Reader Dave Andrews offers this in comments:
Here’s an interesting comment from Willem de Lange over on Climate Audit ‘Ice Ages#2′ thread:
“One of the reasons I got annoyed with the IPCC when I was involved, was an almost universal dismissal of the contribution of natural forcing to the observed warming – particularly the role of decadal-scale climate variability such as the PDO. In discussions with one of our Nobel Peace Prize winning meteorologists back in the 1990s, their position was that the greenhouse effect had overwhelmed natural variability and it just would not be possible for the PDO to switch.”
PDO flipped, possibly soon now, AMO. Plus, solar cycle 24 where are you? Climate Modelers, retune restart jumpstart rebuild your engines.
I need to understand what the word “forcing” means.
It means that you believe what you are told about CO2 or you lose your grant.
(Positive reinforcement is when this results in the scorn of your peers, which leads to rejection of tenure, which leads to loss of employment.)
[…] IPCC Annoyance [image] Reader Dave Andrews offers this in comments: Here’s an interesting comment from Willem de Lange over on […] […]
With a negative PDO, we can expect more and stronger La Ninas.
One effect of La Ninas is stronger trad winds and increased hurricanes. I predict a significantly larger than normal number of hurricanes this year because of the abnormally cool La Nina
This is very unsettling. Enormous sums of money worldwide have been
diverted to investigate and mitigate alleged anthropogenic global warming.
Food crops have been diverted to the production of motor fuels and, as a
result, food prices have soared and some of the poorest people in the world
may starve or suffer malnourishment. If indeed these decisions were based
upon fraudulent data, then I would say those who were responsible should
face criminal and/or civil legal action. Perhaps it’s time for the FBI to
begin seizing records and Congress to begin an investigation.
In my limited understanding of these things, the graph would actually appear to be undermining the AGW side of the argument.
As I understand what they are saying is that they have included all “natural factors” along with their idea of what CO2 does, and yet the actual results don’t tie in with the predicted results from the models.
However, when looking at the 2 graphs together as shown, it seems to highlight how wrong the models actually are, and looks to me that it is more luck than anything else where the models and observations appear to match.
For example, 1850-1895, with exception of aspike in observed results around 1875, appear to show relatively constant observed results, and yet the models expected constantly warm temperatures there, followed by a drop that never occured. Similarly, the increase in observations near the end don’t correspond with the modelling.
My thoughts on this is that they are showing how little they actually understand about the underlying causes of natural climate change, and as a result how they are not able to produce a model that is remotely accurate.
Volcanic aerosols: surprise Invite to the PDO/AMO switch ?
LONG DORMANT VOLCANO ERUPTS IN SOUTHERN CHILE
http://www.patagoniatimes.cl/content/view/485/1/
Hundreds of evacuations after Chilian volcano erupts
http://www.france24.com/en/20080502-volcano-eruption-chaiten-evacuation-chile-santiago&navi=AMERIQUES
Larry sheldon “forcing” see
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
The final nail in the coffin of AGW is the PDO flip. The question though is whether the AGW faithful in Congress will ignore it and destroy our economy anyway.
Looks like the Chaiten volcano in Chile has awoke from it’s 9000yr slumber and has sent plumes of gas and ash 20km(65,600ft) into the atmosphere. Apparently this is an explosive type volcano.
The plume is drifting SSE with the prevailing winds.
Volcano is located in S. Chile, 10 km(about 6miles) NE of Chaiten. 42.833 S, 72.646 W
I wonder if the S. Hemishpere is going to cool off even more because of this.
I guess all that’s needed is large volcanic eruptions, and LIA, here we come.
Larry,
it is SETTLED SCIENCE that the Anthropogenically enhanced CO2 FORCINGS will cause more hurricanes, warmer climate, and rain (flooding and sea level rise!!)
Hope that helps. 8>)
I will be as pleased as Larry Sheldon to have an explanation of forcing in this context.
One thing a prolonged period of cooler climate will do is give governments, policy makers and individuals the chance to see whether a cooler world is a better world.
Don’t want to rain on everyone’s parade, but this thing looks puny and thus will amount to nothing.
REPLY: What looks puny? The IPCC or the objection to paying attention to the natural forcing?
Sorry for the confusion.
It’s my reaction to Jet Stream’s post about the Chilean mountian blowing its top.
Yesterday was the day after a party for me, so my posts were a little off.
Concerning the IPCC, Willem de Lange’s short anecdote speaks volumes about the IPCC’s attitude. It sums it up beautifully.
Reading all the fascinating comments here in London, I have some comments…
As an economist and economic modeller I see great similarities between economic and weather forecasting.
A) In economics we do not know enough. Modelling must be treated with great circumspection. Furthermore we know that non-linearity and thus lack of predictability is everywhere. Like weather science?
B) The advent of computers and software has provided a tool for economists.
They worship the tool and assume that by using such sophistication the answer must be right. Only a monority of users have the ability to understand the weaknesses of modelling and thus of the software. similar to climate science?
C) In economics the majority begin with a pre-conceived notion and will interfere with models so that they give the “right” answer. This is technically bias in modelling and highly dangerous. They do it PARTLY because they believe in their own initial judgement, PARTLY because seeing a mathematical model give the desired outcome exerts a truly powerful magic on them, and really convinces them of their own special ability.
Yes, this is what really happens in London’s financial centre of the globe.
I suggest that part of the problem in climate science is not just conscious fiddling and agendas but also the sheer conceit of people who sincerely believe that their preconceptions must be correct. Perhaps some of this borders on religion.
Of course the time-honoured way to defeat irrationality is cold hard fact. You cannot beat it.
For this reason, I salute all of the contributors. I shall certainly read this blog regularly.
Larry Sheldon and Roger Carr: See here for what looks like a clear definition and explanation of forcing.
Apparently the full term is radiative forcing.
I’m not a climate scientist but it seems to me that if you know how to calculate it then you know what it means. So how do you calculate it?
Here is my understanding in short. If it is wrong I’d be pleased if others here corrected it.
First though, when the climate scientists talk about differences in incoming and outgoing radiation I assume, for obvious reasons, they mean as averaged over a period of at least 24 hours and no doubt a lot longer than that—a year at least—and that the climate system is that of the whole Earth and not just some part of it.
Well, it seems to be very simple. Start with the difference between incoming (+ve) and outgoing (-ve) radiation. This is net irradiance. It’s the change in this net irradiance that constitutes radiative forcing; i.e. it’s a change in a difference between incoming and outgoing energy. A bit like a change in your net pay from what it was in 1750.
Yes, according to Wiki the IPCC baseline for measuring that change is 1750. But this has to be a typo or they had very long poles or very high-flying kites then to get up to the tropopause—the Montgolfier brothers were just children at the time—so I guess it’s meant to be 1950.
As an example, since an increase in CO2 traps more outgoing radiation, then other things being equal an increase in CO2 results in positive forcing.
If I’m right in all this, you know what forcing is now. If I’m wrong, there are sure to be people here who will jump on me and get it right.
“Forcing ” is a forced term 🙂 that is needed in the models of how the sun and earth interact.
The idea is that you make an imaginary sphere at some height in the atmosphere, the tropopause lets say, where the stratosphere with rarified air and much less humidity starts. Then a simple energy conservation model is imposed with the logic: the amount of energy that comes in ( watts per meter square) must also be going out in equal amount. It is the same type of argument as why the universe is not infinite: an infinite universe would reflect infinite radiation and thermodynamically everywhere the temperature would be as in the star surfaces. In the case of the sun earth system, if less radiation came out than came in, the earth would be boiling by now.
It is then assumed that this equilibrium exists , and the temperature is kept by the “atmospheric green house effect” stable at a specific value. A forcing is an excess of energy in watts per meter square at that imaginary frontier with the stratosphere, over this radiative energy balance. The system then will have to heat up or cool until it reaches a new temperature. It “forces” a change in temperature.
Now there are problems with this picture. An obvious one is that the heat capacity of the earth ( land and oceans and air) cannot be taken into account correctly, a radiation budget is a lopsided thermodynamic concept. This is because energy is also stored in convection systems and ocean vortices called oscillations and cloud systems in a cycle of precipitation and evaporation, all non linear and not easily modeled. Another is the inherent heat from the center of the earth, the temperature goes up as one goes down in the earth, and the unknown magma influences at the bottom of the ocean floors and ridges : those 200.000 new volcanoes recently estimated.
anyway, this is my two cents of the euro on forcings
John Archer,
Added CO2 concentrations will enhance the CO2 greenhouse effect. No one disputes that. Skeptics say the enhancement is slight. Even many of the alarnmists say that it is slight. The question is what effect this enhancement has on clouds, moisture and vapour. Will they amplify the greenhouse effect, as many alarmists claim, or leave it unchanged, or even reduce it? I’ve heard a 1% increase in clouds is enough to offset the entire manmade Co2 greenhouse effect.
So far observations show that the CO2 greenhouse effect has been small at best. Keenlyside et al has pretty much indirectly confirmed that.
While the PDO does appear to be changing to a cool cycle, I would not assume this means the global average will go down substantially. The determining factors, if we are to get much cooler globally, will be if the AMO flips as well as the Sunspot count staying very low too. Without these two also happening nearly simultaneously, the temperature decrease will not be enough to “cool” the AGW talk coming from true believers like Jim Hansen.
Some time ago i spent several weeks in the British Library trying to track down the underlying science to the earlier IPCC assessments – in particular the concept of radiative forcing or RF. Despite my best efforts – as an experienced science policy analyst – but not a specialist atmospheric scientist – including a reading of the IPCC special publication on how they derived the concept of RF, I could not get a picture sufficient for critical appraisal – it is a ‘fuzzy’ concept that I understand has a number of critics even within IPCC – and one of the fuzzy bits relates to where in the atmosphere the RF is relevant. Much net radiation data of relevance to Global Warming relates to the surface – and if you track NASA-GISS on the surface flux you can see the watts/sq metre excesses during the late 1980s and 1990s and a shift around 2000-2001. These excesses over the average are more than enough to explain the warming since 1980 – but they are dominated by SW visible radiation – nothing to do with carbon dioxide – and are of the order of 4 watts/square metre maintained for several years – but also subject to cycles (solar peaks) and volcanic effects. The flux is several times greater than the CO2 RF – but how to compare the RF with the forcing of the SW – IPCC says you cannot, but i don’t know why not.
The only explanation for the SW flux is cloud or aerosol changes. There are new analyses for the flux anomalies 1983-2003 that show increaased flux also in cloud free skies – suggesting aerosol changes – and a lot of this in areas with no man-made pollution (e.g. Samoa) – the so-called ‘dimming’ of the 1980s shifted by 1985 to brightening – and my reading of the data suggests this was a natural phenomenon aided only a little by the control of sulphur emissions.
It leaves me with a question for future research – can solar factors affect aerosols (Svensmark is researching this in relation to clouds) and in particular can voltage changes – especially large and sudden hits as in a solar flare – clear the aerosols (Svensmark used voltage to clear the cloud chambers after each experimen but did not remark on the potential for this to happen naturally). I have only recently become aware that the atmosphere HAS a voltage differential – so much for my science education at England’s best!
And yes – a small percentage shift in low level reflective cloud is quite enought to equal the global warming RF (however you compare it) – and the ISCCP data sets show a global decline of 4% from 1983-2001 – low-level cloud of this kind will reflect about 25% of the incoming SW leaving about 340 watts/sq m at the surface on a global average (but clouds are not distributed averagely!!) – simple maths (and it will not be that simple) suggests a 4% shift in cloud will increase the SW by 1% or 3.4 watts/sq m – about double the computed RF for CO2.
The models do not replicate decadal cloud fluctuations, nor oceanic cycles with which they are related, nor the harmonics of these cycles, nor do they incorporate any solar mechanisms beyond the TSI (visible – not sure about the UV part – which is known to fluctuate more witht he cycle but harder to derive an RF because it is a UV-upper atmosphere-heating-transfer of energy rather than RF) – that is – no solar-cloud links – and this despite dozens of papers showing oceanic-cycle/solar cycle correlations.
I have reviewed the science of this (www.ethos-uk.com) until February – not yet had time to look at the implications of Keenlyside’s modelling of the NAO and expectant cooling – but the defenders of the modelling approach are saying that if you take the outer percentiles of their projections, then some do show cooling blips – NOW they tell us! But these are simple random variability – they do not yet accept that natural forces are the MAIN driver – my ‘reviewers’ estimate for Global Warming – 1979-2005, is that 80% is natural, 15% carbon dioxide – and thus a 50% emissions cut will deal with 7% of the driving force. Not even worth doing (to avoid dangerous climate change) when the T is on the up. When T is on the down (as in a Dalton or Maunder Minimum) then CO2 becomes a friend – though not a very warm one.
On a multi-disciplinary note – I don’t think emission reduction protocols will damage economies as much as commentators fear – but expanding renewable supplies of wind, tidal and biofuels, as well as nuclear power – will have very serious impacts on food prices and supplies (especially under a cooling scenario), biodiversity, rural life, indigenous peoples, forests and water, and local democracy – and these are immediate compared to the apparent eventual benefits of emission controls. The absence of impact assessments on the ‘targets’ now being set by the EU is truly frightening.