General Climate Change

[Yorkshiresnows]

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

Hi CB,

I have already put up numerous links to papers and publications that show the whole issue of how Co2 affects climate is controversial, there are numerous assumptions regarding feedback mechanisms that simply have no scientific back-up.

Its association with temperature fluctuation is without doubt, its role as a main driver very suspect.

I know folks are a bit fed up with my posts on cloud impact, but here's one last interesting piece of research based on a published paper by Martin Wild of the Institute of Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich and a team of contributors from the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) and Russia's Geophysical Observatory (2005):

The title of the paper is 'From dimming to brightening: decadal changes in solar radiation at the Earths surface'.

This paper details a general decrease of sunlight over land surfaces of the order of 6-9 watts per metre square from 1960 to 1990, with a change over beginning post 1985.

Changes in both satellite derived and surface measured insolation data are inline with changes in global cloudiness .... which showed an increase until late 1980's and a decrease thereafter, on the order of 5% from late 1980 to 2002. This corresponds to an increase of 6 watts per metre square in absorbed solar irradiation by the globe.

If you compare this with the IPCC stated greenhouse effect of 2.5 watts/sq m as the cumulative effect of build up since pre-industrial times, with 0.8 watts/sq m of that sum added between 1980 and 2000 from carbon dioxide alone you can see that solar input is having a 7.5x greater effect than the additional Co2 effect, leaving its computed green-house effect at about 11% of the observed late 20th century 'radiative forcing' (the term used to describe the driving mechanism within the modelled global atmosphere.

This research was accepted within the IPCC Working group I report in 2007, but no text to its significance was included in the overall summary ........

Long-term trends in cloud and radiation record have been analysed only recently (Science 2005) and have shown fluctuations associated with solar activity and longterm oceanic cycles. For example data has shown a general long term rise in solar output from 1900 to 1995 with a gradual reversal thereafter (Scafetta, N. and West B. (2007), Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the northern hemisphere surface temperature records since 1960', J. Geophys. Res., 112 2007.

Y.S

Edited March 30, 2010 by Yorkshiresnows

[sunny starry skies]

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

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:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

Edited March 30, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[jethro]

That may apply for the richer, Western, world who will always have more buying power to consume whatever is still there. However globally, if supplies start to get limited, the poorer nations will be the first to suffer. Our hugely resource intensive global food production system means that the slightest climate change will cause problems.

You can see it happening already: poorer countries unable to feed their own people due to drought/famine, etc and yet those same countries managing to export food to the West. And then on top of this, these same countries have to deal with the creeping spread of diseases like malaria and typhoid, increased child mortality, etc, etc, which will only get worse with AGW...

If we marshalled our resources equally, then I'd agree with you: there should be enough for all, but under the current system, if AGW is happening, our global ability to adapt fast enough just isn't there. In the West, we don't care enough to use our technology on those who need it most (.....or do they even need it? some would argue that all they need is for us to stop manipulating the systems that have served them well until the West got into the bargain...)

Anyway, this is all getting of the climate change path so I'm off to get my breaskfast!

I agree poorer nations would suffer first, sadly hasn't that always been the case.

I don't agree that the slightest change in climate will cause problems. I do foresee problems if drought were to become common place, but then again if an area is known to be prone to drought problems in the future, different crops would be grown which would be more resilient and the financial outlay for proper irrigation would be more attractive. Of course, there are limits to that system but to reach those limits I think you'd have to be at, or above the upper predictions for temperature rises. Much as I recoil from the idea of GM foods, they may actually turn out to be our saviour in these circumstances.

When it comes to nations unable to feed their own but able to export for us, that has nothing what so ever to do with climate change, it is an economic decision. If they are able to grow crops for us then there's obviously land available which could or perhaps should be used to feed their own first. Difficult decision to make when the long term route out of poverty and starvation is greater economic growth, leading to better infrastructure. Do you take the long term view or the short term? Long term means the future holds the chance of a more permanent end to food shortages.

There has (to my knowledge) been no causative link found between malaria, typhoid etc and climate change; there was an article a couple of years ago which made such claims but it was shown to be completely inaccurate - more a huge leap of presumption than scientific study. At best, all that can be said is climate change "might" add to the problem. The problems with the spread of Malaria in recent years have many causes, drug resistance and the lack of insecticidal routines being the largest. http://www.malaria.org/factpack.html

Complete agreement on marshalling our resources equally but it won't happen in my lifetime.

[Solar Cycles]

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:

http://www.realclima...gassy-argument/

http://www.realclima...gument-part-ii/

I fail to see how it's more powerful an argument than any other theory out there, it's still at best a stab in the dark.

[Gray-Wolf]

It would appear that it's not just air masses that are changing the speed of their encroachment north and south but the oceans too!

http://www.scienceda...00329132405.htm

(not a good thing for all those 'Ice age now!' types) it appears that all that warm water now melting N. Greenland (along with the rest of Greenland) is part of an accelerating N.A.D. (no wonder the west of Svalbard, and the ocean to the NW, stayed ice free this winter!!).

I suppose with the ice dam ,north of Svalbard across the Fram straights, being now only a historic, notional thing, and with an increase in speed of the N.A.D. we can expect the current to tend to flow straighter and further north (10c isotherm migration?) .This may not be good news for the Nordic nations that had the slack end of the current wash their shores previously nor for the waters that used to be ice locked and stemmed the ice loss from the Arctic Ocean (up to 90% of Arctic ice lost flows down the straights)?

Edited March 30, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

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:

http://www.realclima...gassy-argument/

http://www.realclima...gument-part-ii/

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

[Gray-Wolf]

I fail to see how it's more powerful an argument than any other theory out there, it's still at best a stab in the dark.

With the aid of 'science' stab's in the dark can be pretty damned accurate (night vision tackle, infra red lights, light enhancing stuff etc.).

Maybe we should trust our capabilities more?

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????

EDIT: I'm ever more 'Lovelockian' it would seem.............

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7537521/James-Lovelock-humans-are-too-stupid-to-prevent-climate-change-says-maverick-scientist.html

Recent debacles funded by the far right and fossil fuel lobby have me fully believing in 'Sheeple power'...........

Edited March 30, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

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

[Yorkshiresnows]

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:

http://www.realclima...gassy-argument/

http://www.realclima...gument-part-ii/

Hi,

Many thanks for these links ... will read through.

There are however an awful lot of other papers questioning the Co2 link and I do not believe that you can state 'very poor science on one paper or another'. The overall interpretation that I have stated is from several books on Global warming theory, the most recent my Peter Jackson (Chill), but looking through the IPCC documents and also some of the breakout expert working groups data on e.g. solar irradiance and cloud cover show an awful lot of 'argument' concerning interpretation and also in regards to the 'amplification factor ..... and this input of computer modelling of 'forcing'.

There is no consensus on the amplification factor ...... not that I have seen anyway (arguments for and against are plentiful).

Also if we look at the last century, then observational data also raises questions. Co2 has been rising (almost in a linear fashion)throughout from 1900 yet temperatures warmed from 1920 to 1940 then dipped from 1940 to 1980 prior to the recent heavy warming from the late 1980's to 2000 (where they have now flattened out with a recent small fall).

These peaks and troughs also have been noted to coincide to the varying length of the solar cycle

Wilde's cloud data publications and impacts on global albedo are really interesting and show a dramatic increase in surface albedo for 2002-2003, showing a big change in the pattern of cloud cover, (which would lead to a period of cooling).

Wang etal 2002, Wielicki eta al 2002, Rossow and Duenas, 2004, Norris 2005 and Pinker et al 2005 formed part of a working group whose summaries indiated:

Cloud cover changes (%cloud cover) have been shown to have increased between 1960 and 1980 when global temps fell, decreased after 1980 when temps began to rise, and then increased again during a time when warming stalled. The effect being significant documenting a 5% decline of low level cloud associated with a rise of 6 watts/sq metre in the mean anual flux from 1990 to 2000.

Given that the IPCC figure for the overall long-term rise is just 2.5 W/sq m for the whole range of greenhouse gases over a 150 year period (1.6 of which is allocated to carbon dioxide), then it might be argued that Co2 ability to force temperature is (present, but small).

Again I am at work and do not have my research papers to hand, but if you also look at solar cycles (mapping sunspot numbers to climate shifts (cold and warm cycles), this matches better than Co2 ..... why is that?

Anyway, I will read up and continue to learn, your links are very useful, so thanks for that.

Y.S

[VillagePlank]

Something for VP (maybe for discussion in the technical thread?) - To my knowledge, the logarithmic effect of CO2 is the consequence of the saturation and broadening of the CO2 absorption line in the IR spectrum of heat leaving the Earth. This is understood and quantified, and therefore the logarithmic effect is accounted for when calculating sensitivity. So (as you know), for example if somebody predicts a 2C rise for a doubling of CO2, the next doubling will cause a further 1C rise (ignoring other feedbacks). But the position we are on the logarithmic curve is not open to question, as we understand the spectrum of radiation leaving the Earth?

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/greenhouse-effect-revisited/

By inference, it is certainly possible to determine where we are on the curve, and, by extension, it is possible to determine, absolutely, the range of temperature likely on a doubling of C0₂.

However, since any measure of radiation leaving the Earth must necessarily by the sum of reflected light (albedo) and radiated light I find it very difficult to determine ofwhich proportions we may measure the stuff leaving Earth. For instance, albedo, whilst amazingly simple in concept (how reflective stuff is) is, at least to me, very difficult to get to the bottom of it. For sure, some sort of reductionist approach, over time, will give reasonable results, but definitive? Perhaps, but unlikely.

And if we can't determine albedo well (and I am, quite purposefully avoiding the cloud problem, here, too) then I can't see how we can discern radiative 'emmissions' We must surely calculate this by taking total-albedo=radiative, since radiative needs to be held aside being the degree of freedom of which we wish to study. Clouds aside, I am almost certain we can derive total - probably from satellite measurements, but there are ongoing problems with albedo, and, therefore, radiative, on this basis.

I must, therefore, conclude, that whilst we may be able to make a good 'guess' about where we are on the curve, it is unlikely to be a 'good' guess. Of course, this is a highly simplified precise, but, I think, the problem remains: how do we obtain good enough observation such that the doubt is expunged properly?

(Here's a link to calculation of albedo from satellite data, PDF. Not for the faint hearted, or those with little time to spare!)

Edited March 31, 2010 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

Again I am at work and do not have my research papers to hand, but if you also look at solar cycles (mapping sunspot numbers to climate shifts (cold and warm cycles), this matches better than Co2 ..... why is that?

That's quite interesting. I could not make them correlate unless I introduced a temporal lag into the system - which is the basis for the LI model.

Indeed, solar cycles and temperature, when I looked at it, did not yield to Fourier analysis very well at all - although you can make it yield, a bit, by generating a high order polynomial approximation of both, although the correlation without the lag is poor (ie less than the r=0.72 benchmark set by the famous Petite et al paper)

Besides correlation (I presume you are using something like the Pearson method) does not determine which causes which. Such that, if temperature and CO₂ are correlated (they are), it doesn't say which caused what - just that the two are statistically linked.

This leads nicely to another :confused: of mine. Assuming CO₂ drives temperature, and that heating a fluid forces the release of it's constituent gases, and that the oceans (2/3rds of the world) is a nett CO₂ sink - does it follow that there is a tipping point where the Earth gets so warm, that it forces the oceans to give up their CO₂ which then creates more warmth?

On the face of it this seems to make a modicom of sense (and more than a modicom of panic!) However, the historical record shows nothing of the sort - indeed, there is a maximum extent to temperature, after which, we descend rapidly into an ice-age - which is, of course, indicative of a chaotic system (the two parameters are not linearly related) which is not quite the consensus picture painted.

Edited March 31, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

Interesting article: http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

wasn't all that in the age before man? This time around solar cycles have a shedload of CO2 already in place (on top of the carbon cycles responces). Doesn't this alter things somewhat, lag or no lag?

[VillagePlank]

wasn't all that in the age before man? This time around solar cycles have a shedload of CO2 already in place (on top of the carbon cycles responces). Doesn't this alter things somewhat, lag or no lag?

That's the beauty, if I may be allowed to phrase in such terms, of the LI hypothesis. The lag is variable depending on what is already in the system; colloquially, how much water is in the bucket. This is not unusual for desribing climate phenomena - indeed, it is used to illustrate dynamic equilibria all the time.

WRT CO₂, the LI hypothesis, whilst simply an exercise in numbers, and NOT physics, if one were to extrapolate what's already been said, and one accepts the hypothesis, then one is forced to conclude that we're much higher up on the logarithmic curve than is currently accepted which means that doubling CO₂ will have less of an impact than is currently thought.

Of course, this is hyperbole and conjecture, and am running through the maths to see if that is a valid conclusion that corresponds well with the huge body of literature on the subject.

Edited March 31, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Rorky_Leicester]

This is a reply I recieved from the metoffice.

Dear Mr. O’Rorke,

I am very sorry it has taken so long to reply to you but we do look to send out an individual response to every enquiry we receive. As I am sure you will appreciate, since the United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen last December we have been very busy, with heightened interest in all matters relating to climate change.

May I first note that the Met Office has been researching climate for many decades. Because of this expertise, the Met Office Hadley Centre where research on climate change is conducted, was opened in 1990 and has provided hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject of climate change. The Hadley Centre scientists are significant contributors to the IPCC and I would encourage you to read the latest Assessment Report: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

During the course of this world-leading research, it became apparent something unusual was happening to the earth’s climate. The earth was warming at a much faster rate than could be explained. The Met Office Hadley Centre scientists have naturally worked on many research projects to understand the causes of this unprecedented warming.

Climate is much more than just temperature. Warming leads to changes in many aspects of climate, at different rates in different locations – hence the use of the terms such as ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’.

The IPCC has a high level of confidence that the earth is currently warming, describing it as ‘unequivocal’ due to the compelling evidence provided by weather observations from around the world over the past 160 years. They also state that it is very likely (greater than 90% probability) that most of the climate change we have seen in the last half century is due to human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Climate models, which are used to predict the future of the world’s climate, include most known factors which cause internal variability. Because of this, the projections for global climate do not include continual warming year-on-year. Instead they more closely reflect the reality we would expect, with some years warmer than others and even some series of years cooler than preceding years.

Recent Met Office Hadley Centre research investigated how often decades, with a stable or even negative warming trend, appeared in computer-modelled climate change simulations. We found one in every eight decades has near-zero or negative global temperature trends in simulations. Given that we have seen fairly consistent warming since the 1970s, the odds of one in eight suggest the observed slowdown was due to happen. Our decadal forecast predicts an end to this period of relative stability after 2010. We project at least half of the years from 2010will be warmer than the 1998 record. Climate researchers are, therefore, reinforcing the message that the case for tackling global warming remains strong.

Out of interest, both the Met Office Hadley Centre and NASA are predicting that 2010 is likely to be the warmest year on record, as detailed on these web pages:

www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091210b.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=249

More in-depth information about the science behind climate change can be found on our website (www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science), which you may wish to visit.

Finally, you may be interested in reading our informative publications about the science of climate change. For details, please visit: www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/climate-change.html

I do hope you find this reply useful.

Kind regards,

Paul Gross.

Customer Feedback Team,

Met Office, Exeter EX1 3PB.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Kind regards,

Paul Gross.

Customer Feedback Team,

Met Office, Exeter EX1 3PB.

snipped.

If I was to substitute your name for mine, and excluding the bit about the Copenhagen summit etc - then I could almost identically cut and paste, word for word, the rest of that correspondence you have received in terms of one I received from an enquiry of my own to them about a year ago.

I don't know what your own stance is, but my own questions to them about assumptive man made positive feedbacks, the potential influences of negative solar and natural cycles were completely ignored at the expense of the spiel to do with AGW, what has happened since the 1970's, and basically being told just like you to re-read the IPCC gospel blah blah

Edited March 31, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[sunny starry skies]

That's the beauty, if I may be allowed to phrase in such terms, of the LI hypothesis. The lag is variable depending on what is already in the system; colloquially, how much water is in the bucket. This is not unusual for desribing climate phenomena - indeed, it is used to illustrate dynamic equilibria all the time.

WRT CO₂, the LI hypothesis, whilst simply an exercise in numbers, and NOT physics, if one were to extrapolate what's already been said, and one accepts the hypothesis, then one is forced to conclude that we're much higher up on the logarithmic curve than is currently accepted which means that doubling CO₂ will have less of an impact than is currently thought.

Of course, this is hyperbole and conjecture, and am running through the maths to see if that is a valid conclusion that corresponds well with the huge body of literature on the subject.

I still don't really believe your lag would work on a physical basis - why would temperature differences of ~1K out of ~288K result in a substantially different lag? An example from something I know well - the response rate of a valley glacier is dependent upon it's size and the magnitude of the forcing (e.g. change in temperature, precipitation), excluding dynamic and hypsometric factors. If this valley glacier is 28.8km long, the response rate to a forcing (be it to trigger retreat or advance) will be indistinguishable from that if the glacier was 28.7km long.

The point of the blog posts (particularly the Chris Colose one and the RC radiation ones) was to show that the radiative forcing as measured at the top of the atmosphere is eminently quantifiable, and that in knowing that, you also know just where you are on the logarithmic forcing curve. I don't see how this is in very much question, as given the spectrum of radiation leaving the Earth, you can quantify exactly how much the OLR has changed by, and what that means in terms of radiative forcing by analysing the spectrum.

Y.S: sunspot cycle length does not correlate with climate. Friis-Christensen and Lassen were wrong on that point (and have been shown to be so) - try plotting it yourself. Nor does cosmic ray flux - another proposed mechanism.

Climate and attribution - read the relevant material and you'll understand where the 1940s to 1960s dip comes from.

Cloud cover: is a feedback not a forcing - so what's the forcing? For example, if it increased in the above period the is it not likely related to the aerosol forcing that also causes the temperature dip? You need a mechanism by which to explain why you get an increase in cloud cover. Additionally, you need to explain why it is a particular type of cloud - some produce net warming, some net cooling.

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...

SC: The reason it is more powerful than any other theory is that is is based on the physics of absorption of radiation. Theories of a solar or cosmic ray influence are so far only (at best) based on correlation, and most of these correlations have been shown to break down in recent years, be very weak or be plain incorrect. So we have on one side, a sound physically-based theory which is verified by observations, which fits predictions on intesity, and importantly on spatial distribution... and on the other side we have hypotheses based on correlation with no supporting physical process. Which one would you bet your grandchildren on?

Good to hear that Phil Jones has been exonerated of any wrongdoing by Parliament, despite the best effort of deniers like Lawson, Macintyre and the like. As was pointed out immediately by the scientists themselves, and was visible to anyone who looked at the emails with an appraising eye, there was nothing in the emails to indicate scientific wrongdoing or manipulation of data. I actually support the full release of code etc (which is already done by many, contrary to practically any other science), just so that everyone can see the steps taken... even though it is an unscientific measure - if a scientific finding is to be verified, then it should be independently replicated - you do not achieve this with identical data and code, you achieve this by creating your own model and code. Ask yourself why skeptics have not done this normal scientific procedure? I'm sure Exxon would have funded such a project

sss

[Rorky_Leicester]

snipped.

If I was to substitute your name for mine, and excluding the bit about the Copenhagen summit etc - then I could almost identically cut and paste, word for word, the rest of that correspondence you have received in terms of one I received from an enquiry of my own to them about a year ago.

I don't know what your own stance is, but my own questions to them about assumptive man made positive feedbacks, the potential influences of negative solar and natural cycles were completely ignored at the expense of the spiel to do with AGW, what has happened since the 1970's, and basically being told just like you to re-read the IPCC gospel blah blah

Haha yeh I expected as much. He completely bipassed my questions and just seemed to give the generic answer to doubts about climate change.

[Devonian]

This is a reply I recieved from the metoffice.

...

Wasn't his email to you not us?

[Admiral_Bobski]

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

[Devonian]

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

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.

[Admiral_Bobski]

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

[VillagePlank]

I still don't really believe your lag would work on a physical basis - why would temperature differences of ~1K out of ~288K result in a substantially different lag? An example from something I know well - the response rate of a valley glacier is dependent upon it's size and the magnitude of the forcing (e.g. change in temperature, precipitation), excluding dynamic and hypsometric factors. If this valley glacier is 28.8km long, the response rate to a forcing (be it to trigger retreat or advance) will be indistinguishable from that if the glacier was 28.7km long.

The point of the blog posts (particularly the Chris Colose one and the RC radiation ones) was to show that the radiative forcing as measured at the top of the atmosphere is eminently quantifiable, and that in knowing that, you also know just where you are on the logarithmic forcing curve. I don't see how this is in very much question, as given the spectrum of radiation leaving the Earth, you can quantify exactly how much the OLR has changed by, and what that means in terms of radiative forcing by analysing the spectrum.

Well, if you haven't heard of the leaky bucket with reference to dynamic equilibria, then, I am embarrassed to say, you need to do some more reading. It is known. It is accepted. It might well have not been applied to climate in the way that I have done, but, nevertheless, it is a phenomena of the climate system, and its out there.

That you don't accept it is a matter for you. This is the the basis for undergraduate climate reading.

As I understand it, some glaciers have been in retreat from well before the industrial revolution. I don't care for blog posts, either - no matter where they are from. That you think our point on the logarithmic curve is not in question - I must ask you, outright (and I've tried not to do this) where are we, in terms of x or y, then?

EDIT: scrap that lot! My paper is almost complete. Just got to get past CB's pedantic nature, and then we're all go! So, no point in a reply.

... the very fact that the night side of Earth does not plummet to around -250C is evidence of lags in the climate system, yes?

Diurnal changes will be forever be in the sides of those who deny a lagging effect. It doesn't fit in. It shouldn't fit in. But it does. And, it's never been answered apart from the fact that that is construed to be weather, and not climate. However, climate is the long term average of weather (sort of, there are differences) and if we look at Mandelbrot's work, particularly on numerical sequences, the two can be linked together on the basis of self-affinity (not self-similarity as some fractal proponents might argue)

Edited March 31, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Haha yeh I expected as much. He completely bipassed my questions and just seemed to give the generic answer to doubts about climate change.

Yep, that sounds familiar - reminds me of my very short time doing a temp job with a certain civil service department. Standard type letter for everything - nothing tweaked to make any correspondence pertinent to the individual concerned in each case.

Bit like on here really - everyone just repeats their own spiel over and over again on pre-record mode - and doesn't take the blindest notice of anything anyone else says

[Admiral_Bobski]

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