Man Made Climate Change - Evidence Based Discussion

[Geoffwood]

Hi jonboy, thanks for the reply. As I mentioned that the Earth equilibrates with the portion of flux thermalised and that the spectrum can and does vary within TSI constraints (mainly in extreme UV) then I am agreeing with your comments wrt F and E10. I don't believe these are out of phase with the solar cycle to a large degree. I concur that there is no substitute for complete spectrum resolution of the incident radiation in attempting to determine the portion thermalised and therefore the Earth's response.

[Geoffwood]

Hi knocker, given that the tropospheric lapse rate can be derived formally from PV=nRT and Cp-Cv=R where R is thermodynamic work or Q=Kinetic Energy+Potential Energy where Q is total energy from the kinetic theory of gases and letting dQ=>0(adiabatic), we arrive at;

dT/dh=-g/Cp

This is the thermal profile of any gravitationally bound atmosphere with sufficient normalisation. It tells us the thermal relationship within the troposphere.

For dry air the lapse is around -10K/km, for a saturated lapse we have -5.5K/km, or around -6.5K/km for globally averaged moisture content. As I am sure you know.

Did I mention back radiation? Did I mention greenhouse gases? No, neither did the physical derivation of the lapse.

Except it did. Cp incorporates the vibrational modes of triatomics in determination of the calculated and laboratory measurable heat capacity of the mixed gases. Cp is altered by a proportional small amount by twiddling with component mass density to the fourth decimal.

[knocker]

Hi knocker, given that the tropospheric lapse rate can be derived formally from PV=nRT and Cp-Cv=R where R is thermodynamic work or Q=Kinetic Energy+Potential Energy where Q is total energy from the kinetic theory of gases and letting dQ=>0(adiabatic), we arrive at;dT/dh=-g/CpThis is the thermal profile of any gravitationally bound atmosphere with sufficient normalisation. It tells us the thermal relationship within the troposphere.For dry air the lapse is around -10K/km, for a saturated lapse we have -5.5K/km, or around -6.5K/km for globally averaged moisture content. As I am sure you know.Did I mention back radiation? Did I mention greenhouse gases? No, neither did the physical derivation of the lapse.Except it did. Cp incorporates the vibrational modes of triatomics in determination of the calculated and laboratory measurable heat capacity of the mixed gases. Cp is altered by a proportional small amount by twiddling with component mass density to the fourth decimal.

 

Actually I don't. The DALR is 9.8C/km, the SALR around 5C/Km and the EALR is 6.4C/Km but what's all that got to do with the price of fish?

[Styx]

Looks like Sparkicle is back

[Geoffwood]

Hi knocker. Strangely I believe we are in agreement with those numbers.

The actual globally averaged lapse is dependent upon the atmospheres moisture content. Are you happy with that? The environmental lapse is a function of local conditions.

Here is an example;

From AMSU satellite available here;

http://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl

Select channel 6, which still gives a working sensor at 7.5km. Today is -35.5degC

Using your EALR of 6.4C/km then the surface potential temperature or equivalent total energy temperature at the surface is -35.5+(6.4x7.5) or 12degC. A mere 2.5degC below actual Earth surface temperatures with a guess at water content! If the actual moisture content globally gave a lapse of -6.7K/km then the surface potential temperature would be 14.6degC. (Some meteorological physics papers I have read have used -7K/km giving 17degC at the surface as an energy equivalent).

So turning this on its head. Given that the 'radiative greenhouse effect' massively increases the surface temperature how come we can calculate within the atmosphere a workable surface temperature from potential temperature from 7.5km altitude? Without mentioning, using or adding anything else (ie back radiative heat trapping) in our calculation? Where doth the magical back radiative enhancement hide?

The atmosphere is not in radiative balance. It is dominated by answering to the gravitationally set lapse through moist convection.

[Geoffwood]

The second point I would like you to acknowledge is that from a measured point at altitude, the equivalent surface temperature is REDUCED by increasing water content as it reduces the lapse. So increasing the most abundant 'greenhouse gas' REDUCES the surface potential temperature as of every meteorological text on the planet!

[knocker]

I see you have been reading the Connolly family who peer reviewed their own papers.

 

The lapse rate

 

I’ve just encountered a new global warming site called Global warming solved (archived). The site appears to be run by a family who also owns a journal called The Open Peer-Reviewed Journal, the first 8 papers in which are all authored by them. You can find the journal quite easily if you wish, but these papers include a review of millenial temperature reconstructions, a review of temperature homogenisation, and a major correction to the physics of the greenhouse effect (which, according to them, is negligible). These people are either incredible polymaths or ….

 

Just to add not in the meteorological texts I possess. I'd better bin those.

 

 

So increasing the most abundant 'greenhouse gas' REDUCES the surface potential temperature as of every meteorological text on the planet!

[Nights King]

Turning the question on it's head. Given that the greenhouse effect is not in question what are the reason(s) why a massive increase in atmospheric CO₂  doesn't cause warming?

 

For me it is not about questioning if co2 is a greenhouse gas that warms us but to what extent? I believe co2 contributes but I'm not yet convinced it is the main driver of our temperature and climate. Many of the initial climate models predicted a much greater increase in temperature along with the massive co2 increase than has actually occurred in reality. so we clearly need more research into how much we have miss calculated and what else is driving it including the positive and negative feedbacks within our climate system. Perhaps natural cycles like the PDO have just delayed it but it we shall have to wait and see.

[Gray-Wolf]

To me it is the ways that the planet has at her disposal to mitigate change that have not been emphasised enough by the science so that lay people are left in no doubt that we will see warming but in a series of sometimes faster and sometimes slower bursts?

 

As it is we had no doubt ( as lay people) that the increases in the 80's and 90's where aided and abetted by 'natural cycles' but appear to struggle with the flip side ( or could it be that more has been made, by certain sectors, of the negative impacts over the past 'slowdown' period?) it appears?

 

As it is we now appear to either be fast approaching , or at, the next switch to an augmented period of warming? I think by the middle of this new 'augmented warming' phase nobody will have any doubts as to what is occurring and what is the main driver?

 

To me the sad fact remains that even though in a 'slowdown' we have all witnessed some dramatic changes since the turn of the century not least the dramatic reduction in N.Hemisphere snow cover, dramatic increases in mass loss from Greenland ( including the 2012, '97%' surface melt, event) and Arctic sea ice extent/area/volume losses that all point to excessive , and early 'heat' in the climate?

 

At present we appear to be 'mid battle' between the need for a Nino event ( to relieve the record warm pool around the tropical west pacific) and the 'need' to bury heat away from the surface ( so the strengthening of the pacific trades and advection of heat into the deeper ocean). To me the past two years have hinted at differing weather patterns to those we saw in the post 07' period and so hint at 'change' ongoing.

 

Should Nino win out then I suggest a rapid change to an augmented warming world with Atlantic/Pacific basins no longer out of parity and trade winds reducing away from their current record values? Sadly this will hasten the end of summer Arctic ice and further increase the energy the planet is able to absorb. This Arctic Amplification will further drive our current uptick in weather extremes and firmly drive home , to any remaining doubters, that things are rapidly changing across our world.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

It’s clear that a lot of people don’t quite get what climate models do, what they predict and what they project. I was trying to think of an analogy that might explain what the models do in order to clear up some common misconceptions, and this is what I’ve got so far. Now it will obviously be simplified (climate models are incredibly complex!), but I hope it helps. Also, feel free to add any comments or criticisms (of which I’m sure there’ll be many!) as I'm sure it will need some adjusting and refining.

 

Anyway, in this analogy, predicting a decade of global temperatures with models is predicting the results of the Formula 1 British Grand Prix. The natural climate drivers are the weather during the race, and the global temperature outcome is represented by the winning team.

 

Now, let’s say the results of the British Grand Prix was extremely important, and so “Formula 1 scientists†worked for decades creating a model to predict the most likely race results weeks in advance. But, the models cannot predict what the weather will do during the race, so it comes up with these projections based on on a combination of 3 possibilities in 3 different features of the weather. These are...

1: Precipitation= Dry, Wet or Mixed

2: Cloud Cover= Sunny, Dull or Mixed

3: Temperature= Warm, Cold or Average

 

So with these there are 27 combinations, making 27 different race projections. In all but 3 of these projections, the Mercedes team wins. The 3 where the Mercedes team are most likely to lose are the combinations/projections Wet, Dull, Cold (Red Bull Wins), Mixed, Dull and Cold (Williams Win) and the Mixed, Mixed and Warm (Red Bull Wins).

So that’s an 89% chance of a Mercedes win, 7% for a Red Bull Win and 4% for Williams.

 

Anyway, race day arrives. The weather is, you guessed it, Wet, Dull and Cold, and Red Bull take a surprise win, just edging out the Mercedes team!

 

Given the outcome of the race, is it correct to claim the model was wrong and the F1 scientists are useless because they gave an 89% probability of a Mercedes win and yet Red Bull won? Is right to claim that the scientists don’t understand Formula 1 and are biased in their belief that the Mercedes car is the fastest on the grid? -OR-­ Maybe, you look at the projections. It is clear that the projections, despite giving an 89% chance of a Mercedes win overall, showed that in a scenario where the weather was Wet, Dull and Cold, that the Red Bull team had a better chance of victory.

 

This is very similar to judgements on climate models. Not only do they have to take into account our growing CO2 emissions (the powerful Mercedes car) they also have to guess at what the other climate drivers will do, such as ENSO and aerosols, (or in the F1 example, precipitation, cloud cover and temperature). This is where climate models make projections. The ranges of individual climate projections over short time scales are due in a large part to the estimated state of other climate drivers, not in how strong they think the CO2 forcing is. Certain combinations of natural climate cycles/oscillations/etc will promote a slow down in warming, just as certain weather combinations will decrease the chances of Mercedes winning the British GP. So if you want to compare what happened with recent global temperatures to what the models showed, the best way to do that is to examine the model projections that most accurately simulated other aspects of climate variability, just as in the Formula 1 example, you look at the projections that most accurately simulated the race weather. Recently there have been some studies that have done just that, and despite what many claim, there have been model runs that accurately follow our recent temperature trends and patterns..

A recent paper, described here, abstract here, looked at the projections that accurately estimated the state of the Pacific sea surface temperatures in order to capture the PDO and ENSO cycles. The model runs that captured the Pacific temperatures well also simulated global temperatures very well, including the last 15 years. They weren't models that had the CO2 influence as weaker, they just, by pure chance, simulated the Pacific SST variability accurately. These same model runs also show that when the natural drivers shift, that we'll see in acceleration warming, possibly greater than that seen between 1978 and 1998. 

 

Anywho, I hope the analogy was somewhat useful and helped a few people to see climate models from a slightly different perspective.

[mikeworst]

Guesswork, pure chance,assumptions, previous form and cherry-picking. What you have just described is gambling and gambling does not pay off in the long run as the models have amply demonstrated by their performance.

[knocker]

Guesswork, pure chance,assumptions, previous form and cherry-picking. What you have just described is gambling and gambling does not pay off in the long run as the models have amply demonstrated by their performance.

 

This post personifies to me what goes wrong in this area. An ignorant and insulting reply, not supported by any scientific reasoning or any attempt at logical discussion supported by evidence to a thoughtful post attempting to clarify to a wider audience the role of climate models. Pity you didn't read it with greater care as you might have learnt something. What am I thinking......what a stupid thought.

 

It's patently obvious you have no wish to debate but just to disrupt.

Edited August 17, 2014 by knocker

[Devonian]

This post personifies to me what goes wrong in this area. An ignorant and insulting reply, not supported by any scientific reasoning or any attempt at logical discussion supported by evidence to a thoughtful post attempting to clarify to a wider audience the role of climate models. Pity you didn't read it with greater care as you might have learnt something. What am I thinking......what a stupid thought.

 

It's patently obvious you have no wish to debate but just to disrupt.

 

I couldn't agree more. Bftv clearly puts a lot of work into his posts and yet they get rude, disrespectful, disruptive one line dismissals.

[Devonian]

For me it is not about questioning if co2 is a greenhouse gas that warms us but to what extent? I believe co2 contributes but I'm not yet convinced it is the main driver of our temperature and climate. Many of the initial climate models predicted a much greater increase in temperature along with the massive co2 increase than has actually occurred in reality. so we clearly need more research into how much we have miss calculated and what else is driving it including the positive and negative feedbacks within our climate system. Perhaps natural cycles like the PDO have just delayed it but it we shall have to wait and see.

 

I'm not aware this is the case. Which models did?

[stewfox]

 

 

Given the outcome of the race, is it correct to claim the model was wrong and the F1 scientists are useless because they gave an 89% probability of a Mercedes win and yet Red Bull won? Is right to claim that the scientists don’t understand Formula 1 and are biased in their belief that the Mercedes car is the fastest on the grid? -OR-­ Maybe, you look at the projections. It is clear that the projections, despite giving an 89% chance of a Mercedes win overall, showed that in a scenario where the weather was Wet, Dull and Cold, that the Red Bull team had a better chance of victory.

 

This is very similar to judgments on climate models. Not only do they have to take into account our growing CO2 emissions (the powerful Mercedes car) they also have to guess at what the other climate drivers will do, such as ENSO and aerosols, (or in the F1 example, precipitation, cloud cover and temperature). This is where climate models make projections. 

 

I agree but until we start seeing something that confirms 89% Mercedes win ,you cant expect people to put a lot of money on  Mercedes to win ?

 

If the projections change e.g 87% then 84% then 81% chance of a win there is even left faith.

Edited August 17, 2014 by stewfox

[knocker]

Further to BFTVs excellent post perhaps this may be of interest. A 12 minute TED talk on the uses of climate modeling, by NASA’s Gavin Schmidt.

 

[Nights King]

I'm not aware this is the case. Which models did?

 

I don't have much time to look properly Devonian but here is a small article on the predictions here. Ill look into further when not at work.

 

http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm

 

 

[Devonian]

I don't have much time to look properly Devonian but here is a small article on the predictions here. Ill look into further when not at work.

 

http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm

 

 

http:////f1.nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_images/tctc91_simplify/attachicon.gifIPCC_Warming_Predictions_Wide.jpg

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Perhaps unsurprisingly I have several problems with the article and the graph.

 

Firstly I've never heard of the author but when he write things like 'AGW political proponents like Al Gore stand to make billions more if they can convince world governments to...' and also quote WUWT you can be sure he's coming at this from a seriously political viewpoint. Politicians do politics, scientists do science...

 

Anyway lets look at the graph. It's from a Geman newspaper but who drew it? We don't know, its anonymous, still, lets look at it. The temperature data shows that characteristic of such data we all know - it's noisy, it's not linear. But the projections are graphed as straight lines, linear. Now, I'm not sure but I don't think IPPC projections are straight lines because the climate isn't linear nor will it be....

 

But there is more. Look carefully at the graph, the temperature data is plotted by lining it up with 1990. Now, climate, as I've said, is noisy, is it fair to line up a projection with data on a precise date? And, why not line the graph up  with 1995, 2001, and 2007 as well, so we can compare those projections in a similar way? After all the projections from that data are there in the graphic. Well, I'll explain why. It's because if you line up the two sets at 1990 they seem to diverge but (and do this yourself) If you line them up with other data you can see the slope, the trend, is in pretty good agreement.

 

I'm sorry but if you look at the graph, and notice the manipulation of data I've explained, you can see from the trend that the trend is in agreement with the models and that if allowance is made for noise the data you're presenting is, in fact, in agreement with the models.

AGW political proponents like Al Gore stand to make billions more if they can convince world governments to fully enact their wealth redistribution schemes under the auspice of "fighting warming - See more at: http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm#sthash.5E9daTXV.dpuf

AGW political proponents like Al Gore stand to make billions more if they can convince world governments to fully enact their wealth redistribution schemes under the auspice of "fighting warming". - See more at: http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm#sthash.5E9daTXV.dpuf

AGW political proponents like Al Gore stand to make billions more if they can convince world governments to fully enact their wealth redistribution schemes under the auspice of "fighting warming". - See more at: http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm#sthash.5E9daTXV.dpuf

AGW political proponents like Al Gore stand to make billions more if they can convince world governments to fully enact their wealth redistribution schemes under the auspice of "fighting warming". - See more at: http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm#sthash.5E9daTXV.dpuf

AGW political proponents like Al Gore stand to make billions more if they can convince world governments to fully enact their wealth redistribution schemes under the auspice of "fighting warming". - See more at: http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm#sthash.5E9daTXV.dpuf

AGW political proponents like Al Gore stand to make billions more if they can convince world governments to fully enact their wealth redistribution schemes under the auspice of "fighting warming". - See more at: http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm#sthash.5E9daTXV.dpuf

[Devonian]

Arrgghh! Why can't I delete those darn repeat pastes in my post

 

"You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community." I know now, that's why I'm trying to remove them....

Edited August 18, 2014 by Devonian

[Devonian]

I agree but until we start seeing something that confirms 89% Mercedes win ,you cant expect people to put a lot of money on  Mercedes to win ?

 

If the projections change e.g 87% then 84% then 81% chance of a win there is even left faith.

 

If global temperature we're now below average, or even (as a trend) falling fast, I'd be inclined to agree, but...

[jonboy]

Models are all well and good and they will come ourt with predictions based on any given number of variables, but, if the weighting given to some of the variables is wrong you still may get the answer you expect becauseother factors have also played a role giving the false right. using BFTV example perhaps mercedes isn't the most powerful car but has a driver that is so far ahead of his rivals that he wins anyway and in fact Red Bull is the more powerful. 

 

I for one believe that the influence of CO2 is overplayed by most models and excuses such that natural drivers are overpowering CO2 influences as the reason why temperatures are not reaching model forecasts for given CO2 levels is at best poor.

 

As Geoffwood eludes solar variations in my opinion is what drives our ever changing climate cycles but in the mean time we prepare only for a warmer world when we should be preparing for the next 50/60 years of a significantly cooler world if not out right cold.

[Devonian]

Models are all well and good and they will come ourt with predictions based on any given number of variables, but, if the weighting given to some of the variables is wrong you still may get the answer you expect becauseother factors have also played a role giving the false right. using BFTV example perhaps mercedes isn't the most powerful car but has a driver that is so far ahead of his rivals that he wins anyway and in fact Red Bull is the more powerful. 

 

I for one believe that the influence of CO2 is overplayed by most models and excuses such that natural drivers are overpowering CO2 influences as the reason why temperatures are not reaching model forecasts for given CO2 levels is at best poor.

 

As Geoffwood eludes solar variations in my opinion is what drives our ever changing climate cycles but in the mean time we prepare only for a warmer world when we should be preparing for the next 50/60 years of a significantly cooler world if not out right cold.

 

Belief isn't evidence - except to a believer, neither is assertion. You're simply saying what you assert/believe is correct. Don't buy it I'm afraid.

 

Afaik, there isn't any evidence (data, observation, science) that what you assert and believe is in fact correct. If there is lets see it.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Devonian

[jonboy]

Well no Science etc etc How about Lean 1991 Sloanki and Unruh 1998 Haigh 1996 all showing how teh variations in UV and shorter wavelengths affect and control stratosphric ozone and such variations are significant drivers of terresrial climate.

 

poo poo solar influences at your peril!!!

[Nights King]

I'm not aware this is the case. Which models did?

 

Another thing to add to earlier post Devonian is actually something that knocker posted in the research thread which is -

 

Global mean surface warming over the past 15 years or so has been less than in earlier decades and than simulated by most climate models¹

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2228.html?utm_content=bufferdcac2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Gael_Force]

Belief isn't evidence - except to a believer, neither is assertion. You're simply saying what you assert/believe is correct. Don't buy it I'm afraid.

 

Afaik, there isn't any evidence (data, observation, science) that what you assert and believe is in fact correct. If there is lets see it.

 

There is a lot of recent research on the solar impact on climate - past and present. I'll re-post this link in case you didn't see it earlier.

 

http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html