know It’s clear that the frequency of such emission would be “proportional” to the density of the gas since collisions would be more common in denser gases, regardless of the temperature. I’ve been mostly interested in the past concerning such collisional emission as a way of understanding black-body radiation, but obviously it has other applications. 320. bender Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 6:18 PM | Permalink #302 #312 Your bias is showing. Think about it. Fingerprints have ridges and troughs that do not cover the full extent of the print. As with fingerprints, so with AGW “fingerprints”. Try reading the attribution literature. 321. Philip_B Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 6:40 PM | Permalink Oh boy! Argument by analogy. So we have a partial fingerprint for AGW. Unless this is an episode of CSI, partial fingerprints are inconclusive evidence. The jury must acquit CO2. 322. bender Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 6:46 PM | Permalink #321 The analogy is not as superficial as you seem to think. Which is why I used it. To draw you deeper into the mess you are making. 323. Vic Sage Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 6:51 PM | Permalink The reality is that global phenomena can have regional manifestations. Heating, even if it is “global”, is redistributed in regional packets via the global circulation. So stop asking for a “global” fingerprint. That ain’t how it works. Global warming theory makes certain predictions. If these predictions are not confirmed, the theory is flawed. I don’t want a finger print, I want a theory that actually describes what is actually happening. Until then I will reamain skeptical. 324. bender Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 7:03 PM | Permalink #323 “Fingerprint” is slang for a clear hypothesis test. So, yes, you do want to know what the expected “fingerpint” is. The reason the term is a propos is because you don’t expect the same impact everyehere. The global circulation buggers up the global signal. That is precisely why in the past we have tended to look at the GMT time-series. That is why “if it ain’t global, it ain’t AGW” is fool’s logic. Sorry. It’s true. 325. bender Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 7:06 PM | Permalink #321 partial fingerprints are inconclusive evidence This is true. However that does not entitle a skeptic to go all the way in the other direction and claim that regionality refutes the G in AGW. It surely does not. 326. charlesH Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM | Permalink Steve #7, Steve: “It’s entirely reasonable to be concerned about the issue of doubled Co2.” Why is it reasonable to be concerned? Increased co2 means increased plant growth (more food) and to the extent increased co2 increases temp (mostly in the high latitudes, at night, in the winter) growing seasons will increase (more food). Visualize a arctic climate. Now visualize a tropical climate. The arctic is becoming more like the tropics, ever so slightly. This is bad? The only negative is a foot or two of sea level increase. We have burned a huge amount of fossil fuels the last 100yrs with increased co2 and increased temp (related or not). The world is better fed, the environment is much improved and we enjoy a much higher standard of living. What if we had been concerned about co2 100yrs ago and not burned all those fossil fuels. Can anyone seriously argue we would be better off today? Seriously, please tell me why its reasonable to be concerned and not reasonable to be pleased. 327. MarkR Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 8:26 PM | Permalink #317 Hans. If the difference in Temp between 380ppm and 500ppm CO2 can’t be discerned, then how is the theory ever going to be proved or disproved. Where is the warming effect manifesting itself? 328. Raven Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 8:36 PM | Permalink charlesH says: Seriously, please tell me why its reasonable to be concerned and not reasonable to be pleased. NASA claims that an asteroid has a 1:42000 chance of hit earth around 2030. The chance of disaster is small but that does not mean we should ignore it entirely. Prudence requires that we monitor this asteroid and be prepared to act if it looks like the asteroid is likely to hit. The same is true of CO2 – the alarmists could be right and we cannot ignore that possibility. On the other hand, I feel the most recent data suggests the IPCC is overstating the probability of a catastrophic outcome. But prudance still requries that we pay attention and be prepared to act if the real data (as opposed to computer models) tells us that a catastrophic outcome is likely. 329. jae Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 9:00 PM | Permalink There was some finger that made the MWP and LIA print. Big finger, I’m thinking. 330. jae Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 9:07 PM | Permalink Well, of course, different fingers make different fingerprints… 331. Johan i Kanada Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 9:15 PM | Permalink #33 But there is only one issue discussed, CO2. All other issues, more important, concrete and managable, are virtually ignored. Just imagine if the world had spent the same amount money and attention e.g. on giving clean water and basic sanitation to the world. And they gave Gore the peace prize? It’s almost immoral. 332. cba Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 9:41 PM | Permalink 317 (Hans): You requested a line example. It was a royal pain going in to get it but here it is. K=667.5514 wavelength = 14.98 micron the raw hitran value (for 296K and 1 atm and std atm 1976 ) 2.16-22 per cm (per molecule) using the whole std atm 1976 values, at 14.98 microns tau/cm my processed absorption was 0.0366/cm this includes all lines from all molecules absorbing at this wavelength. I’m not going to try to do a calculation on that at present. However, the difference will be roughly something like the absorption for 20 m for current co2 is going to be roughly like the absorption for 500 ppm over a distance of 19.xx meters. Why would your reference be based upon absorption of 7.5 ppm? Actually, it looks more like the absorption for the std atmospheric value now. for distances in cm. Dave, I think the blackbody for a gas is based upon the gas being excited enough so that electrons are in high states where there can be large numbers of closely spaced lines – like n -> very high states in a hydrogen atom where many low energy lines are available rather than at lower energy states where the alpha and beta lines are found. 333. Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 10:24 PM | Permalink Re 288 by bender 1. Citations, please. The best one seems to be this one, with proxy records up to 1661: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/biondi2001/biondi2001.html Up to 1890 we have this: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001GL014201.shtml Also of interest are: http://www.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ and http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/pdo.html I really don’t know whether PDO/PDI (and many other poorly understood ocean cycles) has a life of its own, is a purely statistical construct or something in between. My guess is that, similar to ENSO, it is governed by its own, as yet unknown laws but also is influenced by climate forcings (I can’t imagine ENSO or PDO behaving just like now during a glaciation). In fact, I’ve never read anyone saying that these cycles cannot be influenced by other climate phenomena but I have read AGW-proponents hypothesize that they are no more than post-hoc constructs and claim that AGW can basically explain certain climate features. For example, a post at RC some time ago by Michael Mann on Atlantic hurricanes and AMO. It may be helpful to compare PDO to another complex system with highly chaotic elements where a somewhat similar phenomenon can be observed, namely the economic system and the business cycles. I’m not very dogmatic about it, but I have my opinion on why business cycles exist and how they develop. However, the fact is that neither I nor anyone else can predict when the next crisis/boom will take place or how strong it will be. All we know is that “external forcings” (wars, technological breakthroughs, stock market swings or most decidedly, government countermeasures) surely affect the cycles –the latter not necessarily in the intended way-. But in the end the cycle will overwhelm all of them and a crisis or a boom will finally ensue. So it has been in the past centuries and so we confidently expect it will be in the future. One can of course imagine an extreme forcing -a “glaciation”- where the cycle would pretty much cease to exist. For example an overturning of the capitalist system by a communist regime (one could argue that all this would do is put the economy in a permanent state of economic depression). And we also have some “economic AGWers” (different neoclassical schools), who will claim that the economic ups and downs can be fully explained by the government or central bank policies. Finally, we have a superimposed trend (end of little ice-age/AGW?) that makes the economy grow regardless of the cycles. But given the manifest lack of predictive skill by any existing theory, one can conclude that: A) Business cycles exist outside the realm of statistics but are governed by not well understood economic principles. B) External forcings are able to affect them (we’ve so far managed to avoid a depression like that of the ‘30s). The same would go for the PDO as physical phenomenon, I think. 334. charlesH Posted Apr 17, 2008 at 10:32 PM | Permalink One more point. The relationship between co2 and warming is a log function (not linear and certainly not exponential). Thus we will see diminishing warming effects from co2 linear increases. Since we have not seen any serious effects thus far it is unreasonable to expect we will see them in the future. 335. Philip_B Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 12:18 AM | Permalink This is true. However that does not entitle a skeptic to go all the way in the other direction and claim that regionality refutes the G in AGW. It surely does not. Regionality is your term. I pointed out that there is no significant warming trend over the entire SH (in the satellite data) over the 30 year period of the satellite data. And I’ll note that the SH recieves more solar radiation and hence emits more LWR than the NH (about 5% from memory). There is also less weather noise in the SH. So we would expect any GHG warming signal to show more clearly in the SH. The fact that it doesn’t, IMO, refutes the G in AGW (as in GHG warming of the magnitude claimed). 336. bender Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 4:44 AM | Permalink #331 So we would expect any GHG warming signal to show more clearly in the SH. The fact that it doesn’t, IMO, refutes the G in AGW. Of course you say you expect that; you want the hypothesis to be false. If your hypothesis test were honest you would explain where your expectation comes from. Are you running your own GCMs? I thought not. In case you haven’t noticed: the two hemispheres are not identical. It is legitimate to expect some differences in warming behavior. Stuff that in your GCM when you get it running. Your counter-arguments are a joke, bordering on tiresome. 337. Geoff Sherrington Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 4:46 AM | Permalink Re ryanm # 19 I have complained before that Time Magazine is getting too clever in its use of graphic manipulation, once for a cover on shrinking Arctic ice and the open NW Passage. There should be a better code to tell fiction photos from photos that never lie. The proper graphic shown is held in high esteem by the USA. If you read the full story, the first attempt at raising a flag resulted in the photographer falling 50 feet or so down the hill. A few hours later they recreated and staged the now-famous Iwo Jima landmark image. A bit OT, mut there is someting of the same issue of writing to deceive or to convey a false intent, the subject of this thread. 338. MarkW Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 4:49 AM | Permalink NASA claims that an asteroid has a 1:42000 chance of hit earth around 2030. The chance of disaster is small but that does not mean we should ignore it entirely. Prudence requires that we monitor this asteroid and be prepared to act if it looks like the asteroid is likely to hit. The same is true of CO2 – the alarmists could be right and we cannot ignore that possibility. On the other hand, I feel the most recent data suggests the IPCC is overstating the probability of a catastrophic outcome. But prudance still requries that we pay attention and be prepared to act if the real data (as opposed to computer models) tells us that a catastrophic outcome is likely. Prudence might dictate that we keep an eye on the asteriod, prudence does not dictate that we must immeadiately launch a$500 Trillion program to deflect the asteroid.

Side note:
While there are no positive results of an asteroid strike, there are many positive results from increased CO2.

339. MarkW
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 4:53 AM | Permalink

The proper graphic shown is held in high esteem by the USA. If you read the full story, the first attempt at raising a flag resulted in the photographer falling 50 feet or so down the hill. A few hours later they recreated and staged the now-famous Iwo Jima landmark image.

This is not correct. The first flag raising on Mt. Suribashi was a small flag. Some general noted that the flag could not be seen from the entire island, and ordered that a larger flag be raised. That flag was raised on the first attempt, and it was that flag raising that was captured in the famous photograph. The picture was not staged.

340. bender
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 5:05 AM | Permalink

#330 The Biondi et al (2001) article you cite makes my point, thank you. There is, yes, a weak oscillatory component at ~20 year periodicity. But the “switch” from negative to positive in the 1970s is not at all associated with that periodic component. The “switches” from mostly positive to mostly negative have no periodicity whatsoever. Andrew’s argument was not simply that there is a sustained periodic component, but that those 1970s-like switches are periodic. The graphic makes that point abundantly clear.

It’s not the century-scale bidecadal oscillation that defines the eigenthing we call “PDO”. It’s fluctuations over a mere 50 years. In “reconstructing” PDO, Biondi et al. are presuming that the thing they purport to be reconstructing is a stable structure worth reconstructing. That is precisely what I am questioning. i.e. Biondi et al. beg the question. Is the 20-year cycle a real feature of the thing they are reconstructing, or an idiosyncracy in their proxy? (And if it is in the actual PDO, then is it solar driven? Because that wouldn’t fit Raven’s suggestion that it is internally caused.)

But where are all the voices criticizing proxy-based reconstructions? Don’t tell me you’re trying to have it both ways – accepting a method only when it suits your purpose.

341. bender
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 5:11 AM | Permalink

#330
“The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) Index is defined as the leading principal component of North Pacific monthly sea surface temperature variability (poleward of 20N for the 1900-93 period).”

IOW it is, as I said, an “eigenthingy” defined from a “few decades worth of data”. Nine, to be precise. Most important, however: none of what you cite addresses PDE robustness in the spatial domain. That is Andrew’s homework.

Any more fallacious or overly simplistic arguments for me to debunk?

342. Mike Davis
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 6:43 AM | Permalink

Bender:
Debunk the fact that there is no scientific proof that we are not currently experiencing natural climate variability. Also prove that the paleo history used by IPCC is robust. When you can do that Then prove the accuracy of the global temperature amomoly.

343. Andrew
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 7:09 AM | Permalink

To bad for bender I’ve lost interest and don’t feel like building a time machine to prove that the PDO is atually worth reconing. Frankly, I think bender is asking to much.

344. bender
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 7:23 AM | Permalink

#343 An obvious dodge. So what you’re telling me is that you’re more interested in propagating your peculiar fiction than in learning from people who know more than you? Too bad for you.

345. bender
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 7:32 AM | Permalink

One wonders if Andrew has also lost interest in lucia’s #164:

bender: “It drives me nuts when skeptics treat them [circulatory modes vs. AGW] as alternatives to be believed in.”
lucia: “I recognize the arguments that you often see; I see them also.”

More to the point: does this mean Andrew et al. now accept that AGW and PDO are not alternative explanations for the 20th c. warming trend?

346. Raven
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 7:47 AM | Permalink

Bender says:

And if it is in the actual PDO, then is it solar driven? Because that wouldn’t fit Raven’s suggestion that it is internally caused.

I don’t recall saying it was internally caused. I suggested that it could be echos of causes in the past rather than an immediate response to current forcings.

That said, even if the PDO cannot be demonstrated to be an oscillation it is still a measureable phenomena which demonstrates that the climate is more than forcings + short term weather noise. Perhaps it can be described as weather system that lasts decades rather than a few days.

347. Vic Sage
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 7:52 AM | Permalink

Bender:
Debunk the fact that there is no scientific proof that we are not currently experiencing natural climate variability. Also prove that the paleo history used by IPCC is robust. When you can do that Then prove the accuracy of the global temperature amomoly.

The sound of crickets and pins falling on a hard surface.

348. Raven
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 7:55 AM | Permalink

Bender says:

More to the point: does this mean Andrew et al. now accept that AGW and PDO are not alternative explanations for the 20th c. warming trend?

I think it depends on how you frame the PDO ‘explanation’. The GCMs assume that the climate would have remained static if humans did not start dumping CO2 into the air. The cooling of the 70s is conveniently dismissed by fiddling with aerosol forcings. The PDO is evidence that the climate has coherent variations that last a decade or more which means a portion (if not most) of the warming since the 70s could be attributed to decadal scale weather noise. This would result in a much lower estimate for CO2 sensitivity.

349. bender
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 8:03 AM | Permalink

#346
By “internal” I was including the echo effect you mentioned. My point remains. If the 20y cyclic component is solar driven, then there is no periodicity left for the echo effect to explain.

I do not necessarily agree that PDO is a “measurable phenomenon”. What is it a phenomenon of? What proof do you have that its bounds are fixed? For they must be fixed in order for the thing to be measurable.

My point stands: PDO is nothing more than a post-hoc deduction, based on little data and precious little oscillatory behavior. It is not an alternative explanation for the 20th c. warming trend because it could itself be influenced by a “global” warming trend.

Go read Erl Happ on Svalgaard #5. If you allow that the sun can have a stronger impact in the south pacific than elsewhere, then other “global” forcing agents must also be allowed to have regional imprints. One simply can not have it both ways as suits one’s purpose.

350. bender
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 8:08 AM | Permalink

#347
Crickets?! My apologies for not reading every post and responding within minutes. I’ll try harder.

351. bender
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 8:21 AM | Permalink

#342
1. Estimating the CO2 sensitivity coefficient is beyond me. I can’t prove that it is significantly different from zero. I accept that there is probably high uncertainty on this parameter. This is precisely why Steve M is calling for an engineering quality report on the derivation of this number.
2. As I’ve argued far more convincingly than you: the climate recons are IMO hopelessly uncertain. I am not at all convinced current warming or current trend is ‘unprecedented’ in 1000+ years. Like Wegman, I would go to court on that.
3. No comment on GMT. Energy can take the form of either temperature or convection. The only way to contruct a better AGW hypothesis test is through the use of EBMs and GCMs.

Chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp.

352. Andrew
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM | Permalink

No, Bender, I’ve just lost interest in defending the idea-I never really endorsed it. BTW “Alternative explanations” is not at all how I would put it-only “religous bigots”, as Lubos likes to put it, insist on only one cuase for the warming trend. Anyway, as Spencer has pointed out, daily random cloud noise could lead to long term variability-and we can’t really measure these things very well, now can we?

Also, BTW, this is not an endorsement of Erl’s ideas, but not all forcings are completely global. If you look at the IPCC’s chart, you’ll note the mention that some forcings given there are global/continental or even just continental.

353. Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 9:17 AM | Permalink

I have been over chez Tammy to help keep him straight. I received the predicted amount of abuse, but what does one expect? David Benson produced a data file with estimated CO2 emissions since 1750 [not a typo] and asked that I analyze that. The result is here. As a teaser, here is one of the Figures:

The dark blue curve is HadCRU, the light blue MSU(lt).

354. Raven
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 9:36 AM | Permalink

353 (Leif):

with estimated CO2 emissions since 1750 [not a typo] and asked that I analyze that. The result is here.

Could you clarify the CO2 sensitivity calculations (I get negative numbers for dT when I plug numbers in so I must be doing something wrong).

355. John Lang
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 9:40 AM | Permalink

On Leif at #353, the choice of the scale on the second x-axis can just be adjusted to make log(CO2) look like it correlates perfectly with temperature or it can be adjusted to make it look like there is no correlation whatsoever.

Reminds me of Gore’s CO2 and temperature charts for the ice ages. Gore’s chart makes it look like CO2 drives temperature on a 1:1 basis when, in fact, it is only capable of explaining a maximum 30% of the temperature changes in the ice ages and most likely only 15%. Gore was just using the double axis scaling scam.

356. Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 9:43 AM | Permalink

354 (Raven): as I said in the “paper”:
One can now cherry pick one over the other depending on what one wants to show. We could also determine by a least-square-fit the two sensitivities using the same time interval [1979-2008]. We find:

dT = 2.3204 log2(CO2 ppm) – 19.470 HAD R2 = 0.65
dT = 1.9280 log2(CO2 ppm) – 16.304 MSU LT R2 = 0.38

357. Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

355 (JohnL):

the choice of the scale on the second x-axis

358. Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 9:51 AM | Permalink

355 (JohnL): I forgot to state the obvious, that all the scaling issues only make sense if you assume from the outset that ALL the change in T is due to CO2. I thought my satirical analysis on page 5 made that clear, but apparently it was taken seriously.

359. Raven
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 9:51 AM | Permalink

256 (Lief): Sorry Leif, I am a bit dense today. I want to calculate the dT for a CO2 doubling.

I tried pluging 560 and 560/280 as (CO2 ppm) but get negative numbers because of the –19.470/–16.304

How are these formulas supposed to be used?

360. Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 10:02 AM | Permalink

359 (Raven): the formulae say “log2(CO2)”. That is the logarithm to base 2 of the CO2 concentration in ppm:
280 8.129283017
560 9.129283017

361. Vic Sage
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

#347
Crickets?! My apologies for not reading every post and responding within minutes. I’ll try harder.

Sorry, that came across as much more snarky than I intended. I ask those same questions on a lot of discussion forums and usually get either 1) you are too stupid to understand or 2) no answer.

I must say your response is the most forthcoming that I’ve seen.

362. Andrew
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

353 (Leif): Calculating the apparent empirical dependence of Temp on CO2 is probably the best way to do it, but there are many reasons that it will give you a misleading answer. Of course, there are the reasons Tammy and pals will give, and then there are several other reasons they won’t bother mentioning, but I will. The things Tammy and pals will mention are:
1. “Ocean delay” they predicted warming takes time to materialize
2. “Aerosols” a poorly understood (probably) negative forcing that is “masking” warming

The reasons that they won’t mention, since they go in the other direction are:
1. Other GHG’s (Methane et al.) contribute to the trend
2. Tere may be internal variabiity which you need to take into account (I grant this could go both ways)
3. Solar Forcing. I know this is your pet peeve, but, well… (also, ditto)
4. Other positive forcings (soot et al.)

In the end, the “real” answer may well be higher-however I would bet against it. At any rate, if aerosols are masking th warming, why should we assume they will dissipate in the future?

363. Barney Frank
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

Leif,
I expect that kind of hostility from a few commentors at most sites but in his case the nastiest one of the bunch seems to be the blogger himself. Sheesh. Never realized before just how unpleasant he is.

364. Kenneth Fritsch
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 11:26 AM | Permalink

Re: #333

It may be helpful to compare PDO to another complex system with highly chaotic elements where a somewhat similar phenomenon can be observed, namely the economic system and the business cycles. I’m not very dogmatic about it, but I have my opinion on why business cycles exist and how they develop. However, the fact is that neither I nor anyone else can predict when the next crisis/boom will take place or how strong it will be.

Interesting analogy between the “business cycle” and the PDO, but since your economics appear Austrian to me, I am a bit surprised that you would attempt to compare an economic phenomenon with one that would be better explained by the physical sciences.

I predict that we will get closer to explaining the internal and external forces involved in climate sooner than we will ever with the internal forces (man’s many choices that can change, adjust and interact with other individuals decisions in a free market of ideas and actions) that drive the economy.

365. Sam Urbinto
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

As Ralf and Gerhard said:

The concept of the Earth’s mean temperature is ill-defined. Therefore the concept of a rise of a mean temperature is ill-defined as well.

and

The concept of the Earth’s average temperature is a physically and mathematically ill-defined and therefore useless.

cba @ 289

Given a temperature, it will emit. Without some energy to replace what was emitted, then the object will have to cool down.
as for energy in/ energy out – it’s either going to balance over the moderate run or it’s going to cool off or heat up.
Concerning the earth, it’s very complex and capable of operating for a while out of balance. Also, it doesn’t have to have uniform balance everywhere. Some areas can absorb more, other areas less and the balance is made up by energy transfer.

I like the way you think.

I don’t know what you’re referring to as anomoly because I generally don’t use anomolies when commenting.

“The anomaly” is where a derived figure that supposedly represents energy levels on a planetary scale shows that (for example) December 2007 was .39 C higher than the 1951-1980 (I’m supposing for December) average of the same number. And that in 1976 and 1972 it was the same. Or my favorite year, 1984, was .15 lower. Just a bunch of numbers.

cba @ 298

They’re numerical computer simulations. Not quite as fun as video games.

Andrew @ 318

The IPCC numbers don’t add up because they invent them and they have no thumbs so they can’t use calculators. :D Really, they don’t add up because they’re ranges. If you’re http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg talking about this, then you can put things at the high or low end to do pretty much anything.

“In climate science, radiative forcing is (loosely) defined as the change in net irradiance at the tropopause”

bender @ 322

Dude. Like, seriously.

lol

Vic Sage @ 323

It’s not a theory. In fact, it’s not really even a hypothesis. And there are no predictions, they’re scenarios. :D

bender @ 336

Actually, we’ve pretty much determined (well, the graph was pretty) that the SH water is +/- 10 and NH is +/- 6 as far as energy levels, and opposite in sign with each other. Obvious, right?

bender @ 345

What warming trend? You mean the monthly anomalies since 1980? Hah!

bender @ 351

1. Nobody can prove if it’s -10 K or 0 K or 10 K. Yep. No engineering quality report is forthcoming. Proof? The inside of a car gets very hot on a sunny day, especially on the dashboad where the sun is directly hitting it. But the windows aren’t that hot. Need carbon dioxide to get there?

2. Exactly.

3. GMT? What’s that?

Barney Frank @ 363

It’s taken you that long to fing out how tammy, rabid and the like are? !

Raven @ 354

Doubling the mass of carbon dioxide results in a reduction in energy levels. Question: If a cow falls out of a canopy in the jungle, when it lands on the termite, does the fat lady sing if nobody is there to hear it?

366. Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 11:43 AM | Permalink

354 (Raven): In the formulae:
dT = 2.3204 log2(CO2 ppm) – 19.470 HAD R2 = 0.65
dT = 1.9280 log2(CO2 ppm) – 16.304 MSU LT R2 = 0.38
the numbers just before the ‘log’ are the dT for a doubling of CO2. the funny numbers [-19, -16] are just to compensate for the arbitrary unit [ppm] used for CO2. If I had measured CO2 in GigaTons, the 2.3204 and 1.9280 would have stayed the same, but the funny numbers would have changed.

367. Sam Urbinto
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

National Geographic, the Doomsday Machine

George H. Kaub

Pollution of many types and kinds is currently paramount in the public mind. Causes and solutions are being loudly proclaimed by all of the media, politicians, public agencies, universities, garden clubs, industry, and churches, ad infinitum. Pollution runs the spectrum from the air we breathe and the water we drink to the soil we till, as well as visual and audio pollution, and in recent years, pollution of outer space from junk exploration hardware.

These threats to our environment, our health and our mental wellbeing are real and with us, but not nearly as immediately catastrophic or totally destructive as the disaster which imminently faces this nation and menace of monstrous proportions can be likened only to the entire country resting on a gargantuan San Andreas fault. Earthquakes, hurricanes, mud slides, fire, famine, and atomic war all rolled into one hold no greater destructive power than this incipient horror which will engulf the country in the immediate and predictable future.

This continent is in the gravest danger of following legendary Atlantis to the bottom of the sea. No natural disaster, no overpowering compounding of pollutions or cataclysmic nuclear war will cause the end. Instead, a seemingly innocent monster created by man, nurtured by man, however as yet unheeded by man, will doom this continent to the watery grave of oblivion.

But there is yet time to save ourselves if this warning is heeded.

PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY STOPPED AT ALL COSTS! This beautiful, educational, erudite, and thoroughly appreciated publication is the heretofore unrecognized instrument of doom which must be erased if we as a country or continent will survive. It is NOT TOO LATE if this warning is heeded!

According to current subscription figures, more than 6,869,797 issues of the National Geographic magazine are sent to subscribers monthly throughout the world. However, it would be safe to say that the bulk of these magazines reach subscribers in the United States and Canada, and it is, and never has been, thrown away! It is saved like a monthly edition of the Bible. The magazine has been published for over 141 years continuously, and countless millions if not billions of copies have been innocently yet relentlessly accumulating in basements, attics, garages, public and private institutions of learning, the Library of Congress, Smithsonian Institution, Good Will, and Salvation Army stores, and heaven knows where else. Never discarded, always saved. No recycling, just the horrible and relentless accumulation of this static vehicle of our doom!

National Geographic averages approximately 2 pounds per issue. Since no copies have been discarded or destroyed since the beginning of publication, it can be readily seen that the accumulated aggregate weight is a figure that not only boggles the mind, but is imminently approaching the disaster point. That point will be the time at which the geologic substructure of the country can no longer support the incredible load, and subsidence will occur. Gradually at first, but then relentlessly accelerating as rock formations are compressed, become plastic and begin to flow, great faults will appear.

The logical sequence of events is predictable. First will come foundation failures and gradual sinking of residences and public buildings in which the magazine has been stored. As these areas depress the earth, more and more structures will topple and sink until whole towns and cities will submerge, then larger and larger land masses. This chain reaction will accelerate until the entire country has fallen below the level of the sea and total inundation will occur.

The areas of higher subscription density, affluence and wealth, will be the first to go, followed by institutions, middle class, urban, and ghetto areas in that order, with the relatively unpopulated plains and mountains finally sinking into the sea.

We have been warned of this impending calamity by a seeming increase in so-called natural disasters throughout the country, as well as isolated occurrences striking areas heretofore immune to natural destruction:

Increase in earthquake activity in California has been triggered by population growth and the subsequent increase in National Geographic subscriptions and accumulations of heavy masses of the magazine. This gradual increase in weight has caused increased activity along the San Andreas fault.
Earthquakes in the Denver area were not caused by pumping of wastes into wells at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, but by accumulation of National Geographic magazines by more and more people as the population increased over the years.
Sinking of several coal-mining towns throughout the country can only be attributed to the increase in workers benefits and pay increases, allowing them to subscribe to and hoard National Geographic.
Mud slides in California, which have brought destruction to hundreds of homes built on the hillsides, were triggered by the final straw in the form of the last delivery into these areas of National Geographic to subscribers and hoarders.
The list is endless. The warnings are clear.

The time grows short and we must act at once if this calamity is to be averted. The National Geographic must cease publication at once, if necessary by Congressional action or Presidential edict.

© The Journal of Irreproducible Results, vol. 20, #4, July 1974, pages 12-14.

National Geographic: Doomsday Machine or Benefactor? A Vindication

L. M. Jones
Department of Geology
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia 30602
Response to National Geographic, the Doomsday Machine

An attack on National Geographic magazine is an attack on a venerated American tradition, one as American as apple pie, Watergate, Pogo, and pizza.

The cry for the immediate termination of publication and distribution of National Geographic magazine cannot go without challenge. Kaub (1974) has not only created an aura of hysteria for the future of the Earth, but has also imparted an unnecessary sense of guilt on anyone who as much as reads an issue of National Geographic, let alone anyone who would sequester an issue in an attic or garage.

Kaub (1974) contends there will be disasters of continental proportions due to the indestructiveness of National Geographic magazine. He suggests that localized accumulations of National Geographic are responsible for earthquake activity in areas such as the San Andreas fault and Denver. He also would attribute directly to the magazine other natural disasters such as mud slides and subsidence. Kaub (1974) further knells the doomsday bell, by predicting that continued storage of the magazine will result in massive subsidence of buildings, cities, and finally, inundation of the entire country by sea.

Nonsense.

It is such erroneous expoundings as Kaub’s that have created undue panic among the populace on other occasions. For example, movement along the San Andreas fault has been interpreted to mean that California will soon fall into the sea!

And now National Geographic! Is nothing sacred?

Let’s examine this problem calmly and logically. First, 10 issues of National Geographic magazine were selected from the collections of the author and a colleague. These issues were weighed and measured; these data are given in Table 1, in addition to calculated values of area and density for the magazine.

Table 1: Dimensions, weight and density of 10 selected issues of National Geographic magazine

Date Thickness
mm Weight
g Width
cm Length
cm Area
cm2 Density
g/cm3
June 1959 7.73 402.15 17.33 25.34 439.1 1.185
August 1961 7.02 370.28 17.49 25.39 444.1 1.188
May 1962 7.70 408.72 17.51 25.35 443.9 1.196
October 1962 7.27 388.50 17.48 25.44 444.7 1.202
May 1963 7.58 396.15 17.43 25.32 441.3 1.184
April 1966 7.985 422.60 17.55 25.35 444.9 1.190
July 1971 6.52 342.72 17.36 25.31 439.4 1.196
Nov 1971 I 6.95 371.49 17.54 25.48 446.5 1.196
Nov 1971 II 7.05 373.71 17.51 25.50 446.5 1.187
January 1973 6.05 324.75 17.49 25.38 443.9 1.209
average 7.19 – – – 443.5 1.193

To simplify the following calculations, it was assumed that erosion of the landmass is negligible, as well as other geologic factors. The only geologic process that would be operative is isostasy, which is the approach of crustal masses to a flotational equilibrium. Other assumptions that were made include the following:

The density of the upper mantle is 3.3 g/cm3, which represents a lower limit
The monthly circulation of National Geographic is that as given by Kaub (1974), 6,869,797, and remains constant.
Distribution of the magazine is restricted to the conterminous 48 United States (with no offense intended to Hawaii, Alaska, or any country; Hawaii and Alaska were excluded on the basis of relatively small area and small population, respectively).
The magazine is evenly distributed over the 48 United States.
The area of the 48 states is 7,954 x 103 km2 (Showers, 1973).
The area of the oceans is 362,033 x 103 km2 (Showers, 1973).
No issues of National Geographic magazine will be destroyed.
The average thickness of the 10 issues in Table 1 is representative (0.719 cm).
Taking the predictions of Kaub (1974) at face value, the height of a column of National Geographic magazines necessary to depress the continental land mass by 100 feet (30.48 m) was calculated. This would be a vertical stack 82.33 m high, equivalent to 11.45 x 103 magazines. This depression of the land mass would produce a rise in sea level due to displaced mantle material. Assuming the effect is confined only to the ocean basins, a net depression of 100 feet (30.48 m) would be due to an actual depression of the land of 29.82 m and a resultant rise in sea level of 66 cm.

There would be a notable change in the coastline with a net depression of 100 feet. While there will be little change in the outline of the West coast due to the steep slope, that of the East coast will change markedly. It is readily seen that many urban problems will be solved by inundation, saving vast amounts of urban renewal funds. The Atlantis legend will be recalled with the flooding of cities such as Boston, New York, Washington, Baltimore, Savannah, Miami, Houston, and New Orleans. Of course, unexpected benefits would be realized by other communities. For example, Yazoo, Mississippi, would become a major seaport – certainly a possibility that has not been dreamed of by town officials, even in their wildest imagination.

No matter how beneficial the results of this crustal depressing might be, there is the question of time. Assuming even distribution of National Geographic over the present surface, it would take 17.94 x 1013 copies of the magazine to cover the 48 United States with one thickness. If the National Geographic Society continues to publish the magazine at 12 issues each year, it will take 2.176 x 106 years to deposit one thickness over the United States. The time it would take to accumulate a thickness of National Geographic sufficient to depress the crust 100 feet would be 24.92 x 109 years. Since this length of time is several times greater than the present age of the Earth, it should be obvious that we or future generations have little to fear from the National Geographic Society.

If Mr. Kaub is still distressed about the weighty threat by the National Geographic Society, perhaps he should consider taking up lighter reading.

References:
Kaub, G. H., 1974. National Geographic, the Doomsday Machine. JIR, vol. 20, # 3, pp 22-23.
Showers, V., 1973. The World in Figures. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

© The Journal of Irreproducible Results, vol. 20, #4, July 1974, page 31.

Errors in Extrapolation

Joseph Koosman
New Jersey

Dear Editor:

It was with mixed feelings that I pondered George H. Kaub’s “National Geographic, the Doomsday Machine” in JIR, since similar thoughts had passed through my mind on occasion. Especially hitting close to home was the discovery, in a previous home, that my living room putting practice was quite sour, due to tilt of the house because of unsymmetrical attic storage (hoarding, if you insist, Mr. Kaub) of my copies of Life Magazine over a mere 35 years; the earth below, as well as my spirits, definitely suffered depression. However, it would have been unseemly of my scientific mind to extrapolate so local an incident to a global catastrophe after once having been caught in an error of judgement on a much grander scale, namely the State of Texas.

A compatriot in my Army outfit it was, who put me in my place. He was a short-statured Texan who, I had earlier thought, was also short in cranial content. But, like so many Texans who engage in hyperbole in all matters dealing with that state, this one bragged about the fact that Texas rests on a sea of oil, whose enormous monetary value supports all the affluence attending not only the medical profession, but even the lowliest gandy-dancer in that state. I retorted with exaggerated smugness that his privileges were to be short-lived because, as that wealth of oil is withdrawn from beneath his great state of Texas, his great state is going to sink out of sight and mind. But imagine my chagrin for having overlooked the well-documented answer when, some days later, he accosted me with a victorious air and declared, “Your prediction is impossible. I looked it up and found that the oil is pushed out of the ground by brine which is pumped into the ground. Therefore, no void is created and Texas won’t sink”. Thus, I must raise the point that George Kaub is alarming us unduly, despite the apparent legitimacy of his thesis. There must be a compensating factor which is not obvious at the moment.

Yours truly,

Joseph G. Koosman
North Caldwell, New Jersey

© The Journal of Irreproducible Results II

National Geographic: Doomsday Machine Revisited

Victor Milstein, Ge. 01

Kaub’s excellent article was the first organized warning of imminent disaster. Unfortunately Jones’s recent response to this is quite erroneous and dilutes the efficacy of the alert. The same issue of JIR contains a letter by Koosman which reports a directly validating experience of Kaub’s hypothesis, but then goes on to deny the generalizability of it.

Allow me to dispose of Koosman’s ready acceptance of his Texan’s explanation first. Texas will sink (sic) and is in fact sinking (sic) at present. The reason for this has nothing to do with the accumulation of the magazine Kaub described as beautiful, educational and erudite, since these qualities usually are not considered in relation to oil in Texas. While it is true that the oil that is being pumped out of the ground is replaced by the brine pushing it out, this will not save Texas. Everyone knows that oil floats on water, even salt water. (Remember the oil-soaked gulls and other birds after oil-spills?) This means that the light oil that Texas is floating on is being replaced by brine. This heavier brine will compress the material under it and sink deeper into the Earth. Quod erat demonstrandum, Texas will continue to sink (sic).

Return to Jones’s whitewash of the impending catastrophe. He makes 8 assumptions in arriving at his conclusion that it will require 24.92 x 10 9 years to depress the crust of the United States 100 feet. Of these 8 assumptions, 2 are completely incorrect and 3 are irrelevant (numbers 1, 3, and 6). The 2 crucial, incorrect assumptions are numbers 2 and 4. Number 2 assumes that the monthly circulation of National Geographic will remain constant. Since the population of the United States and especially the population of children in the USA is increasing, it is clear that the monthly circulation of National Geographic will also increase since the magazine is subscribed to mainly for school children. (The initial subscription is taken out with the intent of allowing the child to cut up the magazine. However, the beauty of each issue is such that parents never permit such sacrilege.) Thus, since the population of the United States is increasing, the monthly circulation of the magazine will also increase. This is a lower-bound estimate since both standard of living and degree of pretentiousness have been increasing at a more rapid rate than the population of the United States. This pretentiousness is an important motivating factor in subscribing to National Geographic.

The other critical assumption, namely number 4, that the magazine is evenly distributed over the 48 states, is false. In truth, the 23 states comprising the Eastern one-fourth of the country in land area (in fact 23.8%) contain more than half (56.4%) of the population. Thus, it is clear that more than 50% of the density of the increasing numbers of the magazine is accumulating in less than one-fourth of the land mass.

These figures necessitate a re-computation of the ultimate effect of accumulation of National Geographic magazines. The most likely result, taking account of the increasing population density of the West Coast as well, is that subsidence will occur at both the East and West coastal ends of the United States. The probability is that both coasts will sink, and the West Central portion of the United States (except Texas, as noted above) will rise an average of 217 meters. And, Jones to the contrary, this will take place in much less than 24.92 x 109 years. It will occur in 457.247 x 37 years! Clearly Kaub’s warning must be heeded if we are to avoid disaster.

368. Andrew
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 12:41 PM | Permalink

Sam, I was hoping Gavin would mysteriously materialise so he could tell me off for not understanding how to add numbers the IPCC way. A semester and a half of Calc isn’t helping me understand this one. Perhaps I have hurt his feelings first? Well, your excuse isn’t so good to me, but I suppose one could add ranges however one pleases (evidently they do anyway).

369. jae
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 12:56 PM | Permalink

367, Sam: Relax, it is sequestering Carbon and therefore saving us from much worse!

370. Phil.
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 1:40 PM | Permalink

Re #366

dT = 2.3204 log2(CO2 ppm) – 19.470 HAD R2 = 0.65
dT = 1.9280 log2(CO2 ppm) – 16.304 MSU LT R2 = 0.38
the numbers just before the ‘log’ are the dT for a doubling of CO2. the funny numbers [-19, -16] are just to compensate for the arbitrary unit [ppm] used for CO2. If I had measured CO2 in GigaTons, the 2.3204 and 1.9280 would have stayed the same, but the funny numbers would have changed.

If instead you’d used a ratio then no funny numbers would be necessary.

E.g. dT = 1.9280 log2(CO2 ppm/CO2ref) the ‘funny number’ is in fact 1.9280 log2(1/CO2ref).

371. Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 1:48 PM | Permalink

370 (Phil): Of course, but is convenient just to plug in the number on the right-hand Y-axis. The ppm is what people normally use. I have never seen a plot using a CO2ref. But, hey, the whole thing is a non-issue, the effect of 2xCO2 is right there as the first number of the formula.

372. Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 2:58 PM | Permalink

# 370

Phil.,

Are you abbreviating the formula? dT = 1.9280 [Log 2 (CO2double / CO2 standard)] / 4 (5.6697 x 10^-8)(K)^3.

The result is 0.36 K (or 0.36 °C) if CO2 increases twofold.

373. Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 3:05 PM | Permalink

However, the real -not funny- numbers are as follows:

ΔT = (0.423 W/m^2) [ln (δ CO2 current / δ CO2 standard)]/4 (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2* K^4) (T^3)

ΔT = (0.423 W/m^2) [ln (0.000681 Kg/m^3 / 0.0005 Kg/m^3)] / 4 (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2* K^4) (300.15 K) ^3 =
= (0.423 W/m^2)(0.308) / 4 (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4) (27040520.253 K^3) = 0.130284 W/m^2 / 6.13 W/m^2*K = 0.02 K

374. Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 3:23 PM | Permalink

Now, if you wish to continue using the funny value of 1.9280 W/m^2 for the flux of energy, then the funny output would be the next:

ΔT = (1.9280 W/m^2) [ln (δ CO2 current / δ CO2 standard)]/4 (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2* K^4) (T^3) = 0.22 K

Regards,

Corydalus luteus

375. Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 3:24 PM | Permalink

Re 364 by Kenneth:

Spot on on both paragraphs. But I wouldn’t underestimate the complexity of the climate system. I see the day when reliable forecasts of the next El Nino or hurricane season will be produced a very long distance in the future.

Re various attempts by bender to pick a fight with someone over the PDO:

It’s not just the PDO, but quite a few marine cycles (some possibly yet unknown) generally considered to be of “natural” origin. Proxies for AMO date back 1 millennium. Haven’t found proxy studies for AO/NAO:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/288/5473/1984

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL019932.shtml

Who’s claimed that long-term T trends and ocean cycles are mutually exclusive alternatives, anyway? Whatever caused the end of the LIA seems to be superimposed on the PDO and definitely on ENSO.

As for the period 1976-1998, if PDO and AMO are not statistical constructs, as scientists on both sides of the AGW debate think, then there could be little left for AGW to explain. That’s all.

376. Kenneth Fritsch
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

Re: #375

Mikel Mariñelarena when you say:

Re various attempts by bender to pick a fight with someone over the PDO:..

I have to say, as a general skeptic myself, that I really do not mind when bender “picks a fight” and admonishes the skeptics as I found that thoroughly skeptical.

I find the concept of oscillating systems such as the PDO of sufficient interest to learn more, but my current lack of knowledge and background concerning these systems and hesitancy to embrace climate reconstructions without a thorough review keeps me in the skeptics camp — like bender.

377. phil.
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

re #370
no, it’s hs math!

378. anonymous
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 4:24 PM | Permalink

#353 Wow even Leif now doesn’t quote GISS? I wonder why???

379. cba
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 5:14 PM | Permalink

378 (anon.):

are you kidding? To get here you’ve to wade through Steve’s editorials that vascillate between pine nuts and the disasters of statistical proportions and the latest reports that GISS can’t even figure out the historical temperature record as measured directly for the last 100 yrs and continues to ‘correct’ the errors by manipulating the valid data and leaving the erroneous data unchanged. If they can’t even figure out the historical records, how’re they ever going to predict something accurately?

380. cba
Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 9:25 PM | Permalink

374 (Nasif):

Why would you use mass of co2 rather than ppm as it’s the number of molecules that determines absorption (and I think most people are more familar with seeing the numbers)?

381. Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 10:28 PM | Permalink

# 380

cba,

You’re correct, ppmV units are well known for most people. However, the outcome is the same, given that the product in any case is 2:

ΔT = (1.9280 W/m^2) [ln (ppmV CO2 current / ppmV CO2 standard)]/4 (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2* K^4) (T^3) =

= (1.9280 W/m^2) [ln (560 ppmV/280 ppmV)] / 4 (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2* K^4) (T^3) = 0.22 K

382. Posted Apr 18, 2008 at 10:37 PM | Permalink

Please, change the word “current” by “doubling”. ;)

383. John A
Posted Apr 19, 2008 at 12:35 AM | Permalink

Nasif,
You are allowed to use LaTeX to make your equations better.
$\Delta T=(1.9280 W/m^2)\times \frac{ln (\frac{ppmV CO_2 current}{ppmV CO_2 standard})}{4 \times(5.6697 \times 10^-8 W/m^2* K^4) \times (T^3)}$

384. John A
Posted Apr 19, 2008 at 12:36 AM | Permalink

Solar Cycle 24: Do we count the Tiny Tims?

385. Posted Apr 19, 2008 at 6:51 AM | Permalink

384 (JohnA): Tiny Tims. To be officially counted a spot has to be seen by at least two observers, has to last at least 12 hours, and several other criteria. So there is an attempt to not count the smallest and most ephemeral spots. Also, the telescope has to be Earth based and small [to match what Rudolf wolf used 150 years ago]. But there may be a tendency anyway to overcounting because of better temporal coverage.
The original ‘counter’ of spots [Wolf] did not count the smallest spots [and counted very large spots twice]. His assistant [and successor in 1893 when Wolf died] Wolfer disagreed and insisted on counting ALL spots. This introduced a discontinuity in 1893, which was removed by multiplying the newer counts [of all spots] by 0.6. The calibration of the sunspot count is an ongoing concern. Much of my recent work is devoted to just that. There are strong indications that modern counts are 30-50% too high [or equivalently: early counts too low].

386. Posted Apr 19, 2008 at 7:47 AM | Permalink

# 383

Thank you, John! :)

387. Posted Apr 19, 2008 at 8:08 AM | Permalink

\Delta T = (1.9280 W/m^2)\times\frac{ln(\frac{560 ppmV}{280 ppmV}{4\times(5.6697\times10^-8 W/m^2*K^4)\times (300.15^3)}

388. cba
Posted Apr 19, 2008 at 8:36 AM | Permalink

Nasif,

For completeness, it might be nice to show the derivation of the eqn and the relation between ln and log2 in 1 spot. Also, a bit more on the particular w/m^2 numbers bandied about. Also, the latex is an improvement but it’s pretty darn small on this screen (like the details for all these charts people are putting in).

389. Posted Apr 19, 2008 at 3:10 PM | Permalink

Tamino discovered my european temperatures page: http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/europe.htm

Here is my reply (awaiting moderation)

“The 10-year time scale smoothed value today is a full deg.C warmer than any 10-year time scale value before 1980.”

So? But the annual peaks are not, which only demonstrates that the variability in the 19th century was larger. Pielke Sr has a beautiful alternative anthropogenic candidate for the cause: Land use change.

BTW My Vienna data was downloaded from GISS before 2005, with updates from later years, so any problems in the data you should debate with Jim Hansen. Could you send me a copy of your Vienna complation?

390. Tom Gray
Posted Apr 19, 2008 at 4:28 PM | Permalink

re 145

I am agnostic on the existence of circulatory modes (such as PDO). They are an after-the-fact construct with no demonstrated predictive value. When PDO and NAO redefine themselves vis a vis AO, for example, then what does the new NH circulatory regime look like? Nobody knows.

The philosophical word for this is “epiphenomenon”. This is a secondary effect that has no causal power. So there is a school in philosphy that regards consciousness as an “epiphenomenon” to physical reactions. However this does not mean that consciousness is not worth studying or that studying it will not provide insight about related phenomena.

391. John Lang
Posted Apr 19, 2008 at 4:39 PM | Permalink

Yes Hans, I noticed Tamino did his usual keep searching for a filter or some smoothing regime which shows the biggest global warming trend. He must have a computer program by now that applies as many different transforms of the data as possible automatically so he can present which ever one shows the most extreme global warming trend.

Smoothing and filter data analysis has transformed the climate science field into a data selection field.

392. Raven
Posted Apr 19, 2008 at 5:40 PM | Permalink

Tammy constantly comes out with amazing scientific “insights”. For example, I never knew that it is legimate to present data without error bars because experts can eyeball the data and see how much noise there is.

393. Posted Apr 19, 2008 at 7:07 PM | Permalink

Raven:

Tammy constantly comes out with amazing scientific “insights”. For example, I never knew that it is legimate to present data without error bars because experts can eyeball the data and see how much noise there is.

Well, it if the full noise in retained, it’s not so bad. But the problem we often see is that smoothed data are shown.

If you want to let the audience “eyeball” the error to get some idea about the noise in GMST without showing error bars, you should go whole hog and show the monthly average data. (Better yet, show weekly or daily values if you can can get it!)

394. jae
Posted Apr 19, 2008 at 7:30 PM | Permalink

Well, I put in a very tame comment on Tammy’s Perjury thread, relating to the RWP, MWP, and LIA, but it looks like the great “open mind” chose not to allow it. Open Mind is an oxymoron for that site.

395. Posted Apr 19, 2008 at 7:47 PM | Permalink

jae-
I think a blog called “open mind” running a post decreeing someone guilty of perjury may be the definition of “ironic”.

396. Ron Cram
Posted Apr 19, 2008 at 11:06 PM | Permalink

Can anyone explain to me why the IPCC and climate scientists in general should not follow the principles described by scientific forecasters?

Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong performed an audit of the Fourth Assessment Report projection methods and found them wanting. They published a paper last year and have updated it now. One of the named reviewers was Orrin Pilkey. You can find it web published here.

The authors identified a number of forecasting principles neglected by the IPCC. The big three were:
:* Principle 1: Consider whether the events or series can be forecasted.
:* Principle 2: Keep forecasting methods simple.
:* Principle 3: Do not use fit to develop the model.

Can anyone think of a reason why physical science projections should not have to follow these principles? I was discussing this issue with James Annan on Wikipedia and after issuing him a challenge to explain why they should not follow the principles, he declined and ended the conversation. It was almost comical.

If there is a reason physical science does not need to follow these principles, please do explain it to me.

397. Raven
Posted Apr 19, 2008 at 11:19 PM | Permalink

Ron Cram says:

Can anyone explain to me why the IPCC and climate scientists in general should not follow the principles described by scientific forecasters?

I would say most experts in a narrow field think that their ad-hoc approaches are good enough and dislike outsiders trying to tell them how to do things. It is classic conflict between focus on process vs. focus on results. I don’t think anyone will listen not matter how reasonable the argument, although, I suspect the field will get a lot of attention if/when the IPCC forecasts are shown to be bunk.

398. maksimovich
Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 12:36 AM | Permalink

Re 397(RC):

Can anyone explain to me why the IPCC and climate scientists in general should not follow the principles described by scientific forecasters?

In forecasting,the comparison with reality can be made only at the moment
when the prediction comes true. At the time of its formulation, it cannot
be tested and, therefore, in its most general form, it has no scientific
status.

Logical Analysis of the Problem of Forecasting

V. V. NALIMOV

399. Geoff Sherrington
Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 3:32 AM | Permalink

Today I was struck from Realclimate for asking Gavin how model forecasts could incorporate future volcanos and weather effects like ENSO. He said that I appeared to understand the subject and that I should be able to see that the good agreement of hindcasting and of present climate models, converging on ever narrower standard deviations, was getting closer to the “real world”. I replied that they might be getting closer to each other, but where was the connection with the “real world” with its volcanos, ENSOs etc.?

No worry, it was time for Gavin’s pills. They repel Kryptonite, you know, so volcanos are a cinch.

400. Bob B
Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 6:59 AM | Permalink

Yesterday I was struck from Tamino’s place because I said that he was cherry picking data every bit as much as D’Aleo if you compare his picks with Leif’s picks. These AGW types can pick a fight but can’t stand when people find fault with them.

401. Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 7:13 AM | Permalink

What Tammy told me:
“Talking about cooling won’t get you banned. Putting on airs about respectfulness, while you repeatedly disrespect me in my own house, will.”
Disagreement = Disrespect.

402. cba
Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 8:02 AM | Permalink

gee after wasting a couple of hours digging up that information back in 332 from 4/17/08, there hasn’t be a response back from those requesting it.

403. MarkR
Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 8:15 AM | Permalink

cba #404. I certainly appreciate it. But the people who could actually do some measuring of a real experiment, don’t seem interested. It would seem obvious to use the existing testbed to detect actual “warming”.

404. cba
Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 9:11 AM | Permalink

Mark,

a radiative only consideration can provide some insight – such as what sort of maximum amount might be possible, but clearly with other mechanisms at play, the value would be less than that calculated.

Also, since the lapse rate (atmospheric T ) is held fixed – rather than required to revalue itself on the new energy balance, it would seem there is room for even more difference. Conceptually it seems to lead to the notion that an increase in GHG absorption would have to reduce atmospheric T because of the increase in emissions caused by the increase in absorption (and the relationship between them).

Given an example system in equilibrium of an inner shell (representing the earth’s surface) and an outershell (representing space) with an air gap between where inner and outer shells are the same T, one has the requirement of total equilibrium inside and at any layer, there is the same amount of radiation coming in as going out with the T being uniform. That means the inbound and outbound radiation at any shell in this atmosphere has energy absorbed identically which must equal energy emitted and this must be valid for any T value of the system. Since the energy coming in is the same value as that going out at this shell, the total energy absorbed is 2E which equals the total energy emitted by this shell at T and there is an outward emission equal to the inward emission. If we add an increment of absorbing gas into the ‘atmosphere’ it still must balance at T which means the increase in emissions must relate totally to the increase in absorption. For this small dz shell though, the emissions depend only upon the T of that shell and on the property of the gas. It is the nature of the experiment’s condtions that the gas must be at T and must be in equilibrium.

If we then modify the experiment such that the outer shell is reduced in T down to 0 (effectively

405. cba
Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 9:24 AM | Permalink

ugh, way too long a post and it got zapped.

With the new example, energy is mostly coming from below so an increase in absorption results in less than the first example’s value. Emission depends only on the T and on the emissivity (still related to absorption) and this balanced when more energy was coming in (higher power). That means the new T value for a shell, T’, must be less than the value T prior to the increase in GHG levels that increased the absorption.

Hence, an increase in ghg absorption would appear to result in lower atmospheric T values as less T is required to emit more power when emissivity rises.

Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 10:38 AM | Permalink

I would appreciate if someone could help me with this:
– I have noticed that both HadCrut3 and NCDC monthly values change “retroactively”, as a new monthly value comes in, also the
values for the previous months will change.
– But how can there be any justification for this? To me this is fundamentally un-physical and thus incorrect. How can February’s
measured temperature value change when the March measurements come in?

Thanks,
/Johan

Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

Another question:
– Is there a reasonably accurate (and undisputed) estimate of the percentage of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere?
– If so, please provide some sources too.

Thanks,
/Johan

408. M. Jeff
Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

re: #407, Johan i Kanada, April 20th, 2008 at 10:43 am

The referenced graph does not give an estimate of the percentage of current man-made CO2 to the atmospheric total, but it does show that CO2 levels in the past, when there was no human contribution, were much higher than they are now.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/11/06/science/earth/20061107_CO2_GRAPHIC.html

409. wkkruse
Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

#406 Go to http://www.cru.uea.ac.k/cru/data/temperature and see the last FAQ.

410. wkkruse
Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 12:21 PM | Permalink

whoops. Re #409 The correct URL is http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

411. henry
Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 5:45 PM | Permalink

Tamino’s on again, talking about the information available on the WEB:

Since I’ve not allowed to post (not making it past moderation), and since Tamino has spies here that he allows to post, I’ll make my comments here. No fear, I’m sure that it’ll get back to him. He just won’t comment here.

The internet has made astounding amounts of data available at the touch of a few buttons. Want to know the temperature history of Boston? Go to GISS and you can get data back to 1880, go to the GHCN version 1 and you can get it well before that.

But you’d better hang on to the data, because it’s been proven to change abruptly, and without reason or explanation. How many times has GISS changed that Boston data?

Does the Vostok ice core data excite you? It’s easy to find.

No, but the data for the Bona-Churchill ice cores would be helpful. Where did you say THEY are archived, Tamino?

Do you want to see for yourself how sea level has changed, or estimates of total solar irradiance, or historical sunspot counts, or any number of other sets of data? They’re there, they’re available, they’re usually pretty easy to find.

However, papers or data to support the papers are usually not available. Not even if you asked the authors nicely.

I’m a data analysis junkie, and the climate data on the internet could keep me busy for a number of lifetimes. It’s only because of easy access to vast amounts of climate data, that I’ve become so strongly convinced that global warming is real, man-made, and one of the greatest threats to modern civilization.

And it’s because of the refusal of climate scientists to rationaly discuss other alternatives and share their data that I’ve become so strongly convinced that AGW is plausible, and probably man-made, but that *climate scientists* are the greatest threats to modern civilization.

412. Andrew
Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 6:14 PM | Permalink

Wow, henry, if you change just the parts in bold, I know of quite a few people who you could apply that to. You know, I’m not sure why Tamino claims to have been convinced by the data. Has he really spent that much time with it at all?

How’s this BTW? I’m an amateur data analyst, I’ve had fun playing around with loads of climate data, and from my games (and also from reading the literature, and reading blogs) I’ve become convinced that climate changes is real, ubiquitous, effected to some degree by human activities, and that if there is a “threat” at all, it is from natural, unpredictable climate variations, but certainly not an anthropogenic effect to unknown magnitude.

413. Barney Frank
Posted Apr 20, 2008 at 6:45 PM | Permalink

400 & 401 Bob B and Leif;

Yeah, he disappeared my last post when I again suggested calling people who disagree with him liars and idiots was not the best way to build credibility.
I think Hansen might consider buying a muzzle for his bulldog.

414. Armagh Geddon
Posted Apr 21, 2008 at 12:13 AM | Permalink

I know I shouldn’t, but every time I see Tamino’s ‘open mind’ I think of ‘fair and balanced’!

415. MarkW
Posted Apr 21, 2008 at 6:26 AM | Permalink

In my experience, those who are the loudest in demanding respect, are the least deserving of that respect.

416. Bob B
Posted Apr 21, 2008 at 6:46 AM | Permalink

I was so frustrated I made a comment on the message board:

http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=253

and also here:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/04/21/co2-and-temperature-which-predicts-which/

417. Posted Apr 21, 2008 at 5:54 PM | Permalink

Dr Kenneth Tapping on whether Sun is doing anything unusual

418. Reference
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 2:58 AM | Permalink

(Test to see if reply works)

419. henry
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 5:17 AM | Permalink

And now some of Tamino’s regulars are suggesting a “two-tier” blog system; one for “invited” scientists to discuss important matters (pat each other on the back, say how important they are, etc); and the other for everyone else (the “deniers”).

Almost like a zoo, where we can stand on one side of the glass and watch the “climatus scientificus” in their natural habitat. Just don’t tap on the glass…

420. Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 6:01 AM | Permalink

Perhaps Tamino can invite Steve McIntyre and Michael Mann for a direct debate on Open mind :-D

421. fFreddy
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 6:25 AM | Permalink

Re #419, henry

Almost like a zoo, where we can stand on one side of the glass and watch the “climatus scientificus” in their natural habitat.

Please can I stop feeding them my taxes …

422. Bob B
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 7:21 AM | Permalink

“Perhaps Tamino can invite Steve McIntyre and Michael Mann for a direct debate on Open mind :-D”

Hans, I doubt that would happen since I am sure Tamino knows he and Mann would loose.

423. MarkW
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 8:11 AM | Permalink

In addition, these ‘libertarians’, believe the US should do nothing, NOTHING, to promote liberty around the world.

If Tamino follows his usual editing standards, there is no way Mann could ever lose.

424. MarkW
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 8:14 AM | Permalink

My most sincere apologies for the previous post. With this system running the edit box some two minutes behind my typing, I did not notice that my cut and paste did work properly until after I had hit the submit button.

That was meant to be a reply to Bob B’s comment on a Steve vs. Mann debate.

425. Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 9:07 AM | Permalink

Johan

I would appreciate if someone could help me with this:
– I have noticed that both HadCrut3 and NCDC monthly values change “retroactively”, as a new monthly value comes in, also the values for the previous months will change.
– But how can there be any justification for this? To me this is fundamentally un-physical and thus incorrect. How can February’s measured temperature value change when the March measurements come in?

Thanks,
/Johan

I noticed they change a bit too. GISS also retroactively changes data.

There could be any number of reasons, at least one would be routine on many projects sending out data as quickly as possible. Others might be less common on projects.

The most likely routine reason would be this: Instruments on many projects are regularly calibrated, with both post-and pre-calibrations considered meaningful. So, if NOAA instruments are calibrated in, say March, and an instrument is discovered to have a problem, that could affect their weighting of that mesurement for say, February.

Other reasons could include data getting out after ‘quick checks’ and being revised after “full checks”. (The ARGOS buoy pages discuss this sort of thing, but do it formally and specifically provide two products.) For weather services, this would be a reasonable thing to do since customers want to know the current weather now as best it can be known.

GISS has that algorithm to correct for rural stations etc. I think they estimate based on the range of months before and after, so that shifts things a bit.

Beyond these, we’d need to ask people at NOAA, Hadcrut and GISS. Still, based on the magnitude of changes I’ve observed, these explanations would suffice.

426. Andrew
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

The strange retroactive changes were noticed long ago by Milloy:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RecordCreep.html

MarkW: Darn those guys! What do they have against liberty propomotion? (who said that anyway, Tamino? Nah, he clearly is not some environmentalist neocon.) ;)

427. Andrew
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 9:28 AM | Permalink

Given me and Bender’s earlier tustle over the PDO that I didn’t even want to participate in, I hope that this guest post by Roy Spencer on Roger Pielke Sr’s site doesn’t make his head explode:
Internal Radiative Forcing And The Illusion Of A Sensitive Climate System By Roy Spencer

428. Kenneth Fritsch
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 9:51 AM | Permalink

Re: #427

Andrew, Roy Spencer’s theory on cloud feedback and long term persistence has been discussed previously at CA with Spencer’s participation. I think it is a thought provoking approach but like theories on AGW it is far from settled and does not address the PDO phenomena directly.

As an aside, why do we personalize these discussions. I suspect that you and Bender are good people both on and off topic, but I am here to learn and personal battles detract from that process.

429. Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 10:10 AM | Permalink

427 (Andrew): It seems to me that the primary assumption in Spencer’s post is that SOI and PDO are internal and not related to solar forcing or greenhouse effects or some such. So, doesn’t the whole issue come down to a clear answer to: “are SOI, PDO, ENSO, etc” purely internal?” and why can they not be externally driven or modulated?

430. Andrew
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 10:22 AM | Permalink

428 (Kenneth Fritsch): I agree that we shouldn’t let things get personal. I think PDO etc. is one of Bender’s pet peeves that make him get into protracted debates-exactly the kind of thing I try to avoid. Also, as far as I am aware, while we did discuss Spencer’s earlier post on Roger’s site which kind of mentioned this topic in passing, this is a new post which address the issue of internal variability directly. The reason I mentioned Bender is not becuase )horro of horrors!) Spencer argues that the PDO is a mode of internal variability (gasp!) that could be an alternative explanation for some warming (another gasp!) which is sure to raise his (Bender’s) blood pressure.

429 (Leif): This question always comes up concerning whether these modes are internal variability or externally driven. I haven’t seen any good evidence that they are externally driven, so I tend to assume that the aren’t. But, of course, it is only an assumption.

431. Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 10:29 AM | Permalink

430 (Andrew):

I haven’t seen any good evidence that they are externally driven, so I tend to assume that the aren’t. But, of course, it is only an assumption.

But isn’t that the central point of the whole post. So, if it is only an assumption, what does that make Spencer’s post? and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right?

432. Richard Sharpe
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

Mine eyes were irresistibly drawn to solar cycle 20.

433. Richard Sharpe
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 11:14 AM | Permalink

Hmmm, that should have been:

Dr Kenneth Tapping on whether Sun is doing anything unusual

Mine eyes were irresistibly drawn to solar cycle 20.

(However, if you can’t put HTML in a block quote, then I give up!

434. Phil.
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 11:40 AM | Permalink

There appears to be a problem with the Link quicktag at present, it failed to work for me earlier today even though I used it in the same way I’ve done for sometime.

435. Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

# 431

May I call you Leif?

Ok! There is a hypothesis, but I don’t remember from where I read it, on the possibility of a direct influence of the sumarine volcanoes on the anomalies observed in the oceanic currents. However, I consider the Solar influence is more plausible than any other. Just compare the Solar Activity throughout 1997, the intensity of ENSO from April 1997 to March 1998, and the tropospheric temperature variability. You know, 1998 has been the warmest year of the last three decades, and only that year, speaking globally.

Regards,

Corydalus luteus

436. Jeff A
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 12:06 PM | Permalink

Hans, I doubt that would happen since I am sure Tamino knows he and Mann would loose.

Or lose, even.

437. Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

BTW, we have not sufficient information/data about the activity of submarine volcanoes.

438. Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 12:11 PM | Permalink

The hypothesis OC-Volcanism was centered on the energy transfer from volcanic activity to oceanic water… Heat :)

439. Bob B
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 12:32 PM | Permalink

Jeff A, LOL

Yes that too.

440. Andrew
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 12:37 PM | Permalink

431 (Leif): I think that that makes it a hypothesis based on a widely held assumption. Absent evidence for anything cuasing the PDO or ENSO, I would tend to go with “they just happen” until it can be shown that something “made” them happen. I’m not dismissing the possibility, becuase, as you say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Still, without evidence, you can get into wild speculation territory, which is fun, but not usually very productive, in my experience.

441. Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 1:01 PM | Permalink

440 (Andrew) and many just before: I agree with all that, but then we are back to Spencer’s paper. To discount AGW because of an unproven assumption seems silly. There are many other [better] reasons. So, does everybody then agree that Spencer is off the deep end?
And Nasif: in contrast to Andrew I’m not sensitive :-) and ‘Leif’ is just fine [actually preferable]. Maybe I cringe a bit when addressed as ‘Lief’. Although I shouldn’t as ‘lief’ in Dutch [which we speak in our home; my Dutch is better than my wife's Danish] means ‘dear’.

442. Kenneth Fritsch
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 1:52 PM | Permalink

Andrew, I have excerpted what I believe does a decent job of summarizing what Roy Spencer’s derived thesis is from the link that you provided. I find it a very thought provoking alternative view to convential thinking on climate change but not a finished product.

Here is the link to Roy Spencer’s CA visit and thread on the cloud effects not as a feedback:

I think Spencer’s model can obtain temperature changes of the magnitude of those in the modern day warm period without invoking PDO/ENSO. Applying his model to PDO/ENSO seems one my quick read more like confirming or at least giving evidence for them as internal variations.

For instance, the major features of global mean temperature variations since 1900 (Fig. 2a) have usually been explained as a combination of anthropogenic greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions, possibly combined with a small amount of increased solar forcing (IPCC, 2007). While this is indeed one possible explanation, it is also possible that some part of the temperature change represents internal variability in the climate system in the form of radiative forcing which is not the result of feedback. After all, it is well known that ENSO has warm and cool phases which occur irregularly every few years, and that the warm phase (El Nino) has been more frequent during the warming experienced since the 1970’s (see Fig. 2b). Similarly, the lower-frequency Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, Mantua et al., 1997) was more often in its positive phase during the period of global mean warmth around 1940, as well as during the warming since the 1970s (Fig. 2c)…

..It is not unreasonable to hypothesize that the small changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation associated with these modes of climate variability have caused corresponding non-feedback changes in clouds, which then impact the radiative budget of the Earth…

..We will hypothesize that the PDO and ENSO indices have associated with them some amount of internal radiative forcing due to cloud changes. Again using the basic form of Eq. 1, we now assume that the only heating term is a linear function of the SOI and PDO indices,

Cp dT/dt = α (βPDOPDO + βSOISOI ) – λT (2)

where O + βSOI = 1 (3)

Finally an important summary of Spencers theory vis a vis conventional AGW theory.

While it might be argued that the mechanism proposed here is speculative, it is also speculative to assume that the radiative flows of energy in and out of the Earth system are stable to much less than 1% of their mean (of about 235 W m-2) on multi-decadal time scales in the presence of known modes of internally generated climate variability.

443. Andrew
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 2:04 PM | Permalink

441(Leif): Nobody is discounting some AGW, Spencer is just suggesting a (admittedly speculative) mechanism which could have cuased most of the changes. The point here isn’t that this is the explanation, just that it can’t be ruled out. I really don’t like getting into internal variability debates and I hope this doesn’t start one… I also don’t think its fai-or polite-to say he’s “off the deep end”.

442(Kenneth Fritsch): Not to worry, I’m not declaring victory just yet. I agree that is not a finished product (or “settled science” which now both Gore and Singer are into).

444. Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 2:19 PM | Permalink

443 (Andrew): off the deep end. Didn’t mean to be impolite, but Spencer’s tone was pretty strong. Not saying anywhere [that I could find] that it was an assumption that PDO-SOI-ENSO were internal; and writing such a strongly worded paper based on a debatable assumption without saying it, is not the right way to go about it, hence the deep end. The reason I’m interested is, of course, the ‘D’ in PDO, which to some over in ‘my’ thread take as sure proof that it’s all due to the Sun and therefore ‘external’. Personally, I don’t know, so would like to be educated and was, perhaps, disappointed to find the educational aspect wanting. He was pointing out the 800-pound gorilla in the room without saying where it came from. He starts out with a question [with emphasis] but never gives the answer.

445. Raven
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM | Permalink

444 (Leif)

Not saying anywhere [that I could find] that it was an assumption that PDO-SOI-ENSO were internal; and writing such a strongly worded paper based on a debatable assumption without saying it, is not the right way to go about it, hence the deep end.

Does his analysis really depend on that assumption? Seems to me that his hypothesis would be still valid if the PDO-SOI-ENSO are driven by some as yet to be determined external forcing (GCR perhaps)?

446. Andrew
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 3:23 PM | Permalink

444(Leif): Okay, I see where you are going with this. The PDO contains a “D” but this is not becuase it contains a periodicity of roughly a decade (that is, close to a solar cycle), but rather becuase it osscilates a timescale of a few decades. The reason Spencer doesn’t go through a detail exposition is, unfortunately, becuase he probably doesn’t think anyone will question the assumption, since it seems to be one many people make. Well, visually, I see no resemblance between the PDO and any external cause. If you used the Hoyt and Schatten TSI you might get a suggestive correlation (and, it follows, the SCL as well), but I think it quickly breaks down and is therefore spurious. What I have said (but which is not good enough for Bender) is that the PDO has oscillated many times in the past with nothing that appear to be to “blame”. Here is an interesting graphic:

Or alternatively:

If you want to learn about the PDO more generally, you’d probably want to see pages like this:

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

447. Kenneth Fritsch
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 3:56 PM | Permalink

Leif, this graph comes from Spencer’s model output before he talks about or invokes PDO/ENSO.

448. Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

thanks about the PDO etc. I also think it is internal. It is just that some people would like it to be external so they can blame it on the Sun which is a handy dumping ground for any influence that don’t fit your pet ideas about what drives what.

449. Andrew
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 5:05 PM | Permalink

447 (Kenneth Fritsch): That is Spencer’s simple model demonstration of the temperature effects of daily cloud noise. I think he takes a similar model later and associates the cloud changes he inputs with PDO and ENSO.

448 (Leif): No problem. I find a lot of people fall into the “this one variable controls everything” trap, BTW and it can be frustrating to make people understand that it isn’t just one thing (especially since many start out with he belief that it is all down to one variable).

450. jae
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

448 (Leif): No problem. I find a lot of people fall into the “this one variable controls everything” trap, BTW and it can be frustrating to make people understand that it isn’t just one thing (especially since many start out with he belief that it is all down to one variable).

And often it’s CO2.

451. Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 5:43 PM | Permalink

# 448 and # 449

Leif, Andrew,

Ouch! That rock you threw did hit on my head! I admit that I would like to blame the Sun and perhaps the ICR; however, I recognize some indirect influence of man on the impact of the natural climatic changes but I cannot demonstrate that human beings are the direct cause of climatic disasters. To be honest, I had not read the Spencer’s paper until this morning. I agree with Roy Spencer in most points and, honestly, I’d like the non-deterministic (some times ergodic) internal variables were driven the current anomalies of climate. Definitely the work of Roy Spencer deserves a deep consideration.

452. Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 5:52 PM | Permalink

Correction:

I agree with Roy Spencer in most points and, honestly, I’d like the non-deterministic (some times ergodic) internal variables were driving the current anomalies of climate. Definitely the work of Roy Spencer deserves a deep consideration.

# 450

Jae,

Poor CO2… ;)

453. Andrew
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 7:34 PM | Permalink

451 (Nasif Nahle): Did not mean to offend anyone (I’m actually kind of a solar guy myself) just expressing my view that things are more complicated than solar vs. man. My simple model for climate change is:

Climate Change = Intrinsic/Internal Variability + Celestial/Astronomical Forcing + Terrestrial/Geological forcing + Human Surface Processes + Atmospheric Composition Forcing

And I place the final one last for a reason (the other are in no particular order).

454. Dennis Wingo
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 7:55 PM | Permalink

Looks like the Antarctic had the coldest summer in a long time with a record sea ice extent.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/is_it_a_trend_antarctic_deep_sea_gets_colder

(sorry Steve if this is OT,not quite sure of the protocol regarding linking)

455. MarkW
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 8:03 PM | Permalink

To discount AGW because of an unproven assumption seems silly.

Wouldn’t basing your support of substantial AGW on another unproven assumption be just as silly?

I’m refering to the assumption that water vapor creates a strong positive feedback.

456. Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 8:12 PM | Permalink

454 (MarkW): my support?

457. Andrew
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 8:42 PM | Permalink

I don’t know if anyone here has the knowledge to explain this statement to me. It is commonly claimed that past climate changes imply high climate sensitivities (big swings from glacial to interglacial etc.). Richard Lindzen (who advocates for a low sensitivity) appears to have said about this in the past something more or less along these lines:

from:

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/178wvapbud.pdf

Does anyone understand what this is supposed to mean?

458. Phil.
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 9:10 PM | Permalink

Re #14

Looks like the Antarctic had the coldest summer in a long time with a record sea ice extent.

As far as I’m aware greater sea ice extent doesn’t directly link to temperature. The minimum sea ice area this summer was about the same as in 2004 and less than in 2003.

459. Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 9:23 PM | Permalink

# 453

Andrew,

No offense taken and thanks for the comment. ;)

Please, let me do a few changes in your operational definition of climate change as I see the phenomena. You wrote:

Climate Change = Intrinsic/Internal Variability + Celestial/Astronomical Forcing + Terrestrial/Geological forcing + Human Surface Processes + Atmospheric Composition Forcing

I would write:

Climate Change ∩ Celestial/Astronomical Forcing + (Terrestrial/Geological forcing | intrinsic/Internal Variability) != Atmospheric Composition Forcing

However, Climate Change != Anthropogenic Surface Processes

and, Human Surface Processes + Climate Change → Low survival possibilities

460. bender
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 10:53 PM | Permalink

#453
There you go with that absurd additive model of yours again.

461. Ed Snack
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 11:05 PM | Permalink

Phil, are you suggesting that sea ice has no direct link to temperature or only that maximum sea ice doesn’t. Because it’s pretty clear that the rhetoric anyway has it that minimum sea ice in the arctic is a clear warming signal.

Eyeballing it, you did pick the largest summer extent to compare to, 2003 has the largest minimum, and again by eyeball, 2008 was the third largest, that’s not a reasonable comparison. My crude analysis would suggest a clear increasing trend of ice at both max and min, if this isn’t a climate signal as you seem to imply, then surely the much trumpeted Arctic trends are similarly non-climatic.

Are we seeing a regional shift rather than a global change. Is there a trend to SH cooling to offset the NH warming, and this is in some way coupled to orbital dynamics or some other global scale process ?

462. Dennis Wingo
Posted Apr 22, 2008 at 11:21 PM | Permalink

(16) Ed

One of my hobbies is watching Google Earth weather. Before this was available I used to look at the GOES data. If you look at the cloud cover for the Antarctic, it has increased dramatically over the past year and a lot over several years ago when I first started watching.

463. Chris Wright
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 4:08 AM | Permalink

Re 16,
Ed, HADCRUT3 (UK Hadley/Met Office) shows a significant cooling trend for the southern hemisphere over the last 5 or 6 years (a fall of about 0.2 degrees). Without checking in more detail, I’d say that that SH sea ice area graph posted in 15 corresponds almost precisely with the southern hemisphere cooling.

Chris

464. Edward
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 4:48 AM | Permalink

Please stop using the instumental temperture records except for truly rural high quality unadjusted sites for any comparisons like CO2 to temp or solar to temp. This includes you too Leif.

465. Andrew
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 5:24 AM | Permalink

458 (bender): If you are implying that I need to recognize that the different effects can’t just be added, becuase there are complex interactions between the variables, or becuase the situation is non linear and therefore cannot be described by a linear equation, well, there is no way to express the fact that I recognize this in a simple mathematical expression that is half tongue in cheek anyway.

459 (Edward): We work with what they give us. There isn’t much choice. Maybe soon a quality, well maintain record will be available, thanks to the valiant efforts of Anthony, Steve, etc.

466. Andrew
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 6:34 AM | Permalink

Okay, here’s a challenge for everyone to try and help out with. As you saw in the link in #459, some people are determined to make the global cooling hysteria of the 70’s go away. Given that those old enough to remember won’t be around (or believed) forever, we have to preserve the evidence that this insanity really did happen-every last bit of it-against a poltical attempt to make it go away. Find all the articles you can and for goodness sake hold on to it. Lock it up in a vualt if you have to. I’m having an apocalyptic moment where I picture a totalitarian regime burning old copies of Newsweek instead of books (ordinarily this would be good, since I hate Newsweek, but this is different).

Here’s what I can immediately recall:

Colligan, Douglas (1973) “Brace yourself for another ice age,” Science Digest, 73(2), 57-
61.

Gwynne, Peter (1975) “The cooling world,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975.

Sullivan, Walter (1975a) “Scientists ask why world climate is changing: Major cooling
may be ahead,” The New York Times, p. 92, May 21, 1975.

Sullivan, Walter (1975b) “Climatic changes by aerosols in atmosphere feared,” The New
York Times, pg. 1, September 14, 1975.

467. JamesG
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 7:22 AM | Permalink

May I add another piece of confusion. NASA and others came up with a very good correlation between ENSO and the earths rotation. Of course it was spun (hee hee) as – man’s pollution is now affecting the rotation of the earth. However a Russian suggested that it was the other way round and yet a third view seems to be that they affect each other. In any event the link seems genuine but to me it’s another causation difficulty, though naturally the climateers assume that man is to blame for everything but just imagine it was -say- another magnetic effect from the solar wind. See..

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050225_wobbly_planet.html

468. Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 7:53 AM | Permalink

# 460

Bender, mine is not an additive model:

Climate Change ∩ Celestial/Astronomical Forcing + (Terrestrial/Geological forcing|Internal Variability) != Atmospheric Composition Forcing != Anthropogenic Surface Processes

469. Phil.
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 8:04 AM | Permalink

Re #466

Okay, here’s a challenge for everyone to try and help out with. As you saw in the link in #459, some people are determined to make the global cooling hysteria of the 70’s go away.

I assume you mean the link in 464?
I wasn’t able to read beyond the first two paragraphs as they both contained blatant falsehoods indicating that the rest probably wasn’t worth reading!

Example: “Tom Peterson of NCDC in the next version of the Bulletin of the AMS will be co-
authoring a paper Study: Global cooling a 1970s myth. In it he tries to downplay the
cooling and the coverage and hype it received. ”

Whereas what Peterson was writing about was debunking “An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting ‘global cooling’ and an ‘imminent’ ice age”, note that he refers to scientists and refers to scientific publications not Newsweek!
Your assembling of newspaper clippings will do nothing to counter that argument and as for the scientific publications of the time it’s already been done by one of Peterson’s co-authors: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

One of the most knowledgable scientists on this subject in the 70’s was H.H. Lamb, this is what he had to say:
The summary in his book “Climatic History and the Future”, states:
“It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight
cooling of world climate for a few decades to come, e.g., from volcanic or solar activity variations: (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of
increasing carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted and a while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation
lasting (like the previous ones) for many thousands of years.”

The author of your link was guilty of a classic straw man argument, mis-state someone’s argument and then proceed to refute that while pretending that you’re refuting the original argument, it’s a load of junk.

470. Reference
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 8:44 AM | Permalink

471. JamesG
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 8:45 AM | Permalink

Phil
Regardless of the actual number of papers on the ice-age subject it’s not a falsehood to talk about “the cooling and the coverage and hype it received”. Why do you seem read something that isn’t there? I think we all know it was a minority view at the time but it was very hyped up by the scientists concerned, despite their cries of innocence now. I remember the hype too, don’t you? That there was no consensus about a coming catastrophe then is actually akin to saying that there is no consensus now on whether global warming will be catastrophic. However, just like then there are several scientists now (a minority still) speculating well beyond what the science actually tells us and using gullible journalists as their stooges. I’d name names but we know who they are.

472. Barney Frank
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 8:51 AM | Permalink

469 Phil;

Excellent point about the disconnect between the science of the seventies and the popular media’s and a few quasi scientist’s (mis)representations of it at the time.

What’s unsettling is the magnitude and success of a very similar phenomenon today.

473. Phil.
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 9:20 AM | Permalink

Re #471

Regardless of the actual number of papers on the ice-age subject it’s not a falsehood to talk about “the cooling and the coverage and hype it received”.

It’s a falsehood to say that that was the subject of Peterson’s paper!

Why do you seem read something that isn’t there? I think we all know it was a minority view at the time but it was very hyped up by the scientists concerned, despite their cries of innocence now. I remember the hype too, don’t you?

Yes I do remember the hype by the newspapers and magazines, as to the scientists no I don’t recall the hype, to the contrary as indicated by the Lamb quote. I also remember the cooling and concern by scientists should it continue but the general consensus was that it was temporary and would not continue for long, that the media fixated on the former and ignored the latter is an unfortunate fact of life.
Note that then the source of the problem was identified (aerosols), antipollution measures were put in place, the air cleaned and the cooling stopped, i.e. scientific concern prompted action.

474. Andrew
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 9:29 AM | Permalink

469 (Phil.): My, I’ve hit a sore spot have I? There was a hysteria over cooling in the 1970’s, and the efforts of propagandists like Connolley to downplay it are disgusting revisionism. Do you really belive I’m going to listen to what the man who controled wiki with an iron fist has to say? The fact of the matter is that GC hysteria was not a myth. People went crazy over it. Perhaps you are right that it did not have as much scientific support as sometimes claimed, but how is that relevant to what I’m saying here? There is an effort to eliminate a publicly embarassing incident in climate science. I didn’t say that there was any contradiction between those predictions and predictions now. I merely stated that there was a hyped up hysteria with little scientific support for a problem that evaporated. Any extrapolation to today is the business of people interesting in making such arguments, so I’m not implying “Gee, sound familiar?”. H. H. Lamb was right (and BTW, H H Lamb is not exactly someone who Connolley would usually agree with) but ordinary people don’t get that. Hell, why even bother publishing a paper that the whole thing never happened unless your intention is propaganda? You know that the public see an apparent contradiction, so you must make it go away. The intent of the paper is nothing more or less than deception. If there is no real contradiction scientifically, why make it go away? This is a disgrace, not science.

475. Michael Jankowski
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

For the record, Peterson’s survey of sci pubs found

-7 cooling
-20 uncertain
-44 warming

…over the period of 1965-1979. Half of the warming pubs were post 1975 – after the cooling hype seemed to have peaked in the media – while only 2 of the cooling ones were. When people refer to the hype of the 70s, they aren’t necessarily saying the hype persisted from 1970 through 1979. People remember that disco was prevalent in the 1970s, but that doesn’t mean they are asserting it was substantial from 1970-1979.

Anyhow, Peterson is debunking the “myth of ‘global cooling’ consensus,” which in itself seems to be a “myth.” People generally decry the hype of global cooling in the 1970s, not any sort of “consensus.” He cites several works which supposedly refer to this consensus, and I’d be curious to see the exact wording from those publications. The link to Giddens still works, and here is what Peterson found to be a reference to “global cooling consensus”:

Yet only about 25 or so years ago, orthodox scientific opinion was that the world was in a phase of global cooling. (written in 1979)

Well, he was quite right. The “consensus” was that the world had cooled in decades leading up to the 1970s. Hadley CRU records show the temps had cooled http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png . GISS reflects this, too http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif . Giddens’ statement seems correct. Peterson twists it, however, to asserting that Giddens was claiming there was a global cooling and/or imminent ice age consensus.

It’s pretty easy to take a legitimate point (that there were global cooling concerns and hype which occurred in the 1970s), exagerrate it to an extreme limit (that there was a consensus of global cooling concerns from 1965-1979), and prove that the exagerration is wrong in an attempt to smear the legitimate point.

FWIW, when I google “global cooling consensus,” the only pages coming up seem to be people pointing out that this consensus was a myth. If truly, as Peterson said, “a pervasive myth has taken hold in the public consciousness,” I would think it would bring up a lot of “denier” websites and comments.

476. Andrew
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

Note that then the source of the problem was identified (aerosols), antipollution measures were put in place, the air cleaned and the cooling stopped, i.e. scientific concern prompted action.

No, this is speculation. We do not have an objective aerosol forcing history, so you’re full of crap here. But I thought there had never been a problem?

477. Richard Sharpe
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 10:48 AM | Permalink

Hmmmm,

Admin, your CAPTCHA step is screwed. I actually decided not to post my last comment and backed away from the keyboard when the CAPTCHA came up, but lo-and-behold, my comment was posted.

478. Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 12:18 PM | Permalink

Richard Sharpe, I’ve also experienced some times the same problem, and the solution is precisely to get back to the previous page and refresh it. After doing that, your message will appear well published.

479. Sam Urbinto
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 2:03 PM | Permalink

In order to know what’s going on, the basics are entire subjects on their own, much less in combination and with overlaps.

Atmosphere
Hydrosphere
Cryosphere
Biosphere
Lithosphere
Magnetosphere
Astronomiersphere (I made that one up)

Attributing a majority of whatever is going on to a single item “causing” anything else, much less everything else (or any kind of a majority) ? Ha!

Sun energy
Earth motion
Water processes
Chemical processes
A whole bunch of other stuff.

Here’s just on Stratospheric Ozone

480. Andrew
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 3:07 PM | Permalink

Get this-the finding of recent paper-historically, cooling is bad and warming good, but the whole story gets turned upside down for future warming, apparently!

http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N17/EDIT.php

481. Gerald Machnee
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

In about 1976, We ran a 16mm film to the public in a library theatre. The title, or at least the theme, was something like “The Coming Ice Age”. I would like to find it to see who was quoted. So I am not about to show semi-fiction like Gore without a lot of serious questions demanding detailed answers.

482. Severian
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 5:13 PM | Permalink

Isn’t it interesting how many things the pro-AGW crowd are so desperate to drop down the memory hole? Medieval Warm Period, hysterical bleatings about impending ice ages, etc. Not the sign of a robust argument or confidence in their own findings.

I remember well the late 70’s, I was an undergrad physics student at a university in Florida. I remember the prognostications of impending doom due to global cooling, I remember the Time magazine cover story. I remember freezing my nads off when it snowed in Florida, the university had a power crisis, and all the campus lights and hallway lights were turned off, and thermostats were set at around 60 degrees to save power. Felt really surreal. I also remember counting sunspots on 35mm film for a professor who was quite bemused at the freeze hysteria and who predicted increasing temps in a decade, proving him remarkably prescient.

So I find the Orwellian fascination AGW proponents have with rewriting history to be deeply disturbing.

483. cba
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 5:36 PM | Permalink

revising the history, revising the data records. I guess what ever it takes to promote the ‘truth’ of the one true political idiology. And, it takes a full 17? thousand repetitions to make one truth. hmm – sounds a bit like huxley.

484. Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 6:00 PM | Permalink

Gerald Machnee,

I don’t know and there is no way to be sure, but I programmed a documentary movie for my students of Ecology labeled “The Next Ice Age” in 1982. Perhaps we are referring to the same movie?

485. Pat Keating
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 7:30 PM | Permalink

466 Andrew
One of the scientific departments where there was a global cooling push in 1970 or thereabouts was our old friend, the Climate Science Department at Columbia U, though it might have been called something else at that time.

486. Andrew
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 7:32 PM | Permalink

Oh my, how could I forget, Lowell Ponte!

In 1975, the U.S. National Academy of Science issued . . . a warning by some of the world’s most prestigious, cautious scientists that an Ice Age (was) beginning in the near future. The tone of the report was one of repressed alarm. A study completed in 1971 by Drs. S. I. Rasool and S. H. Schneider of NASA’s Goddard Institute estimates that man’s potential to pollute . . . could increase the atmosphere’s opacity by 400 percent. That would reduce sunlight enough, say the scientists, to drop the Earth’s surface temperature by 3.4 degrees C, which would almost certainly bring on an Ice Age. (The consequences) will hamper world food production as weather gets progressively worse. The damage this can cause is already apparent in global food shortages and the recent deaths of more than 400,000 people in Africa and Asia. If global famine arises, we can expect world war.

Jeez, guess Ponte didn’t read the literature and just paid attention to a couple of alarmist papers and the NAS and GISS! ;) Not so different from today (except there are a lot more papers generally on AGW).

487. Bernie
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

Can anyone give me a quick rundown on William M. Connolley? Apparently at some point he was doing something at Real CLimate. Now he is in the middle of a fight with Larry Solomon of the National Post over the accuracy of Naomi Oreskes article that claimed to have documented the consensus among climate change writers.

488. Andrew
Posted Apr 23, 2008 at 9:31 PM | Permalink

487 (Bernie): All I know is that he is a high up wiki guy, and British green kook (IMHO) who heavily moderated all wikis on AGW to keep the mainstream view front and center. He also deliberately conflated McKitrick and Michaels with McIntyre and McKitrick in order to discredit both with the “degrees/radians” incident caught by Tim Lambert.

489. Gerald Machnee
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 7:21 AM | Permalink

Re #484 Nasif.
I was quite sure it was in the 1970’s. I will have to dig into a box in the basement to see if I can find the notice.
It does sound similar.

490. Bernie
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 9:10 AM | Permalink

UHI goes global?
That is my read of Pielke’s latest paper: http://climatesci.org/2008/04/24/teleconnections-in-the-earth-system-by-chase-pielke-and-avissar/

491. Phil.
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 9:26 AM | Permalink

Here’s a good summary of the situation written in 1992 (although with some editorializing):

Indeed, the global cooling trend of the 1950s and 1960s led to a minor global cooling hysteria in the 1970s. All that was more or less normal scientific debate, although the cooling hysteria had certain striking analogues to the present warming hysteria including books such as The Genesis Strategy by Stephen Schneider and Climate Change and World Affairs by Crispin Tickell–both authors are prominent in support of the present concerns as well–“explaining” the problem and promoting international regulation. There was also a book by the prominent science writer Lowell Ponte (The Cooling) that derided the skeptics and noted the importance of acting in the absence of firm, scientific foundation. There was even a report by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reaching its usual ambiguous conclusions. But the scientific community never took the issue to heart, governments ignored it, and with rising global temperatures in the late 1970s the issue more or less died.

What Rasool & Schneider wrote was:
“If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5° K.”
Note the key word ‘If’ at the beginning of the sentence.

Shortly thereafter:
Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?
Wallace S. Broecker
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and Department of Geological Sciences, Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964

“If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.”

Pretty much on the money!

William Connolley was until recently a climate modeller with the British Antarctic Survey.

492. Bernie
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 9:37 AM | Permalink

Phil:
I was more interested in how carefully and objectively he constructed his arguments. He certainly appears to be a qualified and knowledgeable scientist and has the background to provide informed opinions about Antarctica. His site is linked here so I assume he is not viewed as being unreliable.

493. Jaye
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 10:04 AM | Permalink

Connolley has known biases…pretty much discount most of what he comes up with.

494. Jaye
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 10:05 AM | Permalink

Pretty much on the money!

495. Phil.
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

Re #493

What for, it doesn’t say anything of interest?

496. Andrew
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 10:53 AM | Permalink

491 (Phil): The whole thing is an editorial, but okay. Now, read that again, and please tell me why both papers start with if but you only not it in one? Arguably, cooling was taken more seriously becuase it was happening. The case could be made that both then and now the media exagerated the “consensus” on what was happening. If in a few years we are talking about cooling again, will Peterson publish a paper claiming that there was not “consensus” that AGW was going on? Actually, probably, and he could easily do it, to. BTW, you still haven’t explained why he feels the need to inform the scientific community by publishing a paper about something they presumably already know. Do you disagree that the aim of his paper is propaganda or not?

BTW, I see you are trying to make WC sound like a serious guy, and not a partisan control freak.

497. Sam Urbinto
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

But, hey.

498. Reference
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

There’s an excellent lay interview with Prof Bob Carter on youtube about Climate Change.

Unfortunately the spam filter here rejects any and all links to youtube so the best I can offer is the clip code: hgaeyMa3jyU – just type it into the search box and it will locate the video directly. It’s a 9 minute recent interview on NZ TV.

(admin: this is my sixth attempt to share this info, it would be most helpful if you could fix this bug as there’s a lot of good stuff on youtube, thanks)

499. Andrew
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

499 (Phil): You are still totally missing the point, and I’m not going to let you drag me into defending things I did not say.

Connolley’s partisan wiki controling goes beyond disallowing partisans which I “favor” posting “garbage” on wiki. He deliberately conflated M&M with the other M&M, to discredit both. Moreover, I wouyldn’t be surprised if he was the one who had Steve’s page refer to him as the “mining executive”. Face it, WC and Peterson are engaging in deliberate propaganda.

500. Phil.
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

Re #500

You are still totally missing the point,

Which point was that?

and I’m not going to let you drag me into defending things I did not say.

You posted the reference to the ‘quotation’ of Rasool and Schneider and the D’Aleo piece but when they’re challenged you cut and run!

Now you’re making unsubstantiated allegations about William C , you’re a piece of work!
Since Steve Mc constantly refers back to the required standards in the mining industry I imagine he’d not be upset about being referred to as a mining executive?

501. Andrew
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

501 (Phil): Phil, think hard, what would be the intention of labeling Steve thus? It sure isn’t to make people respect him, it is to attempt to shut him up by marginalizing him. I don’t care if Steve’s feelings are hurt by it or not, it is a deliberate attempt to dupe casual readers, that Steve is a tool of the fossil fuel industry. If you don’t see the point you missed, I suggest you go back and read my posts again. And fine, I cofess to jumping to conclusions on Peterson’s paper, but I stand by the fact that it is politics, not science. You also refuse to recognize the huge double standard of saying that Rasool and Schneider was speculative becuase it started off with the word “if” but Broecker wasn’t speculative becuase his prophecy happened to not totally fail. Now stop trying to make me defend Joe’s peace which I at best glanced at casually.

502. Filippo Turturici
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 1:38 PM | Permalink

Experimental data do not fit your theory? Data are wrong, not theory!
A really good example about GW…

Swiss scientist Ulrich Joerin is leading a research aiming to determine glacial presence in the Alps in the last 10,000 years.
His results suggest that, in the last 10,000 years, Alpine glaciers were smaller than nowadays for the 50% of time; during Roman era they were smaller, and maybe 7,000 years ago there was no glacier at all in the Alps.
Prof. Kurt Nicolussi’s (from the University of Insbruck) research results agree with Joerin: laying beneath Piz Bernina glacier, thousands of fossil trees show how thousands years ago there was a big forest where today is just ice and snow. Trees are birches, larches, oaks etc.

The only way prof. Wilfried Haeberli (from the University of Zurich) had to criticise the researches, is that experimental results do not fit past temperature reconstructions…

This are “old” news (about 2 years) and they appeared even here in ClimateAudit: so, I would be glad to know at which point are we today.

503. Andrew
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 1:42 PM | Permalink

BTW, WC conflation of M&M with M&M is a matter of record. Search this site for “on the latter point, definitely”

504. Andrew
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 1:48 PM | Permalink

Actually, I’ll do your homework for you:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=505

John A says:
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:37 am

fFreddy:

The reference is to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ross_McKitrick

There’s a section called rv by Sirk and several paragraphs down you get this exchange:

your admission that your purpose was to discredite M&M[6] :::M&M didn’t make a mistake in degrees and radians I think you mean McKitrick in a not related article made that mistake.

Of course M&M did. But McK and McI don’t have a trademark on the M&M label.

And thereby deliberately misleading people who read this talk page. –MichaelSirks 20:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That is the reason why I am amazed that you want to mention it here. You give the impression that you want to suggest that McKitrick doesn’t know the differnce between radians and degrees.(thereby suggesting that you can’t trust the work of M&M.)

On the latter point, definitely. William M. Connolley 20:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC).

It doesn’t surprise me, but now it is in writting.–MichaelSirks 20:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

505. jae
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 4:05 PM | Permalink

The problem of non-reproducability of scientific studies isn’t limited to dendroclimatology. Looks like the National Toxicology Program needs some auditing.

506. Andrew
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 4:32 PM | Permalink

Hey, can anyone help me with something? I’m trying to use this data:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

But the page does not make it clear what “present” means when it says “Age (thousand years before present)”. Do I used 1997, 2000, or 1950, or what?

507. steven mosher
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 4:58 PM | Permalink

re 507. you are suppose to guess. that way when you get it wrong, they can criticiize your work

508. John M
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 5:56 PM | Permalink

re: Before Present.

I think this is one where we can trust Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present

Now, who you believe when it comes to BC, CE, or BCE is a different matter. This one can get to be almost as much fun as debating climate.

509. Andrew
Posted Apr 24, 2008 at 8:05 PM | Permalink

509 (John M): As I understand it, that is the standard, but I have seen it ignored in some places, and I know Craig got in a lot of trouble with RC for stumbling over this issue. So I’ll withhold judgment. In any case, that makes the earliest data point to old to attach to more recent, measured data.

510. GJS
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 2:40 AM | Permalink

UMMMMMMMM’
One small thing strikes me, what’s all the fuss over? None of these arguments
have considered a data set large enough to draw a serious conclusion from.

Big statement? well have a look at weather not climate
modelling for a five day forecast for a city. When ‘you lot’ can assemble a data
set big enough, accurate enough, reliable enough then make noises. What effect
does warm water transport under cold water have on the weather in Australia?

Numerical methods weather prediction can best go a week and often the best
conclusion is that a 4 or more day prediction is not possible.

Examples: Sydney to Hobart Yacht race, in 4 hours a super low developed and
resulted in deaths. Cyclone Tracey Darwin Australia, 0 warning even though
everyone knew a storm was in the area. That’s mid 1970’s and meteorologists could
not predict the devastation. How about those in UK Europe, Round the World
Yacht Race, Fast Net, forecasting failures. For those in the USA, I’ll type
with my hand on my heart, (which side?) Tornado’s, Katrina, The Super Storm.
These are holes in data less than 50 years old.
When you can predict with any accuracy and precession (no, they do mean
different things) Then I will look at back modelling. When was temperature
measured in a box built to a set of specifications, when will temperature
Don’t get me started on Ice Cores – mechanically a very viscous liquid, like
concrete. Tree rings, after a fire in native vegetation does a tree ring get
bigger or smaller?
Apart from any mathematical arguments, there is little to be gained. Carbon
Dioxide is much heavier than ozone. Even at hundred degrees leaving a chimney
stack it won’t in the main climb into the upper atmosphere. Of the 300
lightening strikes per seconds on Earth, 24/7 many high into the atmosphere,
these massively high energy bolts do strange things to the normal chemistry
we studied at high school, where everything was considered to be at standard
temperature and pressure.
Who found the Ozone hole, when and how?

511. G J Sherrington
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 2:42 AM | Permalink

UMMMMMMMM’
One small thing strikes me, what’s all the fuss over? None of these arguments
have considered a data set large enough to draw a serious conclusion from.

Big statement? well have a look at weather not climate
modelling for a five day forecast for a city. When ‘you lot’ can assemble a data
set big enough, accurate enough, reliable enough then make noises. What effect
does warm water transport under cold water have on the weather in Australia?

Numerical methods weather prediction can best go a week and often the best
conclusion is that a 4 or more day prediction is not possible.

Examples: Sydney to Hobart Yacht race, in 4 hours a super low developed and
resulted in deaths. Cyclone Tracey Darwin Australia, 0 warning even though
everyone knew a storm was in the area. That’s mid 1970’s and meteorologists could
not predict the devastation. How about those in UK Europe, Round the World
Yacht Race, Fast Net, forecasting failures. For those in the USA, I’ll type
with my hand on my heart, (which side?) Tornado’s, Katrina, The Super Storm.
These are holes in data less than 50 years old.
When you can predict with any accuracy and precession (no, they do mean
different things) Then I will look at back modelling. When was temperature
measured in a box built to a set of specifications, when will temperature
Don’t get me started on Ice Cores – mechanically a very viscous liquid, like
concrete. Tree rings, after a fire in native vegetation does a tree ring get
bigger or smaller?
Apart from any mathematical arguments, there is little to be gained. Carbon
Dioxide is much heavier than ozone. Even at hundred degrees leaving a chimney
stack it won’t in the main climb into the upper atmosphere. Of the 300
lightening strikes per seconds on Earth, 24/7 many high into the atmosphere,
these massively high energy bolts do strange things to the normal chemistry
we studied at high school, where everything was considered to be at standard
temperature and pressure.
Who found the Ozone hole, when and how?

512. Michael Jankowski
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 7:45 AM | Permalink

Re#491, so you’re forgiving of “if” caveats. so one can say, “If (1) CO2 forcing is exagerrated, (2) water vapor feedback is poorly understood, and (3) natural forcings are underestimated, then all estimates of anthropogenic climate change – both future and current – are extremely inaccurate” – and not be skeptical, but part of the current “consensus?” Anyone who suggests those 3 things – often just 1 of them – is considered a skeptic or denier.

(1) and (3) are debatable…(2) is certainly true.

513. Jaye
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 7:49 AM | Permalink

RE: 495

I suppose I was saying, in a round about way, that you seem to be assuming the truth of the thing that you are trying to prove – that CO2 based AGW is axiomatic. Also, note 514.

514. Sam Urbinto
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 10:01 AM | Permalink

Andrew: That WC agreed on ‘the latter point’ meant he thinks you can’t trust Steve and Ross (I disagree of course). But it doesn’t prove he tried to do anything deliberately. In fact, my opinion is that if you’re talking about Michaels and McKitrick and you use M&M to refer to them later, it’s not all that confusing. (But it could be, sure, and it could be clearer.)

As far as wikipedia goes, from my neutral perspective, most articles are neutral or as neutral as they can be, but sure the tone on the main “global warming” page is very mainstream (meaning IPCC, RC, most media) and yes, sometimes the controlling authors’ biases are too far reflected in the article. (Why the people that run wikipedia let it happen is a different issue.) But by and large (not totally), I have no real issue with how WC keeps things (he seems one of the most neutral) and certainly think about how much work has to be done to keep the vandals and the kooks on both sides from turning things into a bunch of silly falsehoods.

This is certainly true:

Remaining scientific uncertainties include the amount of warming expected in the future, and how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there is ongoing political and public debate worldwide regarding what, if any, action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences.

As is this earlier on:

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions.[9][10]

Although the reference to the silly op-ed by Oreskes bothers me.

This is wrong though:

The average global air temperature near the Earth’s surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005.[1]

No, the mean global land/sea temperature anomaly trend has increased. Not just air, and the trend of the anomaly, not “temperatures”.

And they refererence the SPM far too much.

515. DeWitt Payne
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

re: #513

Carbon
Dioxide is much heavier than ozone. Even at hundred degrees leaving a chimney
stack it won’t in the main climb into the upper atmosphere.

Ummm… CO2 molecular weight 44. Ozone = O3 = 48. You want to try that again? Not to mention that the atmosphere doesn’t start to stratify by molecular weight until you’re in the ball park of 100km altitude. Ozone isn’t considered a well-mixed gas because it’s unstable not because it has a higher molecular weight than nitrogen and oxygen.

516. Andrew
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 10:22 AM | Permalink

516 (Sam): Is it just me or did you start that post disagreeing with my assessment on wiki on this issue and then gradual come to be in almost complete agreement? Regard whether he was being deliberately misleading, the “latter point” he was responding to was:

So, yeah, sounds deliberate to me. The part it looks like he is responding to was John A commenting on the exchange.

517. UK John
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 2:32 PM | Permalink

Can scientists go against consensus, well they can.

July 2007 floods in UK were reported as due to Climate Change by all media, Sir Michael Pitt the governments “chosen one” also put it down to Climate Change, the Bishops of Church of England even joined in. But I did not know of any climate model that supported this view, but perhaps Sir Michael did?

However the ceh scientists report no link to climate change. (bet they don’t get any funding!)

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news/news_archive/2008_news_item_05.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/thepittreview/~/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/flooding_review/interim_report_pressnotice%20pdf.ashx

518. cba
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 3:44 PM | Permalink

512 (GjS):

who discovered the ozone hole and when?

it was discovered by researchers in 1957 – IGY – international geophysical year down in the antarctic. Which one discovered it exactly I don’t know.

suffice to say back then freon wasn’t in widespread use either.

519. Steve McEntyre
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 3:49 PM | Permalink

Please forgive me if I am traveling too far afield here.
The whole deal about calibration seems to be and exercise in mathematical chicanery.
Normally, temperature calibration (with which I have some small experience) involves comparison against a known quantity or known response to a known stimulus. With temperature measurement about the very best you can do with direct measurement is a shade less than 1/2 degree F. Regardless of which sensing element one uses be it RTD, Thermister, Thermocouple, Mercury Thermometer, or what have you it involves a comparison which is another source of error. The freezing point of gold is a bit outside the range of interest, the boiling and freezing points of water bracket very well the range of interest but there are a multitude of factors which may introduce error. Methodology become extremely important if one is highly concerned about accuracy. Now, it is common industrial practice to measure temperature with remarkable precision down to even 0.01 degrees F, with unknown accuracy. When you are manufacturing something and have arrived at thermal conditions which are optimal it is not too hard to return to those conditions but your optimal conditions may really be 42.00 degrees F instead of 41.05 degrees F and no one is the wiser or unhappy about anything as long as you can reproduce those conditions.
That said, those who say they can statistically resolve an average temperature from the long past using tree ring widths down to 0.1 degree C is lying through his teeth.

My question is has anyone ever bothered to perform a real trial with real trees under known conditions and measure the response varying only the temperature.

Trees tend to require adequate nutrition, moisture, light, and temperatures within the survivability range for the particular species. Given that, the notion that someone can tell the temperature by examining the width of the rings having no notion of soil or moisture conditions which prevailed at the time is beyond preposterous.

Maybe I’m missing something and those folks really did examine a real forest with a known temperature record and known soil and moisture record. If so, I apologize cause I’m just a dumb ol country boy with not a lot of interest or expertise in statistics.
Sorry for the rant.
(I still think Herr Mann et al are all wet)

520. Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

Re #44

My question is has anyone ever bothered to perform a real trial with real trees under known conditions and measure the response varying only the temperature.

Steve I’ve asked the same question and I’ve searched, with no success. I hope someone in the readership has the answer and can point both of us to that golden study.

I’ve read many posts here and also looked across the tree/thermometer literature. I’m trying to suspend my disbelief but that gets tougher and tougher.

521. maksimovich
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 4:09 PM | Permalink

Some researchers suggest ozone recovery will cause antarctic amplification

The scientists found that as ozone levels recover, the lower stratosphere over the polar region will absorb more harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. This could cause air temperatures roughly 6 to 12 miles above Earth’s surface to rise by as much as 16 degrees Fahrenheit, reducing the strong north-south temperature gradient that currently favors the positive phase of SAM, said the research team.

The supercomputer modeling effort also indicated that ozone hole recovery would weaken the intense westerly winds that currently whip around Antarctica and block air masses from crossing into the continent’s interior. As a result, Antarctica would no longer be isolated from the warming patterns.

522. Dave Dardinger
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 4:41 PM | Permalink

Steve McE…

Please don’t use pseudonyms so close to our host’s name. It’s confusing and will ultimately just get you snipped or banned.

While I expect you’re ultimately correct, the issue has been done to death here long ago and Steve McI won’t stand long for such a hijacking of a thread, so just move on to unthreaded or better the message board where you can talk about such topics as long as you’re polite and reasonably sensible.

523. Steve McEntyre
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 4:52 PM | Permalink

It is not a pseudonym!
And I am not a Canadian eh!

524. Dave Dardinger
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 5:28 PM | Permalink

Oh great! As if we didn’t have enough Steve’s around here already. But in any case the rest of what I said is true. It usually ends up with people claiming you can’t improve overall accuracy with multiple measurements and a quick trip to the bit bucket. I’m not saying you necessarily would have, but such discussions disintergrate quickly and therefore Steve McI doesn’t let them happen.

525. bender
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 6:00 PM | Permalink

#44/#45

has anyone ever bothered to perform a real trial with real trees under known conditions and measure the response varying only the temperature

I’ve answered this one before here. The answer is “no”. Some related attempts have been made in the field, but it is simply not possible to modify only temperature in the field. Doing that requires controlled “growth chambers” indoors.

526. HMcCard
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 6:05 PM | Permalink

Steve,

I realize that adjustment of USHCN data has received much attention by CA. However, I am still confused. I told Anthony Watts earlier this week during his visit to NCDC that I echoed Bob Tisdale’s appeal for a simple explanation of NCDC’s adjustments of station temperature data and their significance.

I also told Anthony that a while ago, I became curious about the temporal and spatial variations in surface temperature and chose to examine the average monthly data for the last century (1987 – 2005) from several stations. I became perplexed by the significant differences between the monthly and annual temperature trends for a specific station. The differences in temperature trens between nearby (

527. HMcCard
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

Steve,

It appears that only 1/3 of my post was transmitted. I’ll try to reconstruct the remainder and trasmit it tomorrow.

528. bender
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 6:22 PM | Permalink

Maybe I’m missing something and those folks really did examine a real forest with a known temperature record and known soil and moisture record. If so, I apologize

Apology accepted. Dendrochronology does work with real trees in real forests operating under known conditions of temperature, precipitation and soil type. The problem, SMcE (your new moniker), is that this approach is correlative – and correlation does not imply causation. IOW Correlative studies under known conditions are not as powerful as manipulative experiments under controlled conditions. So the existing calibrations are suggestive at best.

529. bender
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 6:24 PM | Permalink

Be wary of the < symbol. Note the new quicktags button for that operator.

530. Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 6:37 PM | Permalink

‘<‘ quicktag doesn’t work for me. does nothing….

531. Geoff Sherrington
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 6:56 PM | Permalink

Re # 44 S McEntyre

My question is has anyone ever bothered to perform a real trial with real trees under known conditions and measure the response varying only the temperature.

Cannot answer this comprehensively, but I did see a tree east of Perth West Australia where Alcoa had enclosed a large (jarrah?) tree and were studying as much as they could, about year 1984, including mass. I did not see the final report, so I do not know if temp was used as a main variable – as I recall it was allowed to vary with weather. The purpose was to study regeneration of native trees after strip mining for bauxite.

I would be surprised if other scientists have not done similar elsewhere. The enclosure is a phytometer, but a quick Net search shows its more common use is on small plants for nutrient experiments. You might need to go to older searches. In general, Google seems to have missed some early material that we used to access.

532. Dave Dardinger
Posted Apr 25, 2008 at 9:40 PM | Permalink

Let me try the new quicktags:

<ded> Well, it works in the preview

533. Craig Loehle
Posted Apr 26, 2008 at 9:25 AM | Permalink

Question: has anyone studied real trees with manipulated real temperature?

Yes. Several classes of studies. The problem with the field studies is not only are they correlative, but the weather station used is often far from the site. In addition, we don’t know which season the trees are limited by.

Greenhouse studies have found a parabolic response to temperature (not many of them).
Climate change studies have warmed trees in the field (Oak Ridge studies by Huston and/or Norby).
Provenance studies have planted seeds of trees from one location north and south of their origin (citations in Loehle, C. 1998. Height Growth Rate Tradeoffs Determine Northern and Southern Range Limits for Trees. J. Biogeography 25:735-742) and show a parabolic response of individual seedlots (they grow worse if planted too far north or south or the site of origin)

534. HMcCard
Posted Apr 26, 2008 at 1:51 PM | Permalink

Steve,

Re: 528 and 529 (Mine)

I think my transmission was interupted because I inadvertently used a “less than sign”. Permit me to start over:

I realize that adjustment of USHCN data has received much attention by CA. However, I am still confused. I told Anthony Watts earlier this week during his visit to NCDC that I echoed Bob Tisdale’s appeal for a simple explanation of NCDC’s adjustments of station temperature data and their significance.

I also told Anthony that a while ago, I became curious about the temporal and spatial variations in surface temperature and chose to examine the average monthly data for the last century (1987 – 2005) from several stations. I became perplexed by the significant differences between the monthly and annual temperature trends for a specific station. The differences in temperature trends between nearby stations was equally perplexing. I lost interest in my project when I realized that NCDC’s adjustment may have confounded the data.

Recently, I revisited the data from one station that I had previously selected (Fort Morgan, CO – 053038). This time, I elected to examine TMAX and TMIN compared to TAVG. I defined TMED=(TMAX+TMIN)/2 and delT=TAVG-TMED. I was surprised to observe a series of nearly noise-free, step-wise changes in delT for both monthly and annual data. It showed the following: 1) 1897-1912: annual delT~+1deg F, 2) 1913-1965: annual delT~-0.4 deg F, 3) 1965-2001: annual delT ~0.0 deg F, and 4) apparently NCDC has not adjusted the data for 2002-2005 yet.

The effect of the 1912 step-wise change varied month-to-month but was significant for all twelve months. The effect of the 1965 step-wise change primarily affected winter months, i.e., DJF. Lesser adjustment in 1987 and 1996 were apparent. I used Excell for analysis and graphical display purposes. I haven’t learned yet how to upload Excel data or graphs to this post.

Yesterday, I examined the Fort Morgan monthly data more closely and observed that step-wise changes in delT occured on a quarterly basis, i.e., DJF, MAM, JJA AND SON. It’s not apparent to me whether TAVG, TMAX, TMIN or all of the above were adjusted. However, it appears to me that NCDC’s adjustment algorithm seeks to drive delT=0. (I can’t think of any reason for that being an end-objective!) In some quarters, detT=0 is achieved earlier with fewer steps. For example, prior to 1913, delT~1.00, 1.16 and 1.40 degF for MAM, respectively; from 1913 to 1987, delT~0.05, 0.09 and 0.02 degF; from 1987 to 2002, delT~0.00.

As I said, it’s not apparent to me whether TAVG, TMAX, TMIN or all of the above were adjusted

Having surmised that NCDC’s adjustment strategy seeks to achieve delT=0, I re-visited five other stations that I examined previously: Boulder, Fort Collins and Wray, CO, as well as, Imperial, NB and Cheyenne, WY. The delT patterns were similar to the patterns for Fort Morgan. In each instance, delT=0 was achieved in three to seven step-wise increments.

As I said, it is not apparent to me whether TAVG, TMAX, TMIN or all of the above were adjusted by NCDC but I suspect that TAVG is the target. If so, TMED may be a better choice for climate trend analysis.

I appologize for the length of this post. If matter has been discussed previously, will you please direct me to the pertinent archives?

535. Phil.
Posted Apr 26, 2008 at 6:12 PM | Permalink

Re #520

512 (GjS):

who discovered the ozone hole and when?

it was discovered by researchers in 1957 – IGY – international geophysical year down in the antarctic. Which one discovered it exactly I don’t know.

suffice to say back then freon wasn’t in widespread use either.

Only out by ~thirty years, it was discovered by scientists working for the British Antarctic Survey in 1985.

536. See - owe to Rich
Posted Apr 27, 2008 at 1:58 AM | Permalink

Re #519 and “climate change caused the English July floods”.

On the day in question (i.e. the deluge rather than the Severn/Avon flooding some days later), I was out in my back garden with a neighbour helping me to prevent our (usually) tiny stream flooding the house, by helping it out through the front gate.

Anyway, he said “Ah it’s all down to global warming I suppose”. I had just been reading David Archibald’s papers, so even in the height of battle I had the temerity to say “no, it’s down to global cooling; solar cycle 23 is slow in finishing, and the worst rain comes when cold air meets warm moist air”. Given how cool the English summer was, I think that was a reasonable statement.

So, possibly climate change was the culprit, but in my view not anthropogenically induced global warming.

Rich.

537. Phil B.
Posted Apr 27, 2008 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

Re #537 Phil, interesting, people at my facility worked on sounding rockets and instrumentation to measure the Ozone hole in the early 60’s which matches the 1957 date of Re# 520 rather than the 1985 date.

Phil B.

538. Richard Sharpe
Posted Apr 27, 2008 at 10:07 AM | Permalink

According to Who discovered the Ozone Hole, it was discovered in ’79.

Perhaps we can find earlier discoverers.

539. Phil B.
Posted Apr 27, 2008 at 11:43 AM | Permalink

Re #540, #537, #539, my impression was that they were mapping a hole (thinning) in addition to just taking Ozone measurements. The hypothesis of a hole provided the funding. I will confirm with my source as my info is second hand. Seems costly and difficult without satellite data though.

Phil B.

540. Andrew
Posted Apr 27, 2008 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

Well, there are so controversial soundings from the fifties, actually:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/58ozone.htm

But Phil. wants to give WC the credit, fine by me. ;)

541. Phil.
Posted Apr 27, 2008 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

Re #540

The paper outlining the discovery of the hole was published in Nature in 85 by Farman et al., see the bottom of the first column:

Here
Here’s a follow-up letter to Nature in 95:

Letter

542. Phil.
Posted Apr 27, 2008 at 12:48 PM | Permalink

Re #542

Controversial soundings from the 50s but not reported until 1990, after Joe Farman’s paper. In fact after Farman’s paper the satellite data was re-examined and data showing the hole were found which had previously been rejected because they were thought to be errors. So while several people might have discovered the ozone hole before Farman did, the fact is that is study starting in 77 was the one that first reported the hole.

Don’t know what you’re blathering about concerning WC.

543. Stephen Richards
Posted Apr 27, 2008 at 1:18 PM | Permalink

Phil

One of the big problems with the BBC and many other press outlets in the UK is that they believe, and publish their beliefs, that it’s brits that do everything. Sadly they are invariably wrong.

Millau bridge – read Norman the ricketty bridge Foster. Reality, the French builder/ designer of the Normandy bridge, etc.

544. Phil.
Posted Apr 27, 2008 at 3:17 PM | Permalink

Re #545

I couldn’t care less about your bridge, I am not quoting the BBC etc., it is universally recognized that the discovery of the Antarctic Ozone Hole was by Farman et al. of the British Antarctic Survey and that the initial publication was the one I cited in Nature.

Here’s a quotation from Science (not a British publication):
“In 1985, Farman et al. (1) discovered a substantial thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer over Antarctica in spring. This “ozone hole” took the atmospheric research community by surprise because it could not be explained by any catalytic cycles known to remove ozone in the stratosphere. Today, the consensus is that the chemical processes responsible for the formation of this “ozone hole” are reasonably well understood.”

The author was Marc von Hobe who is in the Institute for Chemistry and Dynamics of the Geosphere ICG-1: Stratosphere, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425 Juelich, Germany.

Also from NASA:
“The Antarctic ozone hole was first discovered in 1985 by Dr. Joseph Farman and his colleagues at the British Antarctic Survey. Dr. Farman used ground-based observations at Halley Bay station, Antarctica, of overhead ozone covering the period from 1958 to 1984 to show that ozone had decreased dramatically in October in comparison to the early years.”

And from Italy, Rafanelli C., A. Anav, I. Di Menno, M. Di Menno, L. Ciattaglia, CNR – Istituto di Fisica dell’Atmosfera – Roma:

“The studies on the developments of the Antarctic ozone hole, since the discovery by Farman-Gardiner and Shanklin, Farman et al., are been intense efforts to monitoring the abundance, spatial and temporal evolutions.”

Finally from the Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) which is a center within the Earth Institute at Columbia University.:

“Stratospheric ozone depletion has been a major environmental issue of the last two decades–first as an interesting hypothesis following publication of the seminal paper by Molina and Rowland (1974), and then as a matter of urgency and intergovernmental action following the discovery of the ozone ‘hole’ in the Antarctic stratosphere in 1984 (Farman et al., 1985).”

I rest my case, perhaps you should keep your anti-British bias to yourself?

545. Andrew
Posted Apr 27, 2008 at 3:56 PM | Permalink

544 (Phil.): Jeez, I thought I was making a clever joke about the British Antartic Survey. You seem to have these hysterical reactions to certain statements. I find it odd, actually.

546. Richard Sharpe
Posted Apr 27, 2008 at 4:46 PM | Permalink

Jonathan Shanklin claims to have discovered the ozone hole in “the early 80s” and that it was reported in the ’85 Nature article (which was submitted in December ’84, so the ozone hole was discovered in ’84 at the latest).

547. Phil.
Posted Apr 27, 2008 at 6:20 PM | Permalink

Re#547

544 (Phil.): Jeez, I thought I was making a clever joke about the British Antartic Survey. You seem to have these hysterical reactions to certain statements. I find it odd, actually.

It was neither clever nor a joke. A joke has to be funny, and linking the fact that WC used to work for the same organization that made the discovery of the ozone hole several years before he joined the organization isn’t particularly clever either! Particularly since I have referred to both connections to the BAS in this thread.
You seem to have a strange concept of hysteria, you appear to think it applies to someone who refutes your arguments.

548. Richard Sharpe
Posted Apr 27, 2008 at 6:29 PM | Permalink

I thought the science was settled.

549. Andrew
Posted Apr 28, 2008 at 5:01 AM | Permalink

Aw, c’mon, as it stands, you are making it look like Phil. wittly responded to me and I dumbfoundedly acquiesced! What is it I keep saying that is so offensive? I never made an “argument” at all and was just joking around with him, so he got angry at me. I’m just trying to apologize, really.

550. Sam Urbinto
Posted Apr 28, 2008 at 8:57 AM | Permalink

Andrew: I agree it could be confusing, and it might have been done on purpose to make it confusing. And also agree that some of the articles are a little lopsided and people can be at times heavy handed. But it is the “mainstream” viewpoint, at the current time. While I don’t totally like all the articles (and have issues with some of what’s there or how it’s said obviously) I would expect it to be less like here and more like RC. However, I’m not willing to attribute motives when talking about Michaels and McKitrick and then using M&M as being meant to confuse. Although it is rather sloppy, given the subject. I wouldn’t think most mainstream AGW folks care if they’re confusing or not, but figure if it turns out that way, so much the better. Who knows. Does it really matter?

SMcE: Engineer, pastor or baker? :D

551. Rod
Posted Apr 28, 2008 at 9:58 AM | Permalink

It’s worth listening to the first part of today’s BBC Radio 4 programme “More or Less” Has Global Warming Peaked?. It includes a wager by James Annan that by 2011 average global temp will exceed 1998.

552. MarkW
Posted Apr 28, 2008 at 10:19 AM | Permalink

#553,

Before or after the Hansen adjustments?

553. Kenneth Fritsch
Posted Apr 28, 2008 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

I had previously posted some graphs in Post #150 in the thread Unthreaded #33 that on further examination I found to be in error. Below I am posting the corrected versions. The corrected versions are more consistent and do not show the rather sharp changes in trends that the incorrect version displayed. Nonetheless, the deconstructions show change points and differences by zonal areas of the globe and season that I found interesting.

As I noted before I am attempting to determine if any new information can be garnered by looking at the UAH satellite temperatures anomalies when they are broken down by zonal areas and seasons and compared by overall trend lines and change points.

I used the UAH temperature data sets for 1979-2007 as listed in this link:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

For zones I used the globe, tropical from 30S to 30N, NH extra tropical from 30N to 60N, SH extra tropical from 30S to 60S, NH polar from 60N to 90N, SH polar from 60S to 90S and the lower US 48n states for a non-zonal comparison. For seasons I divided the years by the months Dec, Jan, Feb (DJF)and Mar, Apr, May (MAM) and Jun, Jul, Aug (JJA) and Sep, Oct, Nov (SON).

Since there appeared to be some rather obvious change points in the plotted data I used a previously utilized method described here:

http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes

to determine change points using a statistical probability of 0.05, a Huber weight parameter of 2 for fitting outliers, a cut-off length of 10 and a IP4 and pre-whitening method to account for serial correlations. On the graphs below the change points are identified using a large dot at the change and a break in connecting lines between the regimes. The trend lines are for the full 1979-2007 period and not separated for the regimes.

I am not qualified to pass judgment on the use of change points to identify statistically significant regime changes. I do realize that the method I used here is used to detect changes in real time and does so based on a changing mean. I used only change points that were at least 5 years from the end points of the series.

I wanted to use other change point methods with which to analyze these same data. I found an excellent link summarizing the various regime change/ change point methods here:

The method that I have used in other analyses and I would like to apply to the data in this post is described here:

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/15/17/pdf/i1520-0442-15-17-2547.pdf

and involves a simple two phase linear regression scheme where an F statistic is calculated for all possible two periods by diving the main time series into all possible 2 part divisions with a minimum of 9 points in any given part. The F statistics for every division is then compared to find a maximum F value and one that exceeds that for an F value that would occur by mere chance. If the main series produces a statistically significant maximum F that series is divided at that point and the two series are put under the same analyses to find any further statistically maximum F values exist. This is done exhaustively until no more F maximum values exceed that for the p limit used for statistical significance (in my case it was set at p =0.05).

The method described here is fortunately the one used by Menne in his paper here:

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100694.pdf

554. Phil B.
Posted Apr 28, 2008 at 10:57 PM | Permalink

Re #541 et al, my friend worked for Arlen J. Krueger performing Ozone data reduction on sounding rocket flights in 1964. His recollection was that Krueger knew or at least had a hypothesis of an Ozone hole. But he admitted that after 40+ years his memory might be corrupted by more recent information. I plan on checking for some of Krueger’s publications.

Phil B.

555. Chris Christner
Posted Apr 29, 2008 at 10:19 AM | Permalink

As I understand it, some scientists predict that the planet will warm another 1 deg. C over the next century because of thermal inertia in the oceans. So even if we ceased all production of CO2, we can still look forward to that increase in temp.

If that’s true, haven’t global temps increased at least a degree since the Little Ice Age ended about a 150 years ago? Googling hasn’t shown what the lag is between the initial heating and release from the oceans, but it’s supposed to be a slow process. I’d expect temps to be increasing now just because the oceans are releasing stored heat built up since the end of the LIA.

So why isn’t the role that thermal inertia from past warming plays on today’s temps included in IPCC lists of contributors to global warming? They just seem to look at future increases.

556. Andrew
Posted Apr 29, 2008 at 12:43 PM | Permalink

558 (Chris Christner): They say that there is a lot of “ocean delay” that puts warming “in the pipe”, yes, as a consequence of their chosen climate sensitivities. AFAIK this wouldn’t really “contribute” to anything, and its wrong anyway (IMHO). The world recovers very quickly from volcanic eruptions, implying that there is little ocean delay (and A low climate sensitivity). That result has been found by at least two papers I can think of immediately.

557. MarkW
Posted Apr 29, 2008 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

If the thermal lag of oceans was that great, wouldn’t coastal areas have almost no seasonal variations?

558. Sam Urbinto
Posted Apr 29, 2008 at 1:03 PM | Permalink

Clouds have a very fast response time, and do more to regulate how much energy comes in or goes out, which affects temperature and therefore what the oceans absorb or release. I don’t see the water as a controlling mechanism when it comes to thermal inertia, but rather as a resevoir contolled by clouds. If they don’t want the ocean to warm, they just block the sun.

A lot more here to consider also. For example, like Lovenduski et al on the positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode and carbon dioxide outgassing. (Using “a coupled physical-biogeochemical-ecological model” of course.)

This uptake of anthropogenic CO2 only slightly mitigates the outgassing of natural CO2, so that a positive SAM is associated with anomalous outgassing in contemporaneous times. The primary cause of the natural CO2 outgassing is anomalously high oceanic partial pressures of CO2 caused by elevated dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) concentrations. These anomalies in DIC are primarily a result of the circulation changes associated with the southward shift and strengthening of the zonal winds during positive phases of the SAM. The secular, positive trend in the SAM has led to a reduction in the rate of increase of the uptake of CO2 by the Southern Ocean over the past 50 years.

http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~nikki/lovenduski_2007_gbc.pdf

Impacts and the subject in general.

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~gruber/publication/pdf_files/lovenduski_grl_05.pdf

http://quercus.igpp.ucla.edu/publication/pdf_files/co2_source-sink_galley.pdf

559. Sam Urbinto
Posted Apr 29, 2008 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

Here’s an interesting site that covers various physical and chemical aspects (“some of the parameters that can be measured remotely”) of water in general.

http://www.ourlake.org/html/interpretation.html

560. Chris Christner
Posted Apr 29, 2008 at 2:17 PM | Permalink

Andrew wrote:

They say that there is a lot of “ocean delay” that puts warming “in the pipe”, yes, as a consequence of their chosen climate sensitivities. AFAIK this wouldn’t really “contribute” to anything, and its wrong anyway (IMHO). The world recovers very quickly from volcanic eruptions, implying that there is little ocean delay (and A low climate sensitivity). That result has been found by at least two papers I can think of immediately.

I’m not sure what you mean by volcanic eruptions implying little ocean delay. My question had to do with the time lag between when the ocean deeps are warmed and how long it takes for that heat to be released. According to the following papers, the time lag is a matter of centuries:

Wigley “The Climate Change Commitment

Even if atmospheric composition were fixed today, global-mean temperature and sea level rise would continue due to oceanic thermal inertia….The [constant-composition (CC)] warming commitment could exceed 1°C. The CE warming commitment is 2° to 6°C by the year 2400. For sea level rise, the CC commitment is 10 centimeters per century

Meehl, et al “How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise

Two global coupled climate models show that even if the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere had been stabilized in the year 2000, we are already committed to further global warming of about another half degree and an additional 320% sea level rise caused by thermal expansion by the end of the 21st century.

Which is why I wondered if the warming and sea level rise that have taken place in the last century may be due in part to the deeper layers of the oceans beginning to release stored heat taken in since the LIA ended.

561. Andrew
Posted Apr 29, 2008 at 2:41 PM | Permalink

562 (Chris Christner): As much as you might want to argue that there is a natural cause of warming related to “commitment” to emerging from the LIA, I would advise you to never make an argument like this, because (and this is something many don’t understand) attribution doesn’t matter. Climate change could be all natural because CO2 is being completely masked by aerosols (hypothetically speaking) and AGW would still be a problem, because that probably means climate is very sensitive and you’d expect large amounts of warming once the dust (literally) clears. Oceanic thermal inertia is the same thing as ocean delay. The high ocean delay Wigley claims to put warming “in the pipe” follows from the models with high sensitivities. Trust me, you don’t want this to be correct. And (IMHO) it is not. See:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509166.pdf

We determine the volcano climate sensitivity λ and response time τ for the Mount Pinatubo eruption. This is achieved using observational measurements of the temperature anomalies of the lower troposphere and the aerosol optical density (AOD) in combination with a radiative forcing proxy for AOD. Using standard linear response theory we find λ = 0.18 ± 0.04 K/(W/m2), which implies a negative feedback of −1.0 ± 0.4. The intrinsic response time is τ = 5.8±1.0 months. Both results are contrary to the conventional paradigm that includes long response times and positive feedback. In addition, we analyze the outgoing longwave radiation during the Pinatubo eruption and find that its time dependence follows the forcing much more closely than the temperature, and even has an amplitude equal to that of the AOD proxy. This finding is independent of the response time and feedback results.

562. DeWitt Payne
Posted Apr 29, 2008 at 2:53 PM | Permalink

563,

The high ocean delay Wigley claims to put warming “in the pipe” follows from the models with high sensitivities. Trust me, you don’t want this to be correct. And (IMHO) it is not.

That’s also why it’s so important to get a good measure of ocean heat content. If ocean heat content isn’t increasing, then there is no delay and no pipeline effect and climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is low.

563. Andrew
Posted Apr 29, 2008 at 3:01 PM | Permalink

564 (DeWitt Payne): Yes, precisely. Now, I understand that at present the measures are quite contentious, but they show little if any increase (recently) correct?

564. DeWitt Payne
Posted Apr 29, 2008 at 3:39 PM | Permalink

Andrew,

That is my understanding. IIRC, the ocean heat content has been flat since 2005. Of course that’s why the measures are contentious. This is not weather related, btw. It is a direct measure of radiation (im)balance.

565. Posted Apr 29, 2008 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L08715, doi:10.1029/2008GL033611, 2008
Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?
S. Jevrejeva, et al.
Abstract
We present a reconstruction of global sea level (GSL) since 1700 calculated from tide gauge records and analyse the evolution of global sea level acceleration during the past 300 years. We provide observational evidence that sea level acceleration up to the present has been about 0.01 mm/yr2 and appears to have started at the end of the 18th century. Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century. Superimposed on the long-term acceleration are quasi-periodic fluctuations with a period of about 60 years. If the conditions that established the acceleration continue, then sea level will rise 34 cm over the 21st century. Long time constants in oceanic heat content and increased ice sheet melting imply that the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of sea level are probably too low.

566. Posted Apr 29, 2008 at 3:59 PM | Permalink

the data before 1860 is very noisy:

S. Jevrejeva et al in 2006:
Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, C09012, doi:10.1029/2005JC003229, 2006

We analyze the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) database of sea level time series using a method based on Monte Carlo Singular Spectrum Analysis (MC-SSA). We remove 2-30 year quasi-periodic oscillations and determine the nonlinear long-term trends for 12 large ocean regions. Our global sea level trend estimate of 2.4 ± 1.0 mm/yr for the period from 1993 to 2000 is comparable with the 2.6 ± 0.7 mm/yr sea level rise calculated from TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter measurements. However, we show that over the last 100 years the rate of 2.5 ± 1.0 mm/yr occurred between 1920 and 1945, is likely to be as large as the 1990s, and resulted in a mean sea level rise of 48 mm. We evaluate errors in sea level using two independent approaches, the robust bi-weight mean and variance, and a novel “virtual station” approach that utilizes geographic locations of stations. Results suggest that a region cannot be adequately represented by a simple mean curve with standard error, assuming all stations are independent, as multiyear cycles within regions are very significant. Additionally, much of the between-region mismatch errors are due to multiyear cycles in the global sea level that limit the ability of simple means to capture sea level accurately. We demonstrate that variability in sea level records over periods 2-30 years has increased during the past 50 years in most ocean basins.

567. jae
Posted Apr 29, 2008 at 4:05 PM | Permalink

Hard for me to visualize that heat pipeline, with the current La Nina conditions and other areas of decreasing SST. Where’s Waldo?

568. cba
Posted Apr 29, 2008 at 5:25 PM | Permalink

537 (Phil):

sorry but I knew of it in the early mid 1970s. Prior to freon causation, other suggestions as to the ozone hole cause included open air nuclear testing, supersonic planes, potentially the up and coming space shuttle – like the 1950s vintage grade f scifi movies, it was a fill in the blank of anything the soviets didn’t have a lead on back then. At the time I worked with someone who was part of IGY 1957.

I don’t know what the brits discovered in 1985 but it wasn’t the ozone hole or the 11 yr sunspot cyclical nature of it because that was already well known – at least in scientific circles.

569. Phil.
Posted Apr 29, 2008 at 11:08 PM | Permalink

Re #570

sorry but I knew of it in the early mid 1970s. Prior to freon causation, other suggestions as to the ozone hole cause included open air nuclear testing, supersonic planes, potentially the up and coming space shuttle – like the 1950s vintage grade f scifi movies, it was a fill in the blank of anything the soviets didn’t have a lead on back then. At the time I worked with someone who was part of IGY 1957.

Sorry but you appear to be mixing up ozone depletion with the antarctic ozone hole.

570. Posted Apr 30, 2008 at 2:12 AM | Permalink

Re Leif Svalgaard April 29th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

quote: We present a reconstruction of global sea level (GSL) since 1700 calculated from tide gauge records unquote

I have never seen a post on any of the climate blogs from someone responsible for tide gauges. Anyone? I’ve wondered what corrections, if any, are applied to tide gauge records. Specifically, are tide gauges consistent under calm and stormy conditions? I know that they should be, but then modern temperature stations shouldn’t be covered in black mould. Are satellites calibrated to tide gauges?

I look forward to http://www.subsurfacestations.com which should be run by a retired oceanographer (I can’t find my PADI and anyway I’ve got a note from my Mum….).

JF

571. AlanB
Posted Apr 30, 2008 at 11:39 AM | Permalink

Global warming may ‘stop’, scientists predict – Telegraph Online…..but only until 2015 :-)

572. Sam Urbinto
Posted Apr 30, 2008 at 12:44 PM | Permalink

I think I figured out what’s wrong with the “greenhouse effect” article on Wikipedia. It starts out wrong. They seem to have forgotten an entire step and left off “re-” See:

The greenhouse effect is the process in which the emission of infrared radiation by the atmosphere warms a planet’s surface.

Shouldn’t that be the planet’s surface, after absorbing the wider-range of wavelengths of solar radiation (insolation, light) at 250-2500 nanometers, has a temperature diference between the sun and the earth which causes a re-emission of the upper longer-wave infrared portion (thermal radiation, heat), which is then being re-radiated back down (and up and sideways and..) by the water vapor etc in the atmosphere and trapped by the clouds, etc, keeping the surface warmer than otherwise?

Versus the IPCC 4AR:

The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum. Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth.

Although that’s off too, the Sun is radiating something like 1 femtometer to 100 Megameters. :)

I suppose they meant insolation (that’s still 250-2500 nm though, and includes the IR that gets re-radiated…) Or maybe that most of that energy is in the visible ~400-800 nanometers. Or they were talking about after it passes through the atmosphere. Or something. But obviously not what’s coming out of “The Sun” itself.

Even the charts are confused by it all!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Breakdown_of_the_incoming_solar_energy.svg

Regardless, it holds in heat that otherwise would leave faster; not having whateveryouwanttocallit there would be like opening a door on a real greenhouse and letting the trapped air out (mix with the general atmosphere again).

573. cba
Posted Apr 30, 2008 at 1:29 PM | Permalink

Sam,
however you want to think of it, it keeps us from being a giant snowball. The surface on average, radiates out almost 400 W/m^2. To balance, on average the sun provides 235 or so W/m^2. The surface cannot maintain its 288 K temperature with a net loss of energy. Hence the atmosphere must radiate back the difference, about 170 W/m^2 among other balance acts. Alarmists think the atmosphere/climate is like a pencil balanced on its point rather than laying on its side. Eventually, the hysteria over catastrophic anthropogenic global warming may give way and be relegated to the area of society where it belongs – around alien abductions, crop circles and elvis sightings.

574. erik
Posted Apr 30, 2008 at 3:53 PM | Permalink

One of the things that I just cant get over is the sign of the warming profile.

As others have pointed out, based on a simple radiative model, the atmospheric heating has to be greater somewhere in the troposphere than at the surface.

The altitude of maximum increase would somewhere near the 50% optical path for C02 in our atmosphere–7 or 8 km on average. That’s my prediction from first principals, and this is pretty much what the models all predict.

But the data shows the opposite.

I only see three options:

1) The observed data is wrong.

2) The warming is not C02 driven.
3) There exists some mechanism which transports heat downward. (Maxwell’s Demon?)

So, does someone have a viable physical mechanism that could explain the observations?

575. erik
Posted Apr 30, 2008 at 4:01 PM | Permalink

Raven says:

My understanding is Roy Spenser’s cloud feedback model explains the current observations quite well.

Does that imply a net negative feedback for water?

576. Raven
Posted Apr 30, 2008 at 4:05 PM | Permalink

erik says:

Does that imply a net negative feedback for water?

My understanding is precipitation ends up cooling the upper troposphere more than the surface (i.e. exactly what the observations show).

577. DeWitt Payne
Posted Apr 30, 2008 at 4:26 PM | Permalink

erik,

The temperature profile (lapse rate) of the atmosphere is determined by buoyancy, heat capacity as well as radiation. In a dry atmosphere the temperature profile decreases linearly with altitude. For an Earth-like atmosphere the temperature decreases at a rate of 9.8 K/km known as the dry adiabat. Any increase in this rate will cause density differences that generate convection and a return to the dry adiabat. A lower rate is stable to convection but would be driven back to the dry adiabat by radiative cooling. Because oxygen absorbs UV radiation, the temperature increases with altitude in the stratosphere. That means that for a dry atmosphere, surface warming by whatever mechanism will propagate through the troposphere at the same rate at all altitudes on average.

Add water vapor and things change a lot. Because water vapor can be converted to liquid and the heat of vaporization is very large, the heat capacity of moist air depends primarily on the partial pressure of water vapor. The lapse rate isn’t linear with altitude, is significantly smaller at low altitudes than the dry adiabat and also varies with the mixing ratio of water vapor. The vapor pressure of water vapor is an exponential function of temperature so life is even more complex. The standard atmosphere assumes a lapse rate of 6.5 K/km. So an increase of water vapor in the atmosphere causes the lapse rate to decrease which means that the atmosphere warms faster than the surface. If the absolute amount of water vapor in the air remains the same but the surface temperature goes up, then the atmosphere will warm at a lower rate than the surface. I haven’t done any calculations, but I assume that a decrease in water vapor content would even result in cooling at some altitudes.

578. Sam Urbinto
Posted Apr 30, 2008 at 4:39 PM | Permalink

My point being that the GE only deals with what ends up in the ground being sent back up and then back down and so on and so forth. It doesn’t take into account the original sunlight driving the water cycle and creating the winds, and ignores the hydrosphere’s role in holding energy (and cyrosphere, lithosphere and extra-solar outer space, and the Earth’s magnetic field, motions and relation to the Sun’s position).

So, really, the “extra amounts” of the so-called GHG really just in play on the way out as far as amplification, and we know the water holds almost all the energy, so really, isn’t it kinda like a cloud blanket holding energy in liquid water and water vapor in a ping pong kinda thing?

Anyway, yes, it’s warmer that it would be without it, whatever it is or is doing.

579. cba
Posted Apr 30, 2008 at 6:26 PM | Permalink

576 (erik):

with local thermodynamic equilibrium (valid for most of the atm by mass), you’ve got the absorbing molecules radiating as well and they are radiating upward and they are radiating downward. The radiation depends upon the absorption coefficients and upon the temperature (distribution of energy). When there is an increase in ghg absorption, there is an increase in emissions for the same temperatures (both up and down). The power flow must balance before and after. Hence the T will have to drop in at least some of the atm.

580. Geoff Sherrington
Posted Apr 30, 2008 at 7:38 PM | Permalink

Re # 339 MarkW and Iwo Jima flag photo

The only point I wish to make here is that search engines on Internet can produce different stories, whether it is a photo from Iwo Jima or a serious event in climate science. As an accredited photographer I have read many stories of this famous (and deservedly famous) photo. Here is an eyewitness account, in part.

There is still, of course, the issue of whether the second flag-raising was noteworthy enough to have been enshrined as a historical icon. Here, the facts are of little use; all that matters is interpretation.

To be sure, it didn’t help that the Marine Corps and most of the wartime press conveniently glossed over the fact of the first flag-raising. This helped foster a public notion of cover-up.

But whether or not there was a cover-up (Albee and Freeman are persuasive in arguing that the Marine brass decided to put a lid on the first flag-raising), was the second flag-raising worthy of Rosenthal’s picture?

Some vehemently argue no.

“They call that the Iwo Jima flag-raising, which it ain’t,” declared Charles Lindberg, a retired electrician in Richfield, Minn., who is the last surviving member of either flag-raising – in his case, the first.

“It’s a good picture,” Lindberg conceded. “I even told Joe Rosenthal that it was a good picture. But me and him get into a few arguments.”

That is because Lindberg, like others in the first-flag raising, believed that all the glory was showered on the second flag-raisers, who were less deserving.

Rosenthal doesn’t argue that one group was more deserving than another. “In my own opinion, any one of those troops who had their feet on Iwo Jima is a hero.”

I used the word “staged” not to mean the second attempt was artificial or defective, but because by eyewitness accounts it was a recreation of an image already made. Above all, I mean no disrespect.

If there is a lesson, it is to beware all you read on Wikipedia and from sources which do not have good credentials. There is now, as usual, a rash of antiscience reporting covering diverse items like –

man-made chemicals cause a large increase in illness like cancer

large doses of extra vitamins are needed by most people

hi level nuclear waste needs management for 250,000 years

there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation, only zero

seaweed extracts make plants grow better

low levels of lead intake lowers the IQ of youngsters

etc etc

Each of these topics is undergoing examination by skeptics to some degree because they are not supported by credible science. As if Climate Audit does not keep us busy enough!

581. Tom Gray
Posted May 1, 2008 at 8:08 AM | Permalink

http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/04/gm-ethanol-part.html

This is a report of a press announcement from a GM partner.The partner is annuncing a process by which ethanol can be made from syngas derived from “derived from almost any organic waste material, including agricultural waste and municipal garbage that might normally be placed in landfill.” It states that the ehtanol will contain 7.7 times the energy required to produce it as compared to the maximum 1.3 times observed or corn.