Admiral_Bobski
-
Posts
1,787 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Admiral_Bobski
-
-
However we do digress as this is not the LI thread but a thread to discussed what science can explain the recent warming.
I don't think that a discussion of the LI is entirely out of place in this thread:
Q. What is causing the warming?
A. Could it be the LI principle?
CB
-
Iceberg, I named no names in my earlier post with regards barbed comments and so on, but your attitude has been less than respectful. Regardless, though, you are seriously misreading (or misrepresenting) what I am saying.
I did not say that the LI had proved anything.
I said that the LI had shown that the principle exists.
Rather a different assertion, I hope you'll agree. I would not be so brazen as to claim proof where there is none.
What order of magnitude does the LI require? Well, what's the temperature trend over the last 60 years or so? 0.1C per decade? Well, 0.1C per decade would require an increase (a retention) of 0.01C per year, which would make 0.001C (1/1000th of a degree) per month more than ample to cover it. You'd have to ask VP for the exact figures (since I lost all the LI stuff when my computer crashed), but I don't believe it's quite as straightforward as entering in a "retention constant" of 1/1000th of a degree.
When I brought up the 1/1000th of a degree I was talking about the principle of the LI. You seem to accept the retention of such trifling amounts in principle, am I right?
CB
-
Personally I doubt it would make much difference, but your right this is a very complex area. I am leaning towards a very small effect personally, probably smaller than solar changes if taken over a length of time.
How small an effect? Do you think it possible that 1/1000th of a degree C could be retained over the course of a month (so that the next month is 1/1000th of a degree warmer than it otherwise would have been)?
CB
-
Well, Iceberg, I am honoured that you should allow me and VP to continue our work - very kind of you.
However, I don't "push it down people's throats" except in response to certain comments. I am sick and tired of people saying "there's no possible way that the Sun can be responsible" when the LI has already shown that, in principle, it is possible. What the LI has already shown, whether you accept it or not, is that the introduction of a lag into the climate system produces a "temperature" output akin to what we see in the world.
Yes there are refinements, adjustments and corrections to be made in order to turn a bit of mathematical meddling into a coherent hypothesis, but the principle of it has already been shown to be correct. I am fed up with the barbed comments and put-downs that various posters have made about the LI (and, more objectionably, about VP and myself - though VP has borne the brunt of it, for which I can only apologise to him).
And finally, most people (on both sides of the debate) seem to be expecting far too much of the LI - the LI will not "explain everything", and nor did we ever claim that it would. The LI does not ignore GHGs, it incorporates them. This means that it acknowledges the greenhouse effect without attributing all of the warming to it (or, rather, not attributing the source of the warming to it).
And I think that's why I'm going to have to give up on this debate - at least until the LI is finished, which may be some time. Nobody seems willing to accept that the LI is a sound principle, and nobody seems willing to play Devil's Advocate and actually discuss the possible merits of it, in scientific terms. In the meantime I am happy to remain around to point out logical fallacies in people's arguments, but with regards actual scientific discussions I don't see that there's much point.
CB
-
I see that GW and Iceberg have still yet to understand the premise of the LI.
Oh Well.
CB
-
H Dev,
It is the second warmest according to GISS isn't it ?.
GISS has the Jan/Feb/Mar period as the joint warmest start to a year globally as well.
Which ever one you want to use this is looking like a warm year, the fly will be possible development of a La Nina towards the back end of the year and given that ENSO has now gone below 1.0C it will be interesting to see hoe the datasets respond. HAD should respond soonest and the Sats maybe 2 or 3 months behind.
There is certiantly no inverse relationship that I have ever seen GW between solar cycles and global temps.
Posted by myself on another thread, but applicable to all:
I really do give up - henceforth I shall be doing any further work on the LI with VP by e-mail and telephone...I've had enough of this smug point-scoring (and it's not even legitimate point-scoring because you still haven't got the...well, er... point).
Adieu.
CB
-
I'm sorry Android, I'm being a bit thick here, but is this looking like solar has a small input that we can see over the 11yr cycle and ENSO the same within it's cycling but that the underlying upward temp trend trumps all ?
EDIT: What could possibly be responsible for capturing the high temps and carrying them thruogh the cold ones to then have more 'warm' added on top of them again?????
It's almost like the atmosphere's got a blanket around it isn't it?
Solar has a small immediate input.
I really do give up - henceforth I shall be doing any further work on the LI with VP by e-mail and telephone...I've had enough of this smug point-scoring (and it's not even legitimate point-scoring because you still haven't got the...well, er... point).
Adieu.
CB
-
What study? Where was it published and who funded it?
BBC article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8615789.stm
Published in Environmental Research Letters.
Who funded it? Who cares?
Paper can be found, in full, here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/fulltext
CB
-
Of course there is always the possibility (just a possibility, mind) that the "missing heat" is not "missing" at all but is, in fact, "non-existant".
Just a possibility, you understand.
CB
-
I think, C-Bob , when the jury's verdict is in is the right time to point fingers and not before.
Had the 'skeptics' kept 'hush' until today there would be no 'bullets' lying around to be fired off now would there?
For my part I plead human nature and being a bad example of a human being........work in progress kinda thing......but ,as Comic Book Guy once hollered at the moment of his death " I regret nothing......"
I'm not sure there's any need to point any fingers at all, but maybe that's just me...
CB
-
Does anybody think it strange that so many Pro-AGWers were declaiming the hysteria of skeptics after the CRU leak, and now those self-safe pros, having been "vindicated", are lashing out with just as much hysteria at the skeptics?
As for the Sun...well, everybody here knows my views on that particular subject, but it's worth pointing out that the scientists who found a link between low solar activity and a colder CET have not described a fundamental mechanism for the effect...
CB
-
Just got to get past CB's pedantic nature, and then we're all go!
Good luck with that! Unofrtunately I have no real personality - it has been completely subsumed by my pedantry
CB
-
Is it possible to have a view different to yours or LG's about the future of the Arctic ice and not be an alarmist? If so, at what point in the spectrum of views does one become an alarmist?
Fwiw I think the evidence that the long term trend of Arctic ice cover is downward and that if we as a species don't curb or GHG emitting ways that Arctic summer sea ice cover will be a thing of the past before centuries end. If that's enough to provoke me being called an alarmist so be it
In all fairness though, sea ice decline isn't actually caused by CO2 per se, is it? It's caused by other things, such as temperature increases and (perhaps even moreso) weather patterns. Which does bring us back to the issue of CO2, I grant you, but it's a bit more complicated than that.
CB
-
I just feel uncomfortable reading other people correspondences here that is all..
Now, no more on this from me - I'm not making anything further of it.
Well don't read it then!
CB
-
No name calling P.P. ,just a warning for those who may not be partial to humble pie consumption.
Seeing as I've been predicting this rise since the last full moon it's not 'interesting' ,just a predictable response.
You accuse people of "prattling on" like "simpletons" and claim you're not name calling? Is your post not "a measured response gauged to cause upset"?
Silly me.
CB
PS - You also squeezed the word "butt" in there, I see
-
Why play the pedant C-Bob if not a measured response gauged to cause upset?
I'll let you answer your own question.
I'm not being pedantic at all - you stated that "we do not have any old perennial", which is clearly not true. Am I upsetting you by calling you on that fact? If so then I apologise, but my point still stands and is patently not pedantic.
CB
-
CB - seen that one before, and, apart from the obvious agenda, the author clearly does not understand feedbacks as well as they think they do. The author has no clue that, despite his fancy equations, we know for a fact that the CO2 released does not come from the oceans, as it has the wrong 13C/12C ratio. Given these rather basic 'errors', I am unconvinced by the application of Beer's law - the structure of the atmosphere is misinterpreted, saturation does not occur at the layers where the radiation is emitted. The spatial distribution argument is totally fallacious, as it ignores horizontal redistribution of heat in the atmosphere by weather! And he does not seem to generally understand the 'saturation' issue as it applies to spectra of radiation.
ah well...
Sorry, sss, what's the obvious agenda? He clearly comments, at several points, that feedbacks are incorporated into his maths, because of the way the figures have been derived, and he makes the point of saying that there is an assumption that the feedback effects will only ever change proportionately with CO2 concentration (which is a reasonable assumption to make for the purposes of his illustration). I've re-read the article and I can't see where he claims that CO2 comes from the oceans - in fact he seems to quite clealry accept that increases in atmospheric CO2 come from manmade emissions and not the ocean. I'm not sure that his spatial distribution argument is fallacious so much as oversimplified - but he does acknowledge that his argument is a little simplistic. As for the saturation issue, his description seems to tally with the explanations given in other places (for instance, your earlier links), if in perhaps a more simplistic manner.
Interestingly, your argument about the "redistribution of heat...by weather" relates to your objection over the "1K difference out of 288K" issue. It's all to do with averages, and more specifically to do with the validity of using averages in certain circumstances. The "288K" figure is based upon a global average and, as I have said before, the very fact that the night side of Earth does not plummet to around -250C is evidence of lags in the climate system, yes? So, with these lags we are actually varying around a much higher baseline than you allow for (and these lags are - at least in part - a symptom of weather).
Your defence of the science of AGW is admirable, but sometimes I think you are blinded to other possibilites and refuse to lend them any credence.
CB
Wasn't his email to you not us?
If it's a generic e-mail then that's fairly irrelevant, isn't it? And even if it weren't generic, there is no personal information or opinion in it, so what's the problem?
CB
-
There's gonna be a lot of 'word pie' eaten come August!
We know we don't want the changes we are amidst to be occuring but we have to remain within reality don't we?
The 'fact' that the 'new' perennial , as opposed to the old perennial, only manages 2m + as opposed to 5m+ must hint at something eh? We can no longer build the type of ice that could withstand an 07' melt season and ,we are told ,those summers are cyclical and so we will get another one . This time we do not have any 'old perennial' so the results will be even more devastating than we saw in 07'.
The current poor state of the high Arctic pack does not bode well for this summer (even if dominated by -ve AO.....the best conditions for retaining ice).
Place a solid sheet of ice in water and place a smashed up piece, that was the same size as the other, in water and see which melts away fastest.
We don't have any old perennial? None at all?
CB
-
Interesting article: http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
CB
-
It may have been on newsnight C.Bob but I saw a pretty easy DIY CO2 experiment involving 2 bottles (one of air, one of air and extra CO) and a light shining on both of them. Amazing the difference in temp they managed over a 3 min period. Why can more CO2 in our atmosphere not achieve the same????
I have addressed that particular issue so many times before on these pages that I don't think I'll bother again...
CB
-
But CB, I've shown you examples of our direct measurement of the causation, namely reduction of outgoing longwave radiation at CO2 and methane-specific wavelengths, and a similar increase in downward longwave radiation measured at the surface. The decrease in OLR is of the magnitude expected for our increase in GHGs. (Harries et al, 2001 Nature and other refs - the Skeptical Science link has them I think). This is direct observation that CO2 is the cause. The basic fact that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is not really up for discussion in the sense that it's science as old as the Theory of Evolution, and older than quantum mechanics. The physics says so, the effects were first predicted, and now they are observed, directly. That Richard Alley doesn't feel the need to explain that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is merely an extension of the fundamental nature of that property of the gas. What he is concentrating on is the sensitivity, as recorded in palaeoclimate records. The magnitude is up for discussion, yes, but sensibly it should reside somewhere between 2C and 4.5C as judged by many studies, be they experimental, modelling or palaeoclimate.
So yes, (as Alley says) the fact we can't explain it any other way is not causation in itself, but it is powerful evidence in favour of CO2 being as important as he says it is. That aligned with our direct observations of the CO2 warming effect in the atmosphere, and the spatial pattern of effects that is distinct from other possible causes, shows that CO2 is the driver of warming, and not solar, clouds, ENSO or anything else.
YS: some RC links:
http://www.realclima...climate-change/ (earlier Scafetta paper)
http://www.realclima...climate-models/ (summary of global dimming including Wild)
http://www.realclima...logical-sequel/ (2007 scafetta paper you quote - very poor science!)
http://www.realclima...e-easy-lessons/ (clouds, weather and bad science!)
As I've said before, just because it is peer-reviewed (eg Scafetta and West 2007, McLean et al 2009) does not make it 'right'. Consider the data in the paper, and consider others' replies to the data. I've a suspicion you're misinterpreting Wild et al 2005, and your assertions are far too simplistic. I don't think Wild would say what you have said (re relative influence of solar vs CO2), so who did, or was it your interpretation?
sss
Edit: basics of CO2 properties from two sources, both with lots of technical info, and the second a 7-part series (removed from my posting on the technical discussion as it wasn't peer-reviewed):
http://chriscolose.w...fect-revisited/
http://scienceofdoom...e-gas-part-one/
And from RC, another really good description of why a little extra CO2 means a lot, and why we are not near saturation of CO2:
I'm still looking into your outgoing longwave radiation comment - there's quite a bit to take in surrounding that particular topic (plus some possible discrepancies). More on that later. My post was as a response to your insinuation that Dr Alley's lecture would resolve the "foolish fallacy" of thinking that CO2 can't lead temperature, where it clearly doesn't - it glosses over all the causation and points instead only to correlation.
I sense that you are starting to get a little exasperated by my comments. I confess to being a little exasperated myself.
CB
-
For those who still believe the foolish fallacy that CO2 followed climate in the past therefore can't be leading it now, how about a lecture by Richard Alley at AGU:
http://www.agu.org/m...deos/A23A.shtml
sss
I agree that it is a logical fallacy to say that "because CO2 lagged temperature in the past it can't be leading it now."
But that logical fallacy, and your rebuttal, sidestep the issue of correlation and causation.
I have watched about 40 minutes of the lecture, and I intend to finish it off later on today. It is a very good lecture: he outlines his points very clearly and concisely, and in an entertaining way (which is always good
). I agree with (or can't argue against) almost everything he says.But...!
There is an assumption, in his lecture, that CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Never does he show how, where or when CO2 became a significant factor in historical temperature increases - he simply says that "we can't explain it without CO2, but we can explain it with CO2." Well, just because we can't explain it without CO2 does not mean that there is no explanation that omits CO2.
He has shown numerous examples of correlation, but no actual examples of causation. In fact the best causative explanation he can give is that "we can't explain it any other way." I'm sorry, but that's not causation, that's assumption.
Anyhoo, I have to dash off for a while, so I'll catch up with the rest of the lecture later on.
CB
-
VP has given us a pretty good starting point there, I think. Is it possible to attribute some figures to each factor? (I think that was GW's original point on the "consensus" thread - to identify forcings and feedbacks and apply figures to them.) So where do we start?
CB
-
Thank you Essan, I've been trying to put that point across for years!!!!
Yes, and I've been pointing out the flaw in that point for years, too!!!!
CB
General Climate Change
in Climate Change
Posted
I think you haven't quite got the idea of hysteresis, GW. Hysteresis is not something that can be "overcome" - it's not a "reluctance towards change".
hysteresis - noun
1. the lag in response exhibited by a body reacting to changes in the forces...affecting it.
2. the phenomenon exhibited by a system...in which the reaction of the system to changes is dependent upon its past reactions to change.
CB