Admiral_Bobski

Time for me to go digging for clues, methinks...

One would certainly expect it to...I think... Does this then lend further credence to the LI hypothesis...? </bait> EDIT - If the sunspot cycle being meaningless is only relevant when looking at insolation then are we, perhaps, not being insolant enough...? </pun> CB

Just to emphasise VP's point there, the LI's time lag is variable, so the length of lag is greater the warmer the Earth gets. It occurs to me that I have found several scientific papers which talk about lags in the climate system from solar activity. These lags vary a lot, depending upon whose paper you read: some say the lag is 2-3 years, some say 10-20 years, some say 40-50 years and others talk of lags of over 100 years (sometimes well over). To my mind this tells us two things: firstly, there may be a variety of lags occurring (a lag for atmospheric processes, a lag for oceanic processes, a lag for concrete-related processes and so on), all superimposed on each other. Secondly, the variety of lags may be a symptom of scientists attempting to impose specific, discrete values to a variable phenomenon - if you're trying to find a repeating pattern in a system that doesn't repeat then you end up with a wide variety of possible correlations. The answer could be either one of these, or it could be an element of both (or it could be neither, I admit). Interesting, though... CB

You still seem to be failing to grasp the concept of the LI. The whole point is to see whether or not GHG forcing is even required to explain global temperature trends. Your preference for the MetO model appears to be that they have not "overlooked" GHG forcing. Well, the LI (as yet) doesn't even need GHG forcing. Don't you find that interesting? You favour the MetO 10-year outlook, but it is not that dissimilar to the LI's outlook. But, rather than discuss the merits and shortcomings of the LI, you prefer to dismiss it as wrong because it doesn't fit in with your presumptions. Do you actually know what science is? CB EDIT - A quick PS to Diessoli: thank you for your inputs so far Unfortunately I shall have to let VP field the maths questions, as I am only too happy to admit that the maths side of things is not my forte!

When it's proven that this is the case...? CB

You didn't answer my question - if you want to completely stop the spread of AIDS, how do you do it? This is what Monckton was asked, and his answer is the only actual solution! Does that make it right? No! As for your link...please tell me that's some kind of joke. Do you honestly wonder why people make "conspiracy-nut" jokes about you, PP? CB

Explain what you mean by "his hypocrisy". Can you suggest another solution that would completely stop the spread of AIDS? Completely, mind you. If you can then I will concede that quarantining is not the only solution - nonsense I will not call it. Well, that's science for you. It is a scientific discussion. Whether the science is valid or not is another matter. Perhaps I should jump in and emphasise that I am not saying that the LI is The Answer. It may come across, from time to time, that I am convinced the LI is right and AGW is wrong, but that is not the case. I confess that I am biased in favour of the LI, at least insofar as it describes my initial premise: that a lag in solar activity could cause the observed warming. I don't know if there is an alternative method that could be used to describe this process - perhaps there is, but the LI was the first (and only) one that was presented to me. I am open to suggestion, and I accept the fact that the LI could well turn out to be a blind alley. CB

Bum! Well let me know if there's anything I can do. CB

PP - your Monckton article is a bit silly. If you look back on these boards to when Monckton first weighed in on the climate debate, the issue of his HIV proposal was brought up then. We discussed it - I shall go back at some point and see if I can find the thread in the archives. Monckton was asked "How do you stop the spread of AIDS?" His solution was impractical, unethical and perhaps immoral, but - crucially - it was absolutely correct: if you want to completely stop the spread of AIDS, the only solution is to quarantine the carriers. This is not to say that I advocate the immediate quarantining of people who are HIV-positive - I'm strongly against it, because it infringes their basic right to freedom - but the point is that theoretically Monckton's suggestion is the only actual solution. What's so wrong with that? The article you linked to is nothing more than an attack on Monckton for a report he wrote over 20 years ago. Let he who is without sin.... Pete - I appreciate your position entirely. Indeed, I feel precisely the same way: deniers can go and join the climate catastrophists in a locked, darkened room. My comment about discussing the science on the LI thread was not directed at you but at Devonian. I should have made that more clear Dev - the discussion on the LI thread is science. The fact that it is neither proved nor disproved is beside the point: it is a scientific discussion. You attack people for the lack of science in their arguments, but you don't get involved in scientific arguments. The LI thread gives everybody the opportunity to get involved. CB

So the quickest way to test diessoli's assertion is to go back to our first run - the basic LI with just sunspot data - and then, instead of adding ENSO, volcanoes and albedo, throw in three sets of white noise (or even just one set, to begin with)? Unfortunately my computer crashed a few months back and I have lost the LI Excel sheet I had been working with, so I shall have to start from scratch, but I could try this out if anyone wants me to. So far we have had a few objections to specifics of terminology (whether the LI describes actual hysteresis), the application of datasets (whether white noise datasets will yield the same results - which is at least testable), and to omissions of data (like leaving out CO2), but can anyone think of a broader reason why the LI can't be correct? Is there any objection to using the LI as a way of introducing climate-system lags? CB

The science is over on the leaky integrator thread. Care to join us...? CB PS - The word is "skepticalness", Pete.

Hi D, Yes, I'm starting to suspect I've got some things a bit confused here. This "absorptivity increasing slightly faster than emissivity" thing does not appear to be SB Law-related at all, and yet I'm sure I've read something to that effect while we've been doing the LI. I'm going to have to go back through the thread and see if I can retrace my steps and figure out where I got that from. Gray-Wolf, I think you still haven't quite grasped the idea behind this investigation. The leaky integrator's process is one that comes out of the equation - all we have to do is figure out what inputs are required and the LI does the rest. The output of the LI is our equivalent of global temperature. What we are trying to do is to see which inputs are required to give an output that looks like reality. So far we have a pretty good correlation with reality (0.91) and we've only had to input sunspots, ENSO, volcanic activity and albedo (these latter two using proxies). The idea is to refine the output by successively adding inputs (which is called a perturbative method). So far there has been no need to add CO2! We've managed to get a remarkably promising output without the supposed effects of CO2, which begs the question (if the LI should stand up to scrutiny, of course) are the supposed effects of CO2 actually real effects? CB

Hi saperlo And thank you for contributing! We haven't looked too closely at specific drivers yet (or perhaps it would be better to call them processes, as we are considering the Sun to be the main actual driver). With regards to axial tilt, the major variations in insolation due to Earth's tilt and distance from the Sun - the Milankovitch Cycles - operate over timescales much longer than the 150-or-so years that we've been focusing on so far, so we haven't incorporated them. When we (hopefully) extend the LI back over the last 11,000 years they may become more of a factor. (We have sunpot proxy data going back 11,000 years, so we're hoping to go back at least that far.) The Milankovitch cycles are: Orbital Eccentricity, with a period of between 100,000 and 413,000 years (depending on which component of the variation you are looking at); Axial Tilt, with a period of roughly 16,000 years; Axial Precession, with a period of around 26,000 years; Apsidal Precession, with a period of around 23,000 years (on average); and Orbital Inclination, with a period of around 70,000 years. In terms of our time range of about 11,000 years, it is the axial tilt, axial precession and apsidal precession that might have some relevence to global temperatures. CB

...when the facts reveal themselves... ...so never, then... CB

If the SB law is not directly relevant to the LI then I agree that we should drop it. We may find, further on down the line, that it will come into play. In the meantime I shall do some more reading up on it and see if I can find anything that ties it in to what we're doing here. The good news is that my earlier description of a potential physical process that would explain what is happening is still valid (I think). It may not describe the process of hysteresis - in fact it obviously doesn't if hysteresis occurs at the subatomic level, as saperlo says (and I'm sure he is right) - but it does describe the basic processes of absorption and emission at the atomic level. The even better news for you, VP, is that this process is irrelevant to the mathematical work you are doing at present. The maths would remain the same regardless of the physical process taking place. Is there anything you are fuzzy on that is impeding your progress, and if so then can I help at all? Remember: there's no such thing as a stupid question - only stupid answers. CB

Hi saperlo :wub: Thank you for your points - I shall have to read up on the SB law again...I definitely recall reading somewhere that the absorptivity increases at a slightly faster rate than the emissivity. I shall have to see if I can figure out where I read it and I'll get back to you on that one. The egg issue was, indeed, a reference to entropy (as the subject of entropy had been raised). Entropy does involve complex structures - entropy involves everything in the universe - though it may be more difficult to describe in such structures. The second law of thermodynamics itself is generally used to describe smaller structures, but the concept of entropy extends to the largest structures too. Hysteresis is a concept that is relatively new to me, having only been introduced to it by VP a few months ago. I still clearly have much to learn about it. The thing is that the delay in observable change is precisely what we're looking for. Changes in potential energy are neither here nor there with regards to the temperature of the Earth, since it is the observable change in temperatures that we are looking at. I shall get back to you with some more stuff tomorrow... CB

I think you may be right, 7&Y. Sunspots seem to be the solar indicator that best matches global temperatures in the LI, and sunspots are of course areas of high magnetic activity. Maybe we should ask Roger if there is some way to graphically represent extra-solar magnetic field strength along with sunspot counts, so that the peeps at home (myself included) have a visual reference for any correlation. Roger...? CB

Oh right I was kinda thinking out loud too...! I'll go away again! CB

Well, here's the thing: we really want hysteresis to exhibit the arrow of time - especially in this instance where we're talking about heat, and therefore thermodynamics (2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and all that). Looking back on it, atoms don't exhibit hysteresis - groups of atoms exhibit hysteresis, but single atoms cannot. The reason for this (assuming my earlier post is correct) is that the hysteresivity is a symptom of the way in which atoms absorb and emit energy. Therefore, hysteresis must operate at nothing smaller than the molecular scale. This doesn't invalidate the idea, and in fact my earlier post would reinforce the idea (thank God!). Look at it this way: smashing an egg is an irreversible process. Of course, an egg smashes because of transference of energy. At an atomic scale, the process is completely reversible, since the reverse would just involve the absorptions and emissions going in the other direction. Does this mean that an egg can be unbroken? No, but nor does it invalidate the fact that an egg can be broken. (If I wanted to be particularly nit-picky then I would say that, in reality, it is possible to unbreak an egg - all you have to do is wait until all of the emissions and absorptions happen in the exact opposite direction to the one that caused the egg to break. The probability of such an event occurring is absolutely microscopic - so small as to be utterly negligible - but it is still technically possible. The point about entropy is that it is much easier for something to change from an ordered state to a disordered state than it is for something to change from a disordered state into an ordered one. An example from Dr Brian Greene shows this in action. If you take the binding off a copy of War and Peace, keeping the pages in order, then throw the loose pages into the air, virtually every possible collection of those pages will end up with them in the wrong order. The unbreaking egg is the equivalent of throwing the mixed-up pages of War and Peace into the air and having them come down in the correct order to read the book. Highly, highly improbable, but technically possible.) CB

Hmmm...I'll have to have a think about that one! The arrow of time wouldn't hold up at the (sub-)atomic level because all of the processes involved are time-reversible. At that level, the only two processes involved are emission and absorption - reverse those processes and you have absorption and emission respectively. <snip!> CB EDIT - I wrote something dumb! Oopsie!

I don't know whether I should ROFL, PMSL, groan or kill myself... CB

You might want to avoid using words like "exploiting", VP - people might think we're using some kind of "trick" to "hide" something!! CB EDIT - I'm glad I've given you some more food for thought, but I'm sorry about it at the same time!

I've been giving a lot of thought to this issue of Mechanism, so I thought I'd let you in on where I've got to so far. :lol: We've been talking about hysteresivity being an essential part of the Stefan-Boltmann law. The SB law obviously is all about black body radiation. Since SB incorporates the Planck constant, it must hold true down to the atomic scale (since the Planck constant is a quantum-mechanical constant). This means that the LI concept must also hold true down to the atomic scale. So, every single component of the Earth's physical structure must be involved in hysteresis, down to invidual atoms. On the scale of an atom, the amount of energy involved is obviously tiny, but when you take every single atom into account it can add up to a large amount. So here's my thinking on how the process works... Atoms can only take on energy in discrete packets - called quanta - and the more energetic the atom is the more packets of energy are required to raise the atom to its next energy state. Left to its own devices, the atom will happily give up its extra energy - it will only retain that energy state if the energy input remains high enough to prevent it from releasing the energy (or, to be more accurate, it happily drops an energy state only to be immediately raised back up to that energy state by the next wave of quanta). Because the gaps between energy states increase the more energetic the atom gets, it becomes harder and harder to raise the energy state and easier and easier to drop an energy state. This means that as an atom becomes more energetic its emissivity necessarily increases. What SB tells us is that the absorptivity of a body increases at a slightly faster rate than its emissivity does. So far I can only tie this into the atomic model if there are lots of atoms around which are all undergoing similar energy bombardment. Here's how it works: As an atom becomes more energetic it relinquishes that energy more readily. For the purposes of this explanation, we'll call our atom Fred. Fred is at energy state 1 when he is suddenly bombarded by quanta. There are enough quanta to raise his energy state (ES) to 2. Fred is quite lazy and likes being at ES1, so he tries to give the quanta back so that he can return there, but every time he gives the quanta back more energy comes in and he ends up back at ES2. The bombardment of quanta increases a bit, but not by enough to raise him to ES3 (Fred breathes a sigh of relief). This means that Fred can throw all that extra energy away and remain at ES2 (which he doesn't especially like, but he has to deal with). Unfortunately for Fred, his neighbours (Tom, Dick and Harry) are also all at ES2 and they think the same thing. So Tom, Dick and Harry all throw away the extra energy they have received from this increased bombardment. Fred finds that when the extra energy from the bombardment hits him, he also gets hit with the extra energy from Tom, Dick and Harry. Sadly, the extra energy from the bombardment plus the extra energy from Tom, Dick and Harry is enough to push him up to ES3. Now somewhat annoyed, Fred starts to throw away bigger amounts of energy, but every time he does he finds that the total energy coming at him is keeping him at ES3. However, because he's throwing away more energy, it is not long before Tom finds himself at ES3 as well. Soon, Dick and Harry are in the same situation. With the energy bombardment remaining even, Fred, Tom, Dick and Harry remain at ES3. Crucially, though, the energy bombardment alone is not enough to get them to ES3 - only the bombardment plus the "extra" from the other atoms is enough to keep them there. Note also that it takes some time for the knock-on effect to take place - Fred reaches ES3 first, followed some time later by Tom, then later still by Dick and Harry. Does that make sense to anyone, or are there any objections? CB

What on Earth are you blathering on about now, GW?

Hi Roger Nice to see you on this thread - I was curious to see what you would think of the LI! If you haven't done so already then I would highly recommend reading through the full pinned thread at the top of the main climate board. In that thread VP has put a great deal of effort (for which I am ever grateful) into going through the basics of the LI a step at a time. In the early pages you will see a series of graphs which use official sunspot data. The leaky integrator function produces a graph with a surprising correlation to observed temperature trends over the past 100+ years. We went on to put in some volcanic data, ENSO data and albedo data (the latter using sea ice extent as a proxy for albedo, since sea ice will be the biggest determining factor in changing albedo), and what we got out the other end was a graph with a 0.91 correlation with observed 20th Century temperature - a result which I still find rather astonishing (especially since VP points out that, on the same basis, the CO2 hypothesis has only a 0.71 correlation)! At present, VP is working on the certainty aspect of that correlation. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions then they would be very welcome CB PS - Rob: everything is explained in the pinned thread on the main climate board. It's basically a mathematical articulation of a concept also known as the "leaky bucket". Imagine a bucket with a hole in it, into which you are pouring water. The leaky integrator describes what happens to the volume of water within the bucket as the amounts of water in and out change. As I said above, it's all explained really well here: http://forum.netweat...aky-integrator/