Open thread weekend

Can someone help with the details of the correct argument here?
If the Earth were in danger of going into thermal runaway (a “tipping point” as a result of CO2-caused heating, kicking up more water vapor), why would it not have already happened due to water vapor chain-reacting WITH ITSELF?
Does an N2 molecule (for example) somehow remember that its kinetic energy came from a photon that was trying to escape to space from the Earth’s surface, that happened to be trapped by a rare CO2 molecule (from a tiny and slowly increasing concentration) rather than by an H2O molecule (of moderate, and highly fluctuating, and rapidly fluctuating concentration)? Of course not. Locally (to include millions of square miles) the H2O concentration varies over times of perhaps a day by several orders of magnitude. Why would the run-away WAIT for CO2 molecules to have their say?
If there is some claim of a constant (average?) relative humidity, why is that – – – and on what time and distance scales? To argue that local water vapor conditions are balanced by distance ones, and therefore thermal runaway due to water vapor itself would not be possible, strikes me as similar to arguing that an atomic bomb cannot possibly explode because the concentration of Uranium averaged over the Earth is insufficient.
When it comes to possible positive feedbacks, we of course note the differences between amplification and true run-away. We also note the unlikelihood of the OBSERVED long-term stability unless a net negative feedback is already operating in nature. Likely this includes thunderstorms and clouds, and dozens of other thing demanded by the laws of thermodynamics. Amplification by positive feedback seems modest at best. Positive feedback runaway should not even be on the table. Water would have already done us in. The Earth does seem to have an adequate supply of water!
But here I am honestly asking for clarifications. What am I missing?

I’ve noticed a new expression in the quote from somebody’s blog published in WSJ recently:
“We live in the “post-truth” era.”
This realization becomes a household topic: almost nobody today dares or bothers to tell the truth, not only because it may damage a professional career (and it does, certainly) but also because it’s of no use; talk as much as you want, the low-brow rulers of our wallets lie and do what they want with total impunity. Green religion is just a small part of the picture.

I came across an essay from Michael Crichton warning of the dangers of politicized science, titled:
Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
(Excerpted from State of Fear)
I highly recommend it. Link is below. The odd thing is although this is one of his essays, and the web site is supposed to be Crichton’s official site, this essay does not show up in the index, and even the title of the web page is incorrect, reflecting the title of another essay. I came across it indirectly.
http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

Latest from Christopher Booker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9919121/Look-at-the-graph-to-see-the-evidence-of-global-warming.html

Bernie Hutchins says:
March 9, 2013 at 11:08 am
Can someone help with the details of the correct argument here?
What am I missing?

You’re missing nothing. Geology already tells us that the Earth has been much hotter, much colder, and has had ten times the CO2 in the atmosphere — during Ice Ages! Obviously the Earth has never had runaway permanent cooling or warming, so the null hypothesis should be that the Earth has feedbacks to prevent these things from happening.
What the alarmists try to sell is that THIS TIME it’s UNPRECEDENTED, so we can’t count on those systems working now because “the tipping point” could be reached before the negative feedbacks in the climate can work.
I say bullocks.

Bernie Hutchins says:
March 9, 2013 at 11:08 am
——-
Wish I could help, I’d love to hear the details of this as well. I think at one time I’d convinced myself it had something to do with the shorter lifespan of water vapor in the atmosphere as opposed to the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere, but I can’t recall exactly why the heck that seemed sensible anymore.
A related question for me is the paleo question – is it part of the argument about the paleo warming that warming caused CO2 to increase, which caused warming to increase, which caused CO2 to increase, etc. ? In other words, is the warmist argument that paleo warming was some sort of limited ‘runaway’ global warming? I’ve never followed why the whole shebang shouldn’t crash to one rail or the other with positive feedback (like any other system you can think of would behave) but then again I’m not a climate scientist…
Does anyone know if the paleo argument involves runaway global warming? Also, does anyone know how in the world paleo warming was attributable to CO2 without knowing climate sensitivity in advance? Or is it sort of an ‘assuming CO2 causes warming with CS=3 or 5 or whatever, the record more or less makes sense’?
Thanks for any feedback.

has anyone posted this?
9 March: UK Daily Mail: A river once ran through it!
Map showing Antarctica before the ice came shows huge valley running through the continent
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2290673/A-river-ran-Map-showing-Antarctica-ice-came-shows-huge-valley-running-continent.html

Nice collection there, rogerknights !

Anthony
I just returned from Kangaroo Island off South Australia and visited the Cape Borda light station. “Mic” Rosewarne the greeter, keeper, and storyteller told me that the Stevens box, which I was photographing at the time, had been closed several years ago and an automated station constructed some 300 meters into the bush off the 150 meter escarpment. That day, Wednesday March 6, there was a 12 knot breeze at the light station/weather post and the air was still 3 kilometers inland at the light keepers cemetery.
I wonder if you would be interested in pictures of the Orginal Stevens box and it’s surroundings. Another one of those possible location adjustment questions.

“”””””….. DR says:
March 9, 2013 at 8:29 pm
So where will you be when the stock market crashes this time?……”””””
At the buying window. It’s the suckers who get panicked into selling when they should be buying, who get hurt.
And it doesn’t hurt to take some profits while they are there, so you have the means to buy more, when it crashes.

I’ve been looking through old Meccano Magazines and the parallels with today are interesting.
This issue from December 1962 has two article you might find interesting.
The first one is called “Synthetic Petrol – Spirit of The Future?” and starts with:

For years, geologists have been warning that petroleum reserves were in danger of being exhausted.

The second is called “The Modern British Winter” and begins with:

Since the turn of the present century our winters have become warmer by an average of approximately two degrees Fahrenheit over the country as a whole

D. B Stealey
The hypotenuse of the composite “triangle” isn’t a straight line in either case. The area should be 32.5 squares (if my arithmetic on a post it note is correct), but the individual shapes only add up to 32.

Green the dessert. Bridge?
Lay a pipeline to the nearest big source of water. Gathering up all the global warming extremists at the end of the pipe. If they can suck in just one tenth of what they blow out… you’ll have it in thirty seconds.
All extremists for that matter.
Crash? What crash, did the Republicans get back in office?

I’ve asked this question at Judith Curry’s site twice now because I wanted to get the take of the consensus types, but no luck. So perhaps one of the more sciency skeptics here would be willing to tell me what I am missing?
In short, my question is why the AMO and ENSO should have any effect whatsoever on global average temperature. They are apparently both oscillations internal to the Earth’s climate system. According to what I read on the consensus sites, no one claims that either adds head/energy to the climate. They just represent the concentration, or dispersal, of heat that is already here.
So I can see why they would affect surface air temperatures, sea surface temperatures, and weather across the globe. But how do they raise and lower the global average temperature? Or more properly put, should they? If the GAT increases with an El Nino and decreases with a La Nina, shouldn’t those oscillations just be controlled for, like UHI?
Or is there some mechanism by which an El Nino, even a super El Nino in 1998, actually raises the average temperature of the climate as a whole? If we are already accurately measuring GAT, shouldn’t the increase in heat that is concentrated in an El Nino, be matched by a decrease elsewhere, with the average staying the same?

GaryM says:
March 10, 2013 at 9:24 am
“Or is there some mechanism by which an El Nino, even a super El Nino in 1998, actually raises the average temperature of the climate as a whole? If we are already accurately measuring GAT, shouldn’t the increase in heat that is concentrated in an El Nino, be matched by a decrease elsewhere, with the average staying the same?”
Measuring GAT, Global average temperature? It’s an artificial construct; and no, it’s not measured properly. The Shannon theorem is violated in spatial and temporal dimensions. Furthermore Averaging doesn’t have a meaning because temperatures are not normally distributed; the law of large numbers does therefore not apply and the average is undefined.
( http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/do-temperatures-have-a-mean/ )
As for why an ocean oscillation can influence GAT as it is used: The first 3 meters of the oceans contain as much energy as the entire atmosphere. So whether cold water or warm water is upwelling in a large swath of the pacific can change the atmospheric temperature a lot.
“The atmosphere is the continuation of the oceans with other means.” (Don’t know the source)

Steve Keohane:
“Below I noted some the drawing’s differences which do not offer a solution.
http://i47.tinypic.com/4lswee.jpg”
You found the key when you describe the hypotenuse as “concave”. The two segments have different slopes- one is 2/5 = 0.4, and the other is 3/8 = 0.375. So you can’t calculate the total as (0.5 *(5 * 13)) = 32.5. that would be the area IF the total hypotenuse were a straight line with slope 5/13. The difference in area is 0.5.
When re-arranged, the hypotenuse is now convex, adding 0.5. The total area enclosed is 33, allowing the hole.
[Reply: And we have a WINNAH! (Sue wins, too!)— mod.]

GaryM says:
March 10, 2013 at 10:42 am
“If an El Nino represents the release of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, then whatever increase in temperature there is in the atmosphere, should be offset by a decrease in the ocean temperature. But the reported temperature averages all show both atmospheric and sea temperatures rising during El Ninos.”
But that’s the Sea SURFACE temperature; you would expect to see the according drop in OHC, not in SST. The drop in total OHC would albeit be tiny and we probably are nowhere near the precision necessary to notice it.

DirkH says:
March 10, 2013 at 10:51 am
“But that’s the Sea SURFACE temperature; you would expect to see the according drop in OHC, not in SST. The drop in total OHC would albeit be tiny and we probably are nowhere near the precision necessary to notice it.”
In one sense, that is my point. If there is no actual addition of heat to the climate, then the reports of substantially increased global average temperature are spurious. Precisely because we are not measuring the average temperature of the globe at all. Surface temperatures, land surface air temps and SSTs combined, do not represent the total heat content of the climate.
But more to the point, I do not think the increase in GAT can be accounted for by the transfer of heat from the cooler, lower levels of the ocean, to the warmer sea surface and atmosphere.
Dr. Curry has answered on her blog that El Ninos do transfer heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, which I already got. But she adds that the increases air temp means more clouds,m which will retain more heat that would otherwise be radiated.
That would at least indicate a mechanism by which ENSO could actually raise GAT, but I have asked her whether there is research that shows it does. Clouds can prevent radiation from the atmosphere, but also prevent solar radiation from entering the climate system by reflecting it.
My opinion, as a non-scientist, is that the increases reported in the GAT as a result of the ENSO and AMO are spurious results of our inability to measure GAT accurately at all. Which to me seems to undermine the CAGW scare even more than the problems with UHI. The reported effects of El Ninos on GAT are dramatic.
But I am perfectly prepared to learn that I have missed something, which is why I first asked the question at Climate, Etc. To see if the consensus and lukewarmer types who accept the reported temps as accurate could answer the question.

Long time readers of this blog might recall I posted comments quite often back then but seldom do so now. In part this reflects the the growth of the blog, by the time I am ready with a comment there are probably dozens ahead of me many saying more eloquently or concisely than I the point I had in mind: so my mite becomes superfluous.
But it also reflects other changes in the blog, in the early days there were not so many of us and few speciaiists: today you can read here detailed posts on almost every aspect of climate change. Indeed the real scientific debate on this has moved away from academe and onto the blogs. Which is not to say that all the arguments put forward here are solidly grounded, some are, but it makes for lively debate and gradually sorts the wheat from the chaff: as well as casting light into the deep shadows where unsupported speculation hides under the cloak of supposed scientific authority.
And quite right too. Natural Philosophy has a long tradition of of the talented amateur making their contribution: after all where would our astronomical colleagues be without the many amateur star gazers scanning the heavens and reporting what they see? For be you a mechanician, hit it with a hammer and see what happens, or a bug hunter, count the number of creepy crawlies, it is all natural philosophy. We observe, we tally and we learn. What we do NOT do is make up the numbers to suit some political position, however fashionable it may be, that is advocacy not science.
So here I raise my colours.
I am an antique physicist and engineer from the days when intellectual rigour was everything. You calculated precisely to the best of your ability, you pointed out what might be wrong with your figures, as far as you knew, and so forth: and expected to have them checked especially in engineering. Useless verbiage was becoming important at that time, clear concise writing was being overwhelmed by it, it was a standing joke if you wanted a PhD you needed to add at least several thousand words to your succinct summary and various scientific publications would offer jocular suggestions of the necessary obfustication that would impress but never be read.
That was then, and everybody understood the joke: and that academic skullduggery, forgery and fraud went on. It was as usual as was the poisonous debates between academics and so on. But this was essentially local stuff on a small scale. Indeed in the common rooms of those days, in my experience anyway, there might be experts on many things only too pleased to answer questions and discuss matters and whilst you might not agree with their point of view you could disagree politely and they took in good heart.
It is a world long gone, today it is all political correctness and innumeracy. If the manufactured statistical figures don’t fit the political narrative well they can easily be changed to suit. Again there is nothing new about this, it has certainly been happening all my lifetime. Indeed I used to set a test for my students which went out of ten wooden soldiers treated with Cuprinol, a branded UK wood preservative, nine said their those felt better for it. Discuss.
The simple fact is I suspect one develops a very sharp nose for pseudoscientific balderdash and claptrap having seen so much of it. And at first I took little notice of AGW as such. it was only when it started to gain traction over ten years ago that I started to ask some questions and was horrified. Propelled by political activism this was not physics or science, it was a series or unsupported suppositions which belong in the realm of metaphysics: literally beyond physics, because you are trying to extract some kind of meaning out of something that cannot be quantified.
And once I had a grasp of what was going on I was astounded at the sheer scale of this politically driven claque whose tentacles reached from academia through the MSM to politicians and their clients. it was a creature of it’s time I suppose, a strange meeting of minds, of those bent upon evil ends in the name of what they dignified as progress knowing or believing that they would never suffer from it. Well successful revolutions tend to eat their children so perhaps they should be thankful theirs failed: at least they can fade away quietly into the night with their ill gotten gains.
And what they fastened on to perpetrate this enormous deception was figures, which are are endlessly discussed upon this blog. But nobody asks whether they have any meaning. Yes there are things you cannot quantify, but when it comes to things you can the question becomes does the result mean anything. This is a serious question. Numbers of themselves mean nothing beyond the ability to count and add up. It is important to understand that which numbers have meaning in the real world, as opposed to statistical fictions or other wild speculations which do not. .
So what do these numbers mean? if anything? .And because I think many on this blog have become lost or intoxicated by numbers, however obtained, to get to the nub of the matter: what do these numbers mean?
.
Frankly very little.
To suppose that some kind of mean temperature over the surface of the globe spinning in space with one half lit by the sun and the other staring into the blackness of the cosmos has some meaning is absurd. It can be calculated to some degree of precision, satellites do it better, met stations which do not exist in the oceans rather worse, but the resulting figure, whatever it might be is meaningless. It is a mere statistical artifact: nothing more.
And to further to suppose that any fluctuation in the value of such a meaningless statistical artifact has any meaning of itself is to delude oneself. It comes from nothing and it means nothing. If you wish to know whether the earth is warming or cooling then watch whether the ice is advancing from the poles towards the equator or retreating. Inconvenient I know and takes rather a long time but very reliable. Or so I believe.
Likewise so called climate sensitivity. This based upon a notion that changes in CO2 or other gasses will produce change in the earth’s mean temperature: but since the latter is a meaningless statistical artifact it is hard to see what this outre notion means,
Well nothing of course. Yet things become stranger still. Apparently it is supposed that burning fossil fuels will double the CO2 levels in the atmosphere at some time in the future. But again there is no reason to suppose that is true.
Once again this is an attempt to concoct with numbers some idea that the CO2 released by human activity has any perceptible effect on the composition of the global atmosphere. Whereas these numbers take no account is made of the outgassing of the earth, chiefly under the oceans, or how thisCO2 is transported through the oceans up to the atmosphere is not quantified or could be in the current state of our knowledge.
So now I nail my colours to the mast.
Numbers are handy things which can describe the real world very well. And are useful. But never every imagine that because some numbers exist they must necessariiy describe the real world. Or be of any use.
To put it simply there are things which can be quantified and give useful results in the real world in which we live, how much wallpaper do you need? etc. There are also things which can be quantified but are useless because they have no meaning in the real world: so the effort to quantify them is and was a waste of time. And finally there are things which cannot be quantified which will not stop people trying. .
So now I have nailed my colours to the mast. And that is all.
Kindest Regards .
r
.
.
. .

@a jones
Fascinating essay.

So I did some looking around, thanks to you guys. Yes, markets likely will give up some if not all of their recent gains, bottom line next 6 months the actual earnings growth will be substantially lower than what is currently imbedded in stocks prices.
Congress last week pushing concerns about a budget battle into September, from the earlier March deadline on the continuing resolution to fund the budget. That issue could heat up in the fall and weigh on the market.
We need to see the inefficient politicians agree to more spending cuts, and agree to do it rationally. This would help the stock market and the economy. So far, they are not doing it.
Sold some last week, sad, looks like it’s time to do some more. 🙁

Persistence of solar rotation 27 day period heliomagnetic field (HMF, a.k.a. IMF where I = interplanetary) sector structure at Earth is related to both multidecadal & ~9 year sunspot area heliographic asymmetry:
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/7220/hmf27dpersistenceheliog.png
Background:
Ballester, J.L.; Oliver, R.; & Carbonell, M. (2005). The periodic behaviour of the north-south asymmetry of sunspot areas revisited. Astronomy & Astrophysics 431, L5-L8.
http://www.uib.es/depart/dfs/Solar/Preprints/A+A431.pdf

Exactly how is CO2 supposed to trap more infrared on Earth than it “reflects” away?
CO2 absorbs infrared and reradiates it >>isotropically<>outbound<>incoming<< IR that it actually intercepts) back out into space so it never reaches Earth to warm it.
To cause ANY warming (Watts says it causes "some"), CO2 must either preferentially absorb outbound IR and be transparent to incoming, or preferentially (i.e., non-isotopically) reradiate downward, or both. Which is it, and how, specifically, does that happen?