I received this presentation of the “Bjerknes Lecture” that Dr. James Hansen gave at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union on December 17th. There are the usual things one might expect in the presentation, such as this slide which shows 2008 on the left with the anomalously warm Siberia and the Antarctic peninsula:
Source: James Hansen, GISS
Off topic but relevant, NASA has recently “disappeared”updated this oft cited map showing warming on the Antarctic peninsula and cooling of the interior:
There is also some new information in Hansen’s presentation, including a claim about CO2 sensitivity and coal causing a “runaway greenhouse effect”.
Hansen makes a bold statement that he has empirically derived CO2 sensitivity of our global climate system. I had to chuckle though, about the claim “Paleo yields precise result”. Apparently Jim hasn’t quite got the message yet that Michael Mann’s paleo results are, well, dubious, or that trees are better indicators of precipitation than temperature.
In fact in the later slide text he claims he’s “nailed” it:
He adds some caveats for the 2xCO2 claim:
Notes:
(1)
It is unwise to attempt to treat glacial-interglacial aerosol changes as a specified boundary condition (as per Hansen et al. 1984), because aerosols are inhomogeneously distributed, and their forcing depends strongly on aerosol altitude and aerosol absorbtivity, all poorly known. But why even attempt that? Human-made aerosol changes are a forcing, but aerosol changes in response to climate change are a fast feedback.
(2)
The accuracy of our knowledge of climate sensitivity is set by our best source of information, not by bad sources. Estimates of climate sensitivity based on the last 100 years of climate change are practically worthless, because we do not know the net climate forcing. Also, transient change is much less sensitive than the equilibrium response and the transient response is affected by uncertainty in ocean mixing.
(3)
Although, in general, climate sensitivity is a function of the climate state, the fast feedback sensitivity is just as great going toward warmer climate as it is going toward colder climate. Slow feedbacks (ice sheet changes, greenhouse gas changes) are more sensitive to the climate state.
Hansen is also talking about the “runaway” greenhouse effect, citing that old standby Venus in part of his presentation. He claims that coal and tar sands will be our undoing:
Hansen writes:
In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.
That would be the ultimate Faustian bargain. Mephistopheles would carry off shrieking not only the robber barons, but, unfortunately and permanently, all life on the planet.
I have to wonder though, if he really believes what he is saying. Perhaps he’s never seen this graph for CO2 from Bill Illis and the response it gives to IR radiation (and thus temperature) as it increases:
It’s commonly known that CO2’s radiative return response is logarithmic with increasing concentration, so I don’t understand how Hansen thinks that it will be the cause of a runaway effect. The physics dictate that the temperature response curve of the atmosphere will be getting flatter as CO2 increases. Earth has also had much higher concentrations of CO2 in past history, and we didn’t go into runaway then:
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya — 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
There’s lots more in this paper to behold in wonderment, and I haven’t the time today to comment on all of it, so I’ll just leave it up to the readers of this forum to bring out the relevant issues for discussion.
I’m sure Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit will have some comments on it, even though his name is not mentioned in the presentation. My name was mentioned several times though. 😉
00votes
Article Rating
512 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mugwump
December 22, 2008 1:19 pm
Hansen’s footnote (3):
Although, in general, climate sensitivity is a function of the climate state,
I made that point a while back on realclimate, here, here, here and here.
.
In fact, I used almost identical language:
However, the feedbacks are a function of the climate state, which is a highly nonlinear function of T (only a few degrees separates us from the last ice age – a very different climate), hence the contribution to climate sensitivity from the feedback processes may be very different today than it was in the LGM.
Of course I was roundly ridiculed for my heresy, but maybe Hansen gets his ideas from realclimate comments?
foinavon
December 22, 2008 1:24 pm
apb, re your question: I love the 600-million year graph showing declining CO2 levels vs. temperature – my question would be, why are there apparent flat limits to temperature at 22C and 12C ?
The answer is that there aren’t flat limits to temperature at 22C and 12C. It’s just some blokes sketch. No one seems to know where the “data” come from…it’s quite clearly incorrect….and yet it’s used as if it’s the last word on paleotemperature…..go figure!
I love it too btw!
Stan Jones
December 22, 2008 1:32 pm
Just because the world is warming doesn’t mean that we don’t have winters. It’s quite a mild one over here in Blighty!
The BBC announced last week that the UK has had its coldest start to winter for 30 years. The government has already paid out £25m in cold weather payments. And another cold snap is on its way Boxing Day.
mugwump
December 22, 2008 1:36 pm
Although, in general, climate sensitivity is a function of the climate state, the fast feedback sensitivity is just as great going toward warmer climate as it is going toward colder climate.
Anyone understand what Hansen means by this? If it is meant to be an argument that climate sensitivity today is the same as in the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum), it makes no sense. If he is arguing that climate sensitivity is the same for doubling CO2 as it is for halving (except for the sign), then it is irrelevant in that it doesn’t tell us whether increased forcing today will have the same impact as increased forcing at the last LGM.
If we don’t know the dependency of climate sensitivity on climate state, we can’t use glacial-interglacial temperature/CO2 changes to estimate today’s climate sensitivity, In other words, Hansen’s arguments are bunk.
J Black
December 22, 2008 1:37 pm
AnonyMoose asked about IPCC reviewers.
300 reviewers posted comments. Only 30 posted comments on more than 3 chapters and only 5 on all 11 chapters. http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf
Many of the comments came from authors. Oddly enough, they tended to comment heavily in the chapters that they were authors of. This one was from chapter 9.
“Reviewer – David Sexton
Status – an author of this chapter
section # 9.6 I think reads pretty well for the bits I understand.” http://mclean.ch/climate/Review_Update_summary.pdf
It’s important to remember in all of this too that should not be lost in the conversation that the IPCC is the mechanism that provides a need for Carbon Credits. The worlds largest Carbon Offset Market (CDM) is run by the UN and like most things the UN touches is corrupt and inept. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/21/environment.carbontrading
Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 1:37 pm
@Spencer Weart (06:24:32) :
Hi Spencer, I have had a look at your website and there is no doubt that you have made some serious achievements in your field.
Could you please try an answer the following questions.
1. Would you hold that a well formed scientific theory would have clearly defined falsification criteria?
2. If you hold that the theory that “Man made emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Global Warming”, is a well formed scientific theory – what are the falsification criteria for the above theory.
It is my understanding that what the IPCC are saying is the following.
1. That Climate Change is happening. (no suprises there).
2. That it is in the direction of Warming (Well supported until recently – now currently contentious)
3. That Man Made emissions of CO2 are the primary cause of the Warming.
4. That the warming will be catastrophic.
Also – there is something that has deeply troubled me about the basis of the “evidence” for “Man made emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Global Warming” which is encapsulated in the following posts on Climate Audit.
Well, well. Look what the cat dragged in. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3393
Bishop Hill: Caspar and the Jesus Paper http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427
These two posts and the attendent comments outline a set of practices by the purveyors of the “Hockey Stick” that could well be argued to be fraud.
Spencer – could you please outline what your POV is with regards to the content of the above posts.
Spencer – if the content of the above linked posts is valid – what do you have to say with regards to such practices occuring in science?
In my own profession (Software Engineering), Bad Practices lead to Bad Results – why should I expect Bad Practices to lead to Good Climate science?
Thanks. G
Just imagine an actual greenhouse built with a thousand spaces to put glasses on them but just put the actual percentage of “CO2 glasses”, it would have only 3.8 glasses (a little less than four). Would that “greenhouse” , with 996 empty spaces, increase the temperature inside?
foinavon
December 22, 2008 1:40 pm
John S:
Without going through your entire post it’s worth pointing out that:
CO2 is a forcing. It can also be a feedback (as in Milankovitch-induced recruitment of CO2 from terrestrial and ocean sinks during warming phases of insolation cycles). Whatever you call it, and however it gets into the atmosphere, it still results in a warming (equivalent to something of the order of 3 oC of warming per doubling).
There’s nothing novel about the water vapor feedback to CO2-induced atmospheric warming, since this has been predicted for decades, and we can measure it in the real world.
A blanket likewise produces not one calorie of energy. However that doesn’t mean that putting a blanket over your tootsies on a cold winter night doesn’t tend to warm them…(it traps thermal energy that would else radiate from your toes away into your chilly room).
In spite of your arm chair argumentation, one can obtain higher humidities aloft without significant evaporative cooling at the surface. And despite your assertion of the unrealistic nature of roughly constant relative humidity, that’s actually what the measurements support:
A.E. Dessler et al (2008) Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L20704,
a summary can be found here: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
etc. etc.
foinavon
December 22, 2008 1:42 pm
Yes it was chilly for a while Stan. But now it’s pretty dismally grey and mild (last week or so) and we’re predicted the same through to XMas.
Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 1:44 pm
Over on Climate Audit,
From
Bishop Hill: Caspar and the Jesus Paper http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427
To quote a post from Pat Keating: August 20th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Stolen from Harmless Sky (Robin Guiniere), with some additions:
It seems that the climate alarmists’ views are increasingly complying with Nobel-prize-winning Irving Langmuir’s (1881 – 1957) “Laws of Bad Science” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science).
These ‘laws’ are:
• The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and
the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
• The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
• There are claims of great accuracy.
• Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
• Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses. About here right now
• The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion. Man Made Emissions of CO2 Cause Catastrophic Global Warming – Is A Dead Meme Walking…
Ref: Zombie (Ctrl-f) above.
Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 1:48 pm
Adolfo Giurfa (13:39:42) : Just imagine an actual greenhouse built with a thousand spaces to put glasses on them but just put the actual percentage of “CO2 glasses”, it would have only 3.8 glasses (a little less than four). Would that “greenhouse” , with 996 empty spaces, increase the temperature inside?
Off by a factor of 10 mate :-)… – it’s 385 Parts Per Million. That would be 3.8 glasses in 10,000 Glasses.
Another visual analogy is 9996 White Ping Pong Balls in a Pool, throw in 4 Red ones and stir… – then spot the Red balls…
Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 1:53 pm
Graeme Rodaughan (13:37:50) :
@Spencer Weart (06:24:32) :
Sorry to hit you once again – What’s your take on the following with regard to science.
That Scientists should make their data, and methods freely available in formats that facillitate the analysis, test, reproduction and verification of results.
What do you think the issue is, if scientists withhold their data and methods preventing independent scrutiny of results?
With the caveat that the science is publically funded and conducted in the public interest – i.e where Climate Science would expect to fit.
paminator (13:18:49) :
Phil- you say “But it reflects ~75% of that insolation back into space so that its atmosphere actually receives less light from the sun than the Earth’s does.”
Indeed I did mention the difference in Albedo between Earth and Venus in my previous post-
“…but its Albedo is also higher than Earth (0.65 versus 0.3 for Earth).”
More accurate numbers-
Earth Albedo = 0.36, Venus = 0.65, Ratio V/E = 1.77
You should use Bond Albedo, 0.75, 0.31 Top of atmosphere insolation Earth = 1367 W/m^2, Venus = 2600 W/m^2, Ratio = 1.9
Estimated surface insolation Earth = 1367*(1-0.36) = 875/m^2 at equator, noon sunward side
Venus = 2600*(1-0.65) = 910 W/m^2 at equator, noon on sunward side.
Pretty close to even by my estimates.
Surface temperature average Earth = 288 K, Venus = 737 K.
Biggest single difference between Venus and Earth- 92 times more total atmosphere on Venus (both atmospheres are good absorbers of infrared emission from the surface).
No runaway greenhouse needed.
That is the Greenhouse effect! Hansen is well aware of all of this, since I believe his PhD work involved modeling the atmosphere of Venus!
Exactly!
anna v
December 22, 2008 1:57 pm
foinavon (13:15:28) :
I am sure that if there is a real refutation of the paleoclimate shown in this thread, it will have appeared somewhere on the net. Since you are the one that does not accept and rather ridicules the links provided on this thread, and there was another link provided a few posts ago, you are the one that has to give a link that shows your position. After all this is the net age. If it is not on some web page somewhere it is probably marginal and iffy or theoretical handwaving.
Sorry for all that bold, I only wanted to bold the “the science is NOT settled” but the notation ran away from me and there is no editing,
John W.
December 22, 2008 1:57 pm
sauerkraut (05:46:13) :
Cannot help but wonder if some of you folks are related to the creationista/ID folks.
Interesting you should raise the point. Bad science is bad science, regardless of political agenda. Personally, I tend to think of the AGW advocates sharing office space with Creationist/ID, anti-vaccination, anti-GM agriculture, flat Earth, “9/11 Truther,” etc. crowds. The common element is their consistent response with ad hominem arguments to simple requests for basic elements of science, such as a falsifiable hypothesis (for AGW, as an example).
Here’s some suggestions. If you, and other AGW advocates, really are that confident that AGW is a real, current problem requiring an immediate solution:
1. Include a detailed model of the Sun in your simulations. Share the details of the models. Reveal algorithms and data bases. Subject them to Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V). If we don’t see the impact of Solar activity (including X-ray, UV, IR, wind/particles and magnetic), good for you. Your case that the Sun isn’t affecting climate is bolstered by model generated information from a proved code.
2. Share the raw data and most especially the algorithms used to process it. I have an open mind with regard to whether the global climate is warming, cooling or holding steady. I have an extremely suspicious mind when it comes to “hidden” data or “secret” equations to “adjust” it. There isn’t any good justification for it. And I think I can speak for all of us when I assert that repeatability, one of the touch stones of the scientific method, demands it. Besides, based on experiences I’ve had in previous jobs, that’s always been a key indicator of fraud.
3. Engage in serious discussion. “Denier,” “denialist,” “skeptic,” threats, etc. don’t represent any mathematical, analytical or experimental technique I’m aware of. They do, however, lead a large majority of people to draw the inference that AGW advocates are hiding something, that they are being less than honest.
4. Acknowledge that there are a great many people with excellent credentials on the other side of this issue. When the AGW advocates deny or downplay this simple fact, see point 3.
So, up for the challenge?
Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 2:00 pm
@Spencer – again (It’s just because your a historian of Science… Therefore you should know…)
To Quote above: Will Nitschke (13:17:04) :
… “I’m not sure what you mean by “hot spot”. Can you enlighten us? It’s predicted that greenhouse warming will result in particularly strong warming in the high Northern latitudes due to efficient wind and ocean currents that transport excess heat from the equator, coupled with albedo feedbacks. is that what you mean?”
…
The clear implication of this graph is that a strong warming trend in the tropical troposphere ought to be underway already and should be the dominant pattern of change in comparison with all other forcings. The Figure 5 pattern is also shown in a model-generated ‘hindcast’ that simulates climatic changes from 1958 to 1999 under the assumption of strong GHG-warming, which was done for the US
Climate Change Science Program Report, Figure 1.3 Panels A and F, page 25, available at http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm. Again, the bright disc in the tropical troposphere is the dominant feature of the diagram.”
Is the above a falsification criterion?
Is it indeed falsified?
What should be done with falsified theories?
Thanks G
Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 2:01 pm
(Whoops left the italics on)
@Spencer
Is the above a falsification criterion?
Is it indeed falsified?
What should be done with falsified theories?
Thanks G
Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 2:03 pm
John W. (13:57:47) :
Well said.
Graeme Rodaughan
December 22, 2008 2:04 pm
I reckon that this thread will pass 300 posts.
E.M.Smith
Editor
December 22, 2008 2:15 pm
Will Nitschke (22:38:48) :
I’ve read all this before on the Realclimate website. What you’re saying may all be true of course, but certainly it is very convenient isn’t it? When the Earth isn’t warming, its due to the cooling effects aerosols. When the Earth is warming, the aerosols have apparently disappeared from the atmosphere? […]
You state: “the evidence indicates..”. If there is evidence and the research is pretty solid I’m happy to accept it as credible. Could you provide links please?
All that they are doing is hiding in the error bands of aerosols. They are wider than the imputed “forcing” from CO2 so you can waffle either direction as needed.
A wonderful example (proof?) of the fact that we can’t know if net human ‘forcing’ is positive or negative is here: http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
The author uses IPCC data and shows that even if IPCC data is is accepted as true, the error band on the aerosols swamps the CO2 impact. You can’t even know the sign of the net human impact, never mind the magnitude.
Never have your precision exceed your accuracy…
E. M. Smith. Please check your email for a note from jeez.
foinavon
December 22, 2008 2:20 pm
Will,
Yes, that’s fine. I didn’t know of that specifically, although I’m well aware that greenhouse-induced warming predicts somewhat higher tropospheric warming than surface warming. According to the models (reading and looking at the Figures on page 25 of the report you link to), models apparently predict near doubling of tropical tropospheric temperatures compared to surface temperatures.
Of course the models might be be a bit out for the tropical troposphere (there isn’t any disagremeent elsewhere as far as I’m aware). But it also seems that the measurements of tropospheric temperatures, especially in the tropics, have been very problematic, and certainly not helped by a depressing litany of errors in the UAH analysis.
However there doesn’t now seem to be any clear disagreement between the models and tropospheric temperature measures [***], and we really need more precise and accurate real world measurements before we can assume that there is something wrong with the models for the tropical troposphere.
Note that if one uses other measures of tropospheric temperatures that aren’t plagued by the satellite and radiosonde measurement errors, there is apparently marked tropical tropospheric warming much as the models predict [*****].
[***]B. D. Santer et al. (2008) Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology 28, 1703 – 1722.
downloadable from here: https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-10-05-article.pdf
[*****]Allen RJ and Sherwood SC (2008) Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geoscience 1, 399-403.
Abstract: “Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements. Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data. We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.65 +/- 0.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change.”
Freezing Finn (01:35:10) :
If there is – according to Hansen – a “runaway global warming” on Venus, what “on earth” (English is a funny lanhuage 😉 caused it – and again according to Hansen?
English has such gems as: Your nose runs but your feet smell. When your temperature is too high, you have a cold. Flammable and inflammable are the same thing. And the classic: Time flies like an arrow but fruit flies like a banana.
The perfect language for Hansen to use in his presentation…
(I’ve been told that Finno-Ugraric languages like Hungarian, and I’d guess Finnish?, have a verb tense for ‘approaching but never quite reaching’. A language family with asymtotic built in. I’m jealous.)
Peter
December 22, 2008 2:35 pm
Foinavon:
A blanket likewise produces not one calorie of energy. However that doesn’t mean that putting a blanket over your tootsies on a cold winter night doesn’t tend to warm them…(it traps thermal energy that would else radiate from your toes away into your chilly room).
Nope, it traps the thermal energy by inhibiting convection – just as a real greenhouse does.
Hansen’s footnote (3):
I made that point a while back on realclimate, here, here, here and here.
.
In fact, I used almost identical language:
Of course I was roundly ridiculed for my heresy, but maybe Hansen gets his ideas from realclimate comments?
apb, re your question:
I love the 600-million year graph showing declining CO2 levels vs. temperature – my question would be, why are there apparent flat limits to temperature at 22C and 12C ?
The answer is that there aren’t flat limits to temperature at 22C and 12C. It’s just some blokes sketch. No one seems to know where the “data” come from…it’s quite clearly incorrect….and yet it’s used as if it’s the last word on paleotemperature…..go figure!
I love it too btw!
Just because the world is warming doesn’t mean that we don’t have winters. It’s quite a mild one over here in Blighty!
The BBC announced last week that the UK has had its coldest start to winter for 30 years. The government has already paid out £25m in cold weather payments. And another cold snap is on its way Boxing Day.
Anyone understand what Hansen means by this? If it is meant to be an argument that climate sensitivity today is the same as in the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum), it makes no sense. If he is arguing that climate sensitivity is the same for doubling CO2 as it is for halving (except for the sign), then it is irrelevant in that it doesn’t tell us whether increased forcing today will have the same impact as increased forcing at the last LGM.
If we don’t know the dependency of climate sensitivity on climate state, we can’t use glacial-interglacial temperature/CO2 changes to estimate today’s climate sensitivity, In other words, Hansen’s arguments are bunk.
AnonyMoose asked about IPCC reviewers.
300 reviewers posted comments. Only 30 posted comments on more than 3 chapters and only 5 on all 11 chapters.
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf
Many of the comments came from authors. Oddly enough, they tended to comment heavily in the chapters that they were authors of. This one was from chapter 9.
“Reviewer – David Sexton
Status – an author of this chapter
section # 9.6 I think reads pretty well for the bits I understand.”
http://mclean.ch/climate/Review_Update_summary.pdf
It’s important to remember in all of this too that should not be lost in the conversation that the IPCC is the mechanism that provides a need for Carbon Credits. The worlds largest Carbon Offset Market (CDM) is run by the UN and like most things the UN touches is corrupt and inept.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/21/environment.carbontrading
@Spencer Weart (06:24:32) :
Hi Spencer, I have had a look at your website and there is no doubt that you have made some serious achievements in your field.
Could you please try an answer the following questions.
1. Would you hold that a well formed scientific theory would have clearly defined falsification criteria?
2. If you hold that the theory that “Man made emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Global Warming”, is a well formed scientific theory – what are the falsification criteria for the above theory.
It is my understanding that what the IPCC are saying is the following.
1. That Climate Change is happening. (no suprises there).
2. That it is in the direction of Warming (Well supported until recently – now currently contentious)
3. That Man Made emissions of CO2 are the primary cause of the Warming.
4. That the warming will be catastrophic.
Also – there is something that has deeply troubled me about the basis of the “evidence” for “Man made emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Global Warming” which is encapsulated in the following posts on Climate Audit.
Well, well. Look what the cat dragged in.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3393
Bishop Hill: Caspar and the Jesus Paper
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427
These two posts and the attendent comments outline a set of practices by the purveyors of the “Hockey Stick” that could well be argued to be fraud.
Spencer – could you please outline what your POV is with regards to the content of the above posts.
Spencer – if the content of the above linked posts is valid – what do you have to say with regards to such practices occuring in science?
In my own profession (Software Engineering), Bad Practices lead to Bad Results – why should I expect Bad Practices to lead to Good Climate science?
Thanks. G
Just imagine an actual greenhouse built with a thousand spaces to put glasses on them but just put the actual percentage of “CO2 glasses”, it would have only 3.8 glasses (a little less than four). Would that “greenhouse” , with 996 empty spaces, increase the temperature inside?
John S:
Without going through your entire post it’s worth pointing out that:
CO2 is a forcing. It can also be a feedback (as in Milankovitch-induced recruitment of CO2 from terrestrial and ocean sinks during warming phases of insolation cycles). Whatever you call it, and however it gets into the atmosphere, it still results in a warming (equivalent to something of the order of 3 oC of warming per doubling).
There’s nothing novel about the water vapor feedback to CO2-induced atmospheric warming, since this has been predicted for decades, and we can measure it in the real world.
A blanket likewise produces not one calorie of energy. However that doesn’t mean that putting a blanket over your tootsies on a cold winter night doesn’t tend to warm them…(it traps thermal energy that would else radiate from your toes away into your chilly room).
In spite of your arm chair argumentation, one can obtain higher humidities aloft without significant evaporative cooling at the surface. And despite your assertion of the unrealistic nature of roughly constant relative humidity, that’s actually what the measurements support:
A.E. Dessler et al (2008) Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L20704,
a summary can be found here:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
etc. etc.
Yes it was chilly for a while Stan. But now it’s pretty dismally grey and mild (last week or so) and we’re predicted the same through to XMas.
Over on Climate Audit,
From
Bishop Hill: Caspar and the Jesus Paper
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427
To quote a post from Pat Keating:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Stolen from Harmless Sky (Robin Guiniere), with some additions:
It seems that the climate alarmists’ views are increasingly complying with Nobel-prize-winning Irving Langmuir’s (1881 – 1957) “Laws of Bad Science” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science).
These ‘laws’ are:
• The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and
the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
• The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
• There are claims of great accuracy.
• Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
• Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
About here right now
• The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.
Man Made Emissions of CO2 Cause Catastrophic Global Warming – Is A Dead Meme Walking…
Ref: Zombie (Ctrl-f) above.
Adolfo Giurfa (13:39:42) :
Just imagine an actual greenhouse built with a thousand spaces to put glasses on them but just put the actual percentage of “CO2 glasses”, it would have only 3.8 glasses (a little less than four). Would that “greenhouse” , with 996 empty spaces, increase the temperature inside?
Off by a factor of 10 mate :-)… – it’s 385 Parts Per Million. That would be 3.8 glasses in 10,000 Glasses.
Another visual analogy is 9996 White Ping Pong Balls in a Pool, throw in 4 Red ones and stir… – then spot the Red balls…
Graeme Rodaughan (13:37:50) :
@Spencer Weart (06:24:32) :
Sorry to hit you once again – What’s your take on the following with regard to science.
That Scientists should make their data, and methods freely available in formats that facillitate the analysis, test, reproduction and verification of results.
What do you think the issue is, if scientists withhold their data and methods preventing independent scrutiny of results?
With the caveat that the science is publically funded and conducted in the public interest – i.e where Climate Science would expect to fit.
paminator (13:18:49) :
Phil- you say “But it reflects ~75% of that insolation back into space so that its atmosphere actually receives less light from the sun than the Earth’s does.”
Indeed I did mention the difference in Albedo between Earth and Venus in my previous post-
“…but its Albedo is also higher than Earth (0.65 versus 0.3 for Earth).”
More accurate numbers-
Earth Albedo = 0.36, Venus = 0.65, Ratio V/E = 1.77
You should use Bond Albedo, 0.75, 0.31
Top of atmosphere insolation Earth = 1367 W/m^2, Venus = 2600 W/m^2, Ratio = 1.9
Estimated surface insolation Earth = 1367*(1-0.36) = 875/m^2 at equator, noon sunward side
Venus = 2600*(1-0.65) = 910 W/m^2 at equator, noon on sunward side.
Pretty close to even by my estimates.
Surface temperature average Earth = 288 K, Venus = 737 K.
Biggest single difference between Venus and Earth- 92 times more total atmosphere on Venus (both atmospheres are good absorbers of infrared emission from the surface).
No runaway greenhouse needed.
That is the Greenhouse effect!
Hansen is well aware of all of this, since I believe his PhD work involved modeling the atmosphere of Venus!
Exactly!
foinavon (13:15:28) :
I am sure that if there is a real refutation of the paleoclimate shown in this thread, it will have appeared somewhere on the net. Since you are the one that does not accept and rather ridicules the links provided on this thread, and there was another link provided a few posts ago, you are the one that has to give a link that shows your position. After all this is the net age. If it is not on some web page somewhere it is probably marginal and iffy or theoretical handwaving.
Sorry for all that bold, I only wanted to bold the “the science is NOT settled” but the notation ran away from me and there is no editing,
sauerkraut (05:46:13) :
Cannot help but wonder if some of you folks are related to the creationista/ID folks.
Interesting you should raise the point. Bad science is bad science, regardless of political agenda. Personally, I tend to think of the AGW advocates sharing office space with Creationist/ID, anti-vaccination, anti-GM agriculture, flat Earth, “9/11 Truther,” etc. crowds. The common element is their consistent response with ad hominem arguments to simple requests for basic elements of science, such as a falsifiable hypothesis (for AGW, as an example).
Here’s some suggestions. If you, and other AGW advocates, really are that confident that AGW is a real, current problem requiring an immediate solution:
1. Include a detailed model of the Sun in your simulations. Share the details of the models. Reveal algorithms and data bases. Subject them to Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V). If we don’t see the impact of Solar activity (including X-ray, UV, IR, wind/particles and magnetic), good for you. Your case that the Sun isn’t affecting climate is bolstered by model generated information from a proved code.
2. Share the raw data and most especially the algorithms used to process it. I have an open mind with regard to whether the global climate is warming, cooling or holding steady. I have an extremely suspicious mind when it comes to “hidden” data or “secret” equations to “adjust” it. There isn’t any good justification for it. And I think I can speak for all of us when I assert that repeatability, one of the touch stones of the scientific method, demands it. Besides, based on experiences I’ve had in previous jobs, that’s always been a key indicator of fraud.
3. Engage in serious discussion. “Denier,” “denialist,” “skeptic,” threats, etc. don’t represent any mathematical, analytical or experimental technique I’m aware of. They do, however, lead a large majority of people to draw the inference that AGW advocates are hiding something, that they are being less than honest.
4. Acknowledge that there are a great many people with excellent credentials on the other side of this issue. When the AGW advocates deny or downplay this simple fact, see point 3.
So, up for the challenge?
@Spencer – again (It’s just because your a historian of Science… Therefore you should know…)
To Quote above: Will Nitschke (13:17:04) :
…
“I’m not sure what you mean by “hot spot”. Can you enlighten us? It’s predicted that greenhouse warming will result in particularly strong warming in the high Northern latitudes due to efficient wind and ocean currents that transport excess heat from the equator, coupled with albedo feedbacks. is that what you mean?”
…
The clear implication of this graph is that a strong warming trend in the tropical troposphere ought to be underway already and should be the dominant pattern of change in comparison with all other forcings. The Figure 5 pattern is also shown in a model-generated ‘hindcast’ that simulates climatic changes from 1958 to 1999 under the assumption of strong GHG-warming, which was done for the US
Climate Change Science Program Report, Figure 1.3 Panels A and F, page 25, available at http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm. Again, the bright disc in the tropical troposphere is the dominant feature of the diagram.”
Is the above a falsification criterion?
Is it indeed falsified?
What should be done with falsified theories?
Thanks G
(Whoops left the italics on)
@Spencer
Is the above a falsification criterion?
Is it indeed falsified?
What should be done with falsified theories?
Thanks G
John W. (13:57:47) :
Well said.
I reckon that this thread will pass 300 posts.
Will Nitschke (22:38:48) :
I’ve read all this before on the Realclimate website. What you’re saying may all be true of course, but certainly it is very convenient isn’t it? When the Earth isn’t warming, its due to the cooling effects aerosols. When the Earth is warming, the aerosols have apparently disappeared from the atmosphere? […]
You state: “the evidence indicates..”. If there is evidence and the research is pretty solid I’m happy to accept it as credible. Could you provide links please?
All that they are doing is hiding in the error bands of aerosols. They are wider than the imputed “forcing” from CO2 so you can waffle either direction as needed.
A wonderful example (proof?) of the fact that we can’t know if net human ‘forcing’ is positive or negative is here:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
The author uses IPCC data and shows that even if IPCC data is is accepted as true, the error band on the aerosols swamps the CO2 impact. You can’t even know the sign of the net human impact, never mind the magnitude.
Never have your precision exceed your accuracy…
E. M. Smith. Please check your email for a note from jeez.
Will,
Yes, that’s fine. I didn’t know of that specifically, although I’m well aware that greenhouse-induced warming predicts somewhat higher tropospheric warming than surface warming. According to the models (reading and looking at the Figures on page 25 of the report you link to), models apparently predict near doubling of tropical tropospheric temperatures compared to surface temperatures.
Of course the models might be be a bit out for the tropical troposphere (there isn’t any disagremeent elsewhere as far as I’m aware). But it also seems that the measurements of tropospheric temperatures, especially in the tropics, have been very problematic, and certainly not helped by a depressing litany of errors in the UAH analysis.
However there doesn’t now seem to be any clear disagreement between the models and tropospheric temperature measures [***], and we really need more precise and accurate real world measurements before we can assume that there is something wrong with the models for the tropical troposphere.
Note that if one uses other measures of tropospheric temperatures that aren’t plagued by the satellite and radiosonde measurement errors, there is apparently marked tropical tropospheric warming much as the models predict [*****].
[***]B. D. Santer et al. (2008) Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology 28, 1703 – 1722.
downloadable from here:
https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-10-05-article.pdf
[*****]Allen RJ and Sherwood SC (2008) Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geoscience 1, 399-403.
Abstract: “Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements. Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data. We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.65 +/- 0.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change.”
foinavon.
If you’re going to cite Santer, you may want to peruse these discussions.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=129
Freezing Finn (01:35:10) :
If there is – according to Hansen – a “runaway global warming” on Venus, what “on earth” (English is a funny lanhuage 😉 caused it – and again according to Hansen?
English has such gems as: Your nose runs but your feet smell. When your temperature is too high, you have a cold. Flammable and inflammable are the same thing. And the classic: Time flies like an arrow but fruit flies like a banana.
The perfect language for Hansen to use in his presentation…
(I’ve been told that Finno-Ugraric languages like Hungarian, and I’d guess Finnish?, have a verb tense for ‘approaching but never quite reaching’. A language family with asymtotic built in. I’m jealous.)
Foinavon:
Nope, it traps the thermal energy by inhibiting convection – just as a real greenhouse does.