The zero slope line from today to its earliest intersection with the temperature record is 1997. And then YOU go cherry picking points after admonishing me?
You know. that could give the impression that you are not arguing in good faith. I have been saying the warmists are dishonest. I never expected you to resort to same. Just goes to show how weak your position is.
The coming cooling is going to be difficult to explain.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/03/germ ... s-by-2100/
Where Did The CO2 Come From?
Re: Where Did The CO2 Come From?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: Where Did The CO2 Come From?
I think you are not reading the thread. WUWT made this claim the "pause" slope was zero, using cherry-picked endpoints 2001/2013. I highlighted this by showing that slightly different endpoints would give a completely different trend. I guess given that I did not think it necessary to point out that you need something more sophisticated to get a good estimate of the real trend - it is obvious.MSimon wrote:The zero slope line from today to its earliest intersection with the temperature record is 1997. And then YOU go cherry picking points after admonishing me?
You know. that could give the impression that you are not arguing in good faith. I have been saying the warmists are dishonest. I never expected you to resort to same. Just goes to show how weak your position is.
The coming cooling is going to be difficult to explain.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/03/germ ... s-by-2100/
Remember, I am looking at the science, not worrying about sound-bites. There have been previous points in the temperature record where for a period of 10-15 years there is a glitch. We know the reasons for this: ENSO phase, with minor contributions from sunspot cycle, sometimes contributions from changing volcanic or anthropogenic aerosols.
The recent hiatus/pause/etc has been politically significant because people who saw the 90s extra-fast warming is proof of AGW saw the next 15 years hiatus as disproof. Neither is true.
It's been interesting scientifically because it must have a cause, and working out precisely what that is gives us a better handle on climate variability.
As for the "coming cooling" - its always been true that the future trumps all. If we have 50 years, or even 20 years, of cooling now then climatologists will have got things really wrong and will be running around trying to work out what previously unknown forcing factor is causing this. I see that as very unlikely, but it is true that in principle it is possible, there is certainly a lot of variability to go round, and a few things we don't properly understand - e.g. exactly all the ways the solar wind and GCRs interact with the earth's climate.
I've been posting on these threads because on a site where there are people with decent maths and physics it seems really stupid for the discussion of AGW to be dominated by denialist pseudo-science not worth the paper its written on.
If you want a deeper discussion of the issues which includes the non-mainstream fringe try this:
http://www.climatedialogue.org/climate- ... -response/
PS - perhaps I've misunderstood. Are you saying that a zero-slope line from now to 1997 indicates temperature flatlining? Be more precise and I'll comment on the trend in the time series that does that. Most time series show a slower increase, but still some increase, over the period when trends are properly estimated, but the noise if large.
Re: Where Did The CO2 Come From?
These guys have got frequency domainitis. Seems common in engineers looking at climate time series.MSimon wrote: http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/03/germ ... s-by-2100/
If you take a limited length stochastic time series where each point depends on previous points, to a fair extent, as a climate temp series does, you get something that looks very noisy, with however some pseudo-periodic features. Like - it goes up and down from time to time. If you do a Fourier Transform you get a similar spectrum which looks pretty random and goes up and down from time to time. These guys are modelling the temp record (coarsely) using the 6 dominant frequency components of the spectrum. That is 18 free parameters (frequency, amplitude, phase) for each of the 6 components. Well, you can get a pretty good match to any such random smoothed time series using 18 parameters!
Would you say that 18 parameters freely chosen is enough to model that graph (sorry, width is wrong, see URL above) as well as it is by the red line? I would. There are only 9 turning points properly matched.
There is no attempt in the paper to discover whether the claimed model is in fact statistically significant - just as well since it is not!
If you want to laugh note the fact that as with all overfitted curves the graph outside the range of the time series does weird things, for times less than 1765 the modelled temperature goes shooting up to a peak quite different from the real temperature.
Re: Where Did The CO2 Come From?
There is plenty of uncertainty to support various points of view. That is why I view the extream positions on either side of the argument to be based on lower confidence data. There are many variables, and the understanding of these variables are evolving. An example below of efforts to understand ocean cycles, currents, etc. effects on the ocean sink that are challenging and evolving.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/
Dan Tibbets
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
Re: Where Did The CO2 Come From?
That is very true. And the politically necessary gloss on the real science in the IPCC report summary (which I recommend to no-one) tends to underestimate the uncertainty in overall statements, while at the same time overestimating the uncertainty in other ways.D Tibbets wrote:There is plenty of uncertainty to support various points of view. That is why I view the extream positions on either side of the argument to be based on lower confidence data. There are many variables, and the understanding of these variables are evolving. An example below of efforts to understand ocean cycles, currents, etc. effects on the ocean sink that are challenging and evolving.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/
Dan Tibbets
But in science it is entirely proper to have real information which is not certain, but gives good odds for given outcomes. There may be systematic errors that mean the whole thing is wrong, but where the science has multiple independent lines of evidence pointing the same way you'd be wise to pay attention. That is the way it is with climate science. AGW from CO2 is real (settled). AGW from CO2 is significant part of last 150 years warming (settled). How much of that warming is AGW: still very unclear, with a 3:1 difference in magnitude of the AGW effect still unresolved.
And, as MSimon hopes, there is always the possibility of some joker - an independent forcing factor pushing the climate strongly up or down in the future. I'd say that is pretty unlikley because we know a lot about possible forcing factors - but it can not be ruled out.
Re: Where Did The CO2 Come From?
Solar scientist Habibullo Abdussamatov disagrees. He predicts a coming little ice age. Something the CO2 aficionados do not.AGW from CO2 is real (settled).
BTW talking about settled science is unscientific. Science is never settled. You can point to numerous major and minor errors in what is known for centuries.
If the predictions for CO2/climate do not match reality (a little ice age) it will be discarded.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: Where Did The CO2 Come From?
Well, I agree "settled" is a convenience. It just means that there is very high evidence for it. It is true, sometimes all that high evidence can be overturned by some new facts. Looking for historical examples is not fair though, because now, for most science, we have much MORE evidence than was available historically, and we also have a much larger pool of scientists all trying out different things.MSimon wrote:Solar scientist Habibullo Abdussamatov disagrees. He predicts a coming little ice age. Something the CO2 aficionados do not.AGW from CO2 is real (settled).
BTW talking about settled science is unscientific. Science is never settled. You can point to numerous major and minor errors in what is known for centuries.
If the predictions for CO2/climate do not match reality (a little ice age) it will be discarded.
Logically what you state above does not wash. To be a "CO2 afficionado" (seems somewhat pejorative nomenclature and not what you'd expect in a sober assessment?) you need to reckon that increasing CO2 makes a significant positive delta on global temp. To be expecting an LIA over a very short timescale - which it seems this guy is, you need to reckon something different is making a significant negative delta on global temp. There is no logicak connection between the two and if both are true then they combine. The LIA negative delta, globally, appears to be around 0.5C? In which case it would give us a much needed breathing space of likley 20-30 years extra at current CO2 emission rates. Let us hope so.
However much more likely this ice age guy is talking speculative rubbish. Certainly, he talks rubbish:
He may or may not be a good solar scientist - I don't know how institutions work in Russia. But his facile analysis of the atmospheric physics of GHGs is provably and naively wrong. That raises questions about is solar conclusions because he is assuming (because is does not understand how GHGs work) that the GHG warming so far is solar - which would indeed make him expect some mystery solar effect to have a large influence on climate.Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity."[4] This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change as well as accepted reconstructions of solar activity.[5][6][7] He has asserted that "parallel global warmings—observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth—can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."[8] This assertion has not been accepted by the broader scientific community, some of whom have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."[9][10]
Abdussamatov also contends that the natural greenhouse effect does not exist, stating "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated."[11] He further states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." He has stated that more work is needed to model the effect. However, this effect cannot happen because the mean free path of molecules in the atmosphere is very short, transferring energy by collisions and preventing greenhouse gases from retaining the excess energy they absorb.
Re: Where Did The CO2 Come From?
Well you are probably unaware of the literature. The "greenhouse effect" is just PV=nRT.
Expanding the Concept of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Using Thermodynamic Principles:
Implications for Predicting Future Climate Change
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. & Karl Zeller, Ph.D.
USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins CO, USA
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/20 ... zeller.pdf
Now if that is the case then solar is all that is left to do the warming. So our Russian friend may be on to something.
We shall see. None of the "CO2 believers" are predicting a little ices age. Habibullo Abdussamatov says the drop will start this year and will accelerate. By 2020 it will be obvious.
Expanding the Concept of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Using Thermodynamic Principles:
Implications for Predicting Future Climate Change
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. & Karl Zeller, Ph.D.
USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins CO, USA
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/20 ... zeller.pdf
Now if that is the case then solar is all that is left to do the warming. So our Russian friend may be on to something.
We shall see. None of the "CO2 believers" are predicting a little ices age. Habibullo Abdussamatov says the drop will start this year and will accelerate. By 2020 it will be obvious.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: Where Did The CO2 Come From?
The "greenhouse effect" as used in climate science is indeed a misnomer. What really happens is quite different from what happens in a greenhouse, though the overall effect - heat trapped - is the same. If you were curious, you could read up easily the physical basis for what is commonly called "greenhouse effect" in the AGM debate and compare it with this essay.
I've had some fun reading this paper. I'm giving my initial opinion of it without even bothering to read up on the relevant science properly. There are transparent mistakes. If I feel sufficiently interested I'll post more later about state of the art atmospheric heat transport calculations (not GCMs, because these are basically 1D vertical columns with convective mixing constrained by other physical evidence).
To summarise:
Ned has read simplified one layer tutorial explanations of atmospheric GHGs and notices that they are not accurate! He complains about this - but does not bother to read up the literature on state of the art atmospheric radiation and convection balance modelling to see what is really done.
I'll go through his complaints one by one:
(1) He thinks that the simplified equation for GHG effect ignores that fact that things are different on the dark side of the earth, and that even on the day side a geometry correction is needed. He would not do this if he bothered to look at how atmospheric physicists solve the equations - even simplified tutorial models take this into account - the simplified equation is never used without a suitable adjustment.
(2) He points out that radiative heat transport is not enough, you also need to consider convective heat transport. that is a good point, and indeed models of atmospheric heat balance DO consider convective transport as well, as he'd know if he bothered to read them. This BTW is not about GCMs, equations for basic heat balance can be solved on vertical columns providing you know what is the magnitude of the convection correction and you leave clouds for later consideration (as this guy does anyway).
Unfortunately this guy includes a fudge factor for convection, CpGbh, and then asserts that convection dominates over radiative transfer by several orders of magnitude. He gives as evidence for this graphs claiming to be the solution to the simplified + convection 1D heat transfer equations. Unfortunately what matters here is whether turbulent convection happens at all. It is unstable, because when it happens temperatures change so as to make it not happen (see more sophisticated analyses).
How convection works in the atmosphere is interesting science, and not trivial, so it is rather surprising that this guy has not bothered to read up about it.
For example, here is a research paper:
http://idwebhost-202-127.ethz.ch/ese101 ... abe64a.pdf
(much cited) from 50 years ago that adds convective corrections to the radiative budget. I'm not saying this is correct, I'm sure since then we have more sophisticated analyses. I'd do a forward citation search from this to explore, but I'm not sure i can be bothered, since this guy has not shown any understanding of this stuff and has an even more simplistic analysis than this 1964 paper.
(3) He thinks the radiative heat emitted from the troposphere to earth is more than the total heat on average absorbed by the atmosphere. Whoops! He is I think here making the very same mistake he (incorrectly) thinks the climate scientists are making in point (1). The point being that the average heat absorbed is about 1/4 of the ideal sun directly overhead heat absorbed. A lot of people get this geometric correction thing wrong and think they have discovered anomalies. This guy knows about it - which is good - but then does not check whether climate scientists use it (of course they do) and forgets to use it himself when he should. Were I marking this as an essay from an undergraduate I'd give it a C-, he gets some marks for knowing some stuff in spite of making major mistakes. C- means basically the guy does not understand the subject well enough to be a decent engineer, let alone do research.
(4) He claims a new way to calculate GHG using the ideal gas law. As though existing theory did not use the ideal gas law! But as he says himself this does not lead to known results and requires an assumption about the effects of convection. He plugs in his own assumption and says this new way "matches quite well" with a number of planets including earth. I've nothing against approximations and assumptions, and where they give useful results that is great. But for solving atmospheric heat transport we need the best possible theory validated by the best possible experimental evidence. He provides neither of these, and his approximations give much less precise matching to the case of the earth than more sophisticated and accurate methods.
I've had some fun reading this paper. I'm giving my initial opinion of it without even bothering to read up on the relevant science properly. There are transparent mistakes. If I feel sufficiently interested I'll post more later about state of the art atmospheric heat transport calculations (not GCMs, because these are basically 1D vertical columns with convective mixing constrained by other physical evidence).
To summarise:
Ned has read simplified one layer tutorial explanations of atmospheric GHGs and notices that they are not accurate! He complains about this - but does not bother to read up the literature on state of the art atmospheric radiation and convection balance modelling to see what is really done.
I'll go through his complaints one by one:
(1) He thinks that the simplified equation for GHG effect ignores that fact that things are different on the dark side of the earth, and that even on the day side a geometry correction is needed. He would not do this if he bothered to look at how atmospheric physicists solve the equations - even simplified tutorial models take this into account - the simplified equation is never used without a suitable adjustment.
(2) He points out that radiative heat transport is not enough, you also need to consider convective heat transport. that is a good point, and indeed models of atmospheric heat balance DO consider convective transport as well, as he'd know if he bothered to read them. This BTW is not about GCMs, equations for basic heat balance can be solved on vertical columns providing you know what is the magnitude of the convection correction and you leave clouds for later consideration (as this guy does anyway).
Unfortunately this guy includes a fudge factor for convection, CpGbh, and then asserts that convection dominates over radiative transfer by several orders of magnitude. He gives as evidence for this graphs claiming to be the solution to the simplified + convection 1D heat transfer equations. Unfortunately what matters here is whether turbulent convection happens at all. It is unstable, because when it happens temperatures change so as to make it not happen (see more sophisticated analyses).
How convection works in the atmosphere is interesting science, and not trivial, so it is rather surprising that this guy has not bothered to read up about it.
For example, here is a research paper:
http://idwebhost-202-127.ethz.ch/ese101 ... abe64a.pdf
(much cited) from 50 years ago that adds convective corrections to the radiative budget. I'm not saying this is correct, I'm sure since then we have more sophisticated analyses. I'd do a forward citation search from this to explore, but I'm not sure i can be bothered, since this guy has not shown any understanding of this stuff and has an even more simplistic analysis than this 1964 paper.
(3) He thinks the radiative heat emitted from the troposphere to earth is more than the total heat on average absorbed by the atmosphere. Whoops! He is I think here making the very same mistake he (incorrectly) thinks the climate scientists are making in point (1). The point being that the average heat absorbed is about 1/4 of the ideal sun directly overhead heat absorbed. A lot of people get this geometric correction thing wrong and think they have discovered anomalies. This guy knows about it - which is good - but then does not check whether climate scientists use it (of course they do) and forgets to use it himself when he should. Were I marking this as an essay from an undergraduate I'd give it a C-, he gets some marks for knowing some stuff in spite of making major mistakes. C- means basically the guy does not understand the subject well enough to be a decent engineer, let alone do research.
(4) He claims a new way to calculate GHG using the ideal gas law. As though existing theory did not use the ideal gas law! But as he says himself this does not lead to known results and requires an assumption about the effects of convection. He plugs in his own assumption and says this new way "matches quite well" with a number of planets including earth. I've nothing against approximations and assumptions, and where they give useful results that is great. But for solving atmospheric heat transport we need the best possible theory validated by the best possible experimental evidence. He provides neither of these, and his approximations give much less precise matching to the case of the earth than more sophisticated and accurate methods.
MSimon wrote:Well you are probably unaware of the literature. The "greenhouse effect" is just PV=nRT.
Expanding the Concept of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Using Thermodynamic Principles:
Implications for Predicting Future Climate Change
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. & Karl Zeller, Ph.D.
USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins CO, USA
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/20 ... zeller.pdf
Now if that is the case then solar is all that is left to do the warming. So our Russian friend may be on to something.
We shall see. None of the "CO2 believers" are predicting a little ices age. Habibullo Abdussamatov says the drop will start this year and will accelerate. By 2020 it will be obvious.
Re: Where Did The CO2 Come From?
Ideal gas law has limits, but is close enough for most practical purposes when dealing with Earth's atmosphere. The one major exception is evaporation and condensation of water, which the IPCC supported models completely botch. Measurement error probably swamps the error from using ideal gas law in calculating greenhouse effect.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.
Re: Where Did The CO2 Come From?
It is not the ideal gas law, but the other guesses he makes. The ideal gas law underdetermines the problem - he then proposes an arbitrary function which he curve fits for the rest. It is not pretty.hanelyp wrote:Ideal gas law has limits, but is close enough for most practical purposes when dealing with Earth's atmosphere. The one major exception is evaporation and condensation of water, which the IPCC supported models completely botch. Measurement error probably swamps the error from using ideal gas law in calculating greenhouse effect.
The IPCC models (that is the GCMs from various groups reviewed in the IPCC reports) don't handle clouds in a first principles way (which would be computationally intractable), but nor do they botch them - they do better than a model ignoring clouds. And as time goes by they get better.