It seems that the Serreze “death spiral” might be on hold. From UCAR/NCAR:
Arctic ice melt could pause in near future, then resume again
BOULDER—Although Arctic sea ice appears fated to melt away as the climate continues to warm, the ice may temporarily stabilize or somewhat expand at times over the next few decades, new research indicates.
The computer modeling study, by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, reinforces previous findings by other research teams that the level of Arctic sea ice loss observed in recent decades cannot be explained by natural causes alone, and that the ice will eventually disappear during summer if climate change continues.
But in an unexpected new result, the NCAR research team found that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.
“One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice,” says NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author. “The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.”
Kay explains that variations in atmospheric conditions such as wind patterns could, for example, temporarily halt the sea ice loss. Still, the ultimate fate of the ice in a warming world is clear.
“When you start looking at longer-term trends, 50 or 60 years, there’s no escaping the loss of ice in the summer,” Kay says.
Kay and her colleagues also ran computer simulations to answer a fundamental question: why did Arctic sea ice melt far more rapidly in the late 20th century than projected by computer models? By analyzing multiple realizations of the 20th century from a single climate model, they attribute approximately half the observed decline to human emissions of greenhouse gases, and the other half to climate variability.
These findings point to climate change and variability working together equally to accelerate the observed sea ice loss during the late 20th century.
The study appears this week in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.
Rapid melt
Since accurate satellite measurements became available in 1979, the extent of summertime Arctic sea ice has shrunk by about one third. The ice returns each winter, but the extent shrank to a record low in September 2007 and is again extremely low this year, already setting a monthly record low for July. Whereas scientists warned just a few years ago that the Arctic could lose its summertime ice cover by the end of the century, some research has indicated that Arctic summers could be largely ice-free within the next several decades.
To simulate what is happening with the ice, the NCAR team used a newly updated version of one of the world’s most powerful computer climate models. The software, known as the Community Climate System Model, was developed at NCAR in collaboration with scientists at multiple organizations and with funding by NSF and the Department of Energy.
The research team first evaluated whether the model was a credible tool for the study. By comparing the computer results with Arctic observations, they verified that, though the model has certain biases, it can capture observed late 20th century sea ice trends and the observed thickness and seasonal variations in the extent of the ice.
Kay and her colleagues then conducted a series of future simulations that looked at how Arctic sea ice was affected both by natural conditions and by the increased level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The computer studies indicated that the year-to-year and decade-to-decade trends in the extent of sea ice are likely to fluctuate increasingly as temperatures warm and the ice thins.
“Over periods up to a decade, both positive and negative trends become more pronounced in a warming world,” says NCAR scientist Marika Holland, a co-author of the study.
The simulations also indicated that Arctic sea ice is equally likely to expand or contract over short time periods under the climate conditions of the late 20th and early 21st century.
Although the Community Climate System Model simulations provide new insights, the paper cautions that more modeling studies and longer-term observations are needed to better understand the impacts of climate change and weather variability on Arctic ice.
The authors note that it is also difficult to disentangle the variability of weather systems and sea ice patterns from the ongoing impacts of human emissions of greenhouse gases.
“The changing Arctic climate is complicating matters,” Kay says. “We can’t measure natural variability now because, when temperatures warm and the ice thins, the ice variability changes and is not entirely natural.”
About the article
Title: Interannual to multidecadal Arctic sea ice extent trends in a warming world
Authors: Jennifer Kay, Marika Holland, and Alexandra Jahn
Publication: Geophysical Research Letters
Link to the paper is here
Philip Shehan says:
“I was a skeptic when I did not consider the evidence for AGW sufficiently well established. I remain a skeptic having concluded that accumulating evidence was well established.”
Philip, there is no empirical, testable evidence, per the scientific method, of catastrophic AGW – or for that matter, of AGW. None at all.
Now, AGW may exist. It may cause some warming of the atmosphere. But that assumption is based entirely on models, which are based on radiative physics, but not on reproducible, testable, replicable, real world evidence.
Moderator: Point taken but I do not agree with the proposition that the term is exclusively a reference to Holocaust denial or used with that intent.
As I noted above I do not apply it to genuine skeptics whichever side of the fence they are currently on but do consider that many of those who call themselves skeptics indicate an aversion to considering counterevidence which is very remeniscent of Freud’s description of the psychological condition I alluded to.
[Reply: You will be able to read this, but it will not be posted. This site allows plenty of latitude with few restrictions. “denier,” “denialist,” and other words with the “denier” root are routinely snipped. You hear and read that pejorative term everywhere. But it is not welcome here. I won’t comment any more on this issue because that is site Policy. Don’t take it personally. Just please avoid using those particular labels here. Thanks. ~db stealey, mod.]
REPLY: I disagree with Mr. Shehan and have the source to back it up. It has ALWAYS been about linking to holocaust denial. See the inception of this slur:
GOODMAN, Ellen. 2007 Boston Globe op ed: “Global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers”
Source: [1]. Ellen Goodman, “No change in political climate”, Boston Globe, 9 February 2007: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/ .
I’m also going to over ride moderator Stealey and allow this to be posted, because I’m going to elevate this to a full post later.
– Anthony Watts
Thank you to the moderator and Mr Watts for their replies. The link here appears to be paywalled so can’t comment on it.
Philip Shehan says: August 12, 2011 at 3:14 pm
I should also add that true skeptics evaluate each paper on its own merits, not which “side” it seems to support.
Sure, this 2001 paper, “Fram Strait Ice Fluxes and Atmospheric Circulation: 1950–2000″ by Torgny Vinje published in the American Meteorological Society Journal of Climate found that;
“The corresponding decadal maximum change in the Arctic Ocean ice thickness is of the order of 0.8 m. These temporal wind-induced variations may help explain observed changes in portions of the Arctic Ocean ice cover over the last decades. Due to an increasing rate in the ice drainage through the Fram Strait during the 1990s, this decade is characterized by a state of decreasing ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C3508%3AFSIFAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
This 2004 paper “Variations in the Age of Arctic Sea-ice and Summer Sea-ice Extent” by Ignatius G. Rigor & John M. Wallace, states that;
“The winter AO-index explains as much as 64% of the variance in summer sea-ice extent in the Eurasian sector, but the winter and summer AO-indices combined explain less than 20% of the variance along the Alaskan coast, where the age of sea-ice explains over 50% of the year-to year variability. If this interpretation is correct, low summer sea-ice extents are likely to persist for at least a few years. However, it is conceivable that, given an extended interval of low-index AO conditions, ice thickness and summertime sea-ice extent could gradually return to the levels characteristic of the 1980′s.”
http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/
This 2007 paper “Rapid reduction of Arctic perennial sea ice” by Nghiem, Rigor, Perovich, Clemente-Colo, Weatherly and Neumann states that;
“Perennial-ice extent loss in March within the DM domain was noticeable after the 1960s, and the loss became more rapid in the 2000s when QSCAT observations were available to verify the model results. QSCAT data also revealed mechanisms contributing to the perennial-ice extent loss: ice compression toward the western Arctic, ice loading into the Transpolar Drift (TD) together with an acceleration of the TD carrying excessive ice out of Fram Strait, and ice export to Baffin Bay.”
http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/Papers/NghiemEtal2007_MYreduction.pdf
This 2010 paper, “Influence of winter and summer surface wind anomalies on summer Arctic sea ice extent” by Masayo Ogi, Koji Yamazaki and John M. Wallace, published in Geophysical Research Letters states that;
“We have shown results indicating that wind‐induced, year‐to‐year differences in the rate of flow of ice toward and through Fram Strait play an important role in modulating September SIE on a year‐to‐year basis and that a trend toward an increased wind‐induced rate of flow has contributed to the decline in the areal coverage of Arctic summer sea ice.”
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d2/masayo.ogi/2009GL042356.pdf
This 2011 paper, “Recent wind driven high sea ice export in the Fram Strait contributes to Arctic sea ice decline”, submitted to The Cryosphere by L. H. Smedsrud, et al. used;
“geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25 % larger than during the 1960’s.”
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/1311/2011/tcd-5-1311-2011-print.pdf
So, having had an opportunity to “evaluate each paper on its own merits” do you agree with Son V. Nghiem when he said in an October, 1 2007 NASA article that;
“the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.
“The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.”?
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
Smokey: I am sorry but to say there is no empirical evidence for AGW is nonsense.
Certainly the evidence can be disputed but I am afraid you are making my point about Dr Freud’s psychological insight here.
There is empricial data and it can and has been tested agains the theory. For example on the arctic ice question:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~eec/Stroeve2007.pdf
Or global temperatures:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html
Gary Pearse says:
August 12, 2011 at 1:31 pm
R. Gates
“Well, since skeptics don’t believe the models anyway….”
_____
Thoughtful people here are not saying I don’t believe it, they are saying prove it.
____
Perhaps semantics is part of the problem. When I say “believe” I mean “have a certain amount of validity to indicate trends or dynamics of a system”.
But in terms of your general statement about thoughtful people…i would hope that is how all thoughtful people behave regarding something as complex as the climate.
Philip Shehan says:
August 12, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Smokey: I am sorry but to say there is no empirical evidence for AGW is nonsense.
Certainly the evidence can be disputed but I am afraid you are making my point about Dr Freud’s psychological insight here.
There is empricial data and it can and has been tested agains the theory. For example on the arctic ice question:
====================================
… and what’s the data that shows a connection with this and CO2 going from 280 ppm to 380 ppm, allegedly due to human contributions, besides f**k all.
Don’t waste your time looking, there isn’t any such data.
Philip Shehan says: August 12, 2011 at 8:22 pm
There is empricial data and it can and has been tested agains the theory. For example on the arctic ice question:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~eec/Stroeve2007.pdf
Or global temperatures:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html
I eagerly await your response to my comment above on the “arctic ice question”, but I am not sure where you are coming from in terms of “global temperatures”. When I look at the RSS Lower Troposphere Satellite Temps, I see a small increase over the last 30 years:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
Furthermore, when I take into account the big El Ninos that occured in 98 and 09/10, as Roy Spenser does on the UAH Lower Atmosphere Temp chart;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif
the average increase looks even smaller. Then when i take into account the fact that there have been significantly less major volcanoes. i.e. ones with a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) rated 5 or higher, during the last century;
1902 – VEI6(?) – Santa Maria, Guatemala
1907 – VEI5 – Ksudach, Kamchatka
1912 – VEI6 – Novarupta (Katmai)
1932 – VEI5+ – Azul, Cerro (Quizapu)
1956 – VEI5 – Bezymianny, Kamchatchka
1980 – VEI5 – St Helens, US
1982 – VEI5 – El Chichon, Mexico
1991 – VEI6 – Pinatubo, Philippines
as compared to a period such 1580 – 1680;
1580 ± 20 – VEI6 – Billy Mitchell
1586 – VEI5? – Kelut, Java
1593 – VEI5? – Raung, Java
1600 – VEI6 – Huaynaputina
1625 – VEI5 – Katla
1640 – VEI5 – Komaga-Take, Japan
1641 – VEI6 – Mount Parker
1650 – VEI6 – Kolumbo, Santorini
1660 – VEI6 – Long Island (Papua New Guinea)
1663 – VEI5 – Usu, Japan
1667 – VEI5 – Shikotsu (Tarumai), Japan
1673 – VEI5? – Gamkonora, Halmahera
1680 – VEI5? – Tongkoko, Sulaw
which coincides with the depths of the Little Ice Age:
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
The effects of volcanoes on Earth’s climate are well know, e.g. “the 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo, a stratovolcano in the Philippines, cooled global temperatures for about 2–3 years.
In 1883, the explosion of Krakatoa (Krakatau) created volcanic winter-like conditions. The next four years after the explosion were unusually cold, and the winter of 1887 to 1888 included powerful blizzards.Record snowfalls were recorded worldwide.
The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, a stratovolcano in Indonesia, occasioned mid-summer frosts in New York State and June snowfalls in New England and Newfoundland and Labrador in what came to be known as the “Year Without a Summer” of 1816.
A paper written by Benjamin Franklin in 1783 blamed the unusually cool summer of 1783 on volcanic dust coming from Iceland, where the eruption of Laki volcano had released enormous amounts of sulfur dioxide, resulting in the death of much of the island’s livestock and a catastrophic famine which killed a quarter of the population. Temperatures in the northern hemisphere dropped by about 1 °C in the year following the Laki eruption.
In 1600, the Huaynaputina in Peru erupted. Tree ring studies show that 1601 was cold. Russia had its worst famine in 1601 to 1603. From 1600 to 1602, Switzerland, Latvia and Estonia had exceptionally cold winters. The wine harvest was late in 1601 in France, and in Peru and Germany wine production collapsed. Peach trees bloomed late in China, and Lake Suwa in Japan froze early.[4]
In 1452 or 1453, a cataclysmic eruption of the submarine volcano Kuwae caused worldwide disruptions.
The Great Famine of 1315–1317 in Europe may have been precipitated by a volcanic event,[5] perhaps that of Kaharoa, New Zealand, which lasted about five years.[6]
The extreme weather events of 535–536 are most likely linked to a volcanic eruption.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
What percentage of the small increase in tropospheric temperature over the last 30 years do you think can be attributed to increases in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions versus oceanic oscillations, volcanic activity, or other natural climate changes?
Juts the Facts: Excuse me if I do not exhustively read the links but I gather the point of these papers is that ice coverage in the arctic is the sum of many factors which vary from year to year.
No problem whatever with that. Those who accept AGW also understand that global warming is causing a longterm reduction in ice coverage as evidenced by the figures in the first link in my above post.
philincalifornia’s refusal to accept that there is data and theory constituting evidence that human’s have increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration and that this is causing significant atmospheric warming (which does not mean that the data and the theory and thus the evidence cannot be disputed) has me again recalling Doctor Freud and has my fingure lingering over the fourth letter of the alphabet on the keyboard.
Philip Shehan says: August 12, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Juts the Facts: Excuse me if I do not exhustively read the links but I gather the point of these papers is that ice coverage in the arctic is the sum of many factors which vary from year to year.
No, the point is that the majority of the decrease in Arctic sea ice is due to wind/ natural causes, so to hold up the decrease in Arctic sea ice as evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is disingenuous and erroneous.
philincalifornia’s refusal to accept that there is data and theory constituting evidence that human’s have increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration and that this is causing significant atmospheric warming
What constitutes a “significant atmospheric warming”?
has my fingure lingering over the fourth letter of the alphabet on the keyboard.
What are the criteria for this label? Do you think that using the obviously loaded term denier is helping your cause? If you are trying to convince people of the “merits” of your “side”, holocaust references are probably not your best material…
Just the Facts:
Again, I (and more to the point, climatologists and AGW theory) are entirely in agreement with your analysis of the effect of volcanic eruptions on climate. It is one of the many multifactorial contributions to temperature upon which the anthropogenic CO2 signal is superimposed.
It was considered significant enough to be one of three parameters, along with CO2 concentration and solar output used to account for the temperature record in a paper written in 1981. (Fig 5 of this paper):
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
As my posts above indicate, I consider that there are genuine skeptics on both sides of the fence who argue the science.
My use of the D word is limited to those who show not the slightest skepticism in their belief system, who react with hostility to any challenge to it and who shoot the messenger with attacks on the integrity and professionalism of scientists who present evidence that does challenge it, and will not even accept the existence of such evidence.
Philip Shehan says: August 12, 2011 at 8:22 pm:
“There is empricial data and it can and has been tested agains the theory.”
Philip, that is just wrong. One more time: there is no empirical, testable evidence, per the scientific method, of catastrophic AGW – or for that matter, of AGW. None at all.
The links you posted are not evidence. They are conclusions based on computer models. Models are not evidence; models are tools. And in climatology, they are not very good tools, as Prof Freeman Dyson points out. From each of your links:
If the multi-model ensemble mean time series provides a true representation of forced change by greenhous gas…
And:
…58 simulations produced by 14 models with both anthropogenic and natural forcings. The multi-model ensemble mean is shown as a thick red curve and individual simulations are shown as thin yellow curves.
There is no real world, testable, reproducible evidence for AGW. None. AGW may exist. But evidence for it, based on the scientific method, is non-existent.
Finally, AGW is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. A theory allows for accurate predictions. But the AGW hypothesis has been consistently wrong in its predictive ability. AGW is only a hypothesis. Using the proper terms is essential in any scientific debate.
Philip Shehan says:
August 12, 2011 at 10:43 pm
philincalifornia’s refusal to accept that there is data and theory constituting evidence that human’s have increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration and that this is causing significant atmospheric warming (which does not mean that the data and the theory and thus the evidence cannot be disputed) has me again recalling Doctor Freud and has my fingure lingering over the fourth letter of the alphabet on the keyboard.
============================================
Why do you guys keep saying that there is data, and loads of scientists agree that there is loads of data, but never actually type up what the data is, even in bullet point or precis form ??
In the recent Monckton debate in Australia, his opponent started out with your argument that there is data, and loads of scientists concur that there is, but failed to produce any in the entire debate. It’s because there isn’t any.
I analyze data professionally as a scientist (Ph.D. in carbon chemistry, 200 peer-reviewed papers). When I see some data, I’ll form a conclusion based on the data. If the data indicate that the massively logarithmically reduced power of that portion of the 390+ ppm that is anthropogenic is capable of causing CAGW, or any measurable AGW, in the complex chaotic climate system, I will accept it.
Right now, the temp vs CO2 trend is indicating the opposite.
Philip Shehan says: August 13, 2011 at 2:31 am
Just the Facts:
Again, I (and more to the point, climatologists and AGW theory) are entirely in agreement with your analysis of the effect of volcanic eruptions on climate. It is one of the many multifactorial contributions to temperature upon which the anthropogenic CO2 signal is superimposed.
It was considered significant enough to be one of three parameters, along with CO2 concentration and solar output used to account for the temperature record in a paper written in 1981. (Fig 5 of this paper):
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
In the paper you cite, Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by Hansen et al. it states that;
“Energy growth has been 4 to 5 percent per year in the past century, but increasing costs will constrain future growth (1, 4). Thus we consider fast growth (`3 percent per year, specifically 4 percent per year in 1980 to 2020, 3 percent per year in 2020 – 2060, and 2 percent per year in 2060 to 2100), slow growth (half of fast growth), and no growth as representative energy growth rates.”
“Projected global warming for fast growth is 3 – 4.5 degrees Celsius at the end of the next century, depending on the proportion of depleted oil and gas replaced by synfuel (Fig. 6). Slow growth, with depleted oil and gas replaced equally by synfuels and nonfossil fuels, reduces the warming to ~ 2.5 degrees Celsius.”
According to Enerdata’s, May 2011 global energy report, average growth rate CO2 emissions from energy use from 1990-2010 in the G20 countries was 2% per year:
http://www.enerdata.net/enerdatauk/press-and-publication/publications/g-20-2010-strongly-energy-demand-increase.php
“Collectively, the G-20 economies comprise 87.2% of global nominal GDP:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-20_major_economies
So Hansen et al. appear to have overestimated the 1980 to 2020 growth rate in CO2 emissions from energy use by a factor of 2. Furthermore, even at the much lower level of CO2 emissions growth that we’ve seen, Hansen et al.’s “slow growth” of “warming to ~ 2.5 degrees Celsius” “at the end of the next century” seems unsupported by the data.
The trend in Lower Troposphere Temperature is .143 degrees Celsius per decade;
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
and so if we arbitrarily assumed that half this increase was due to natural climate changes such as oceanic oscillations, volcanic activity and solar activity, that would mean that the anthropogenic contribution to Lower Troposphere Temperature would be .0715 degrees Celsius per decade, or .715 degrees Celsius per century, which is less than a 3rd of Hansen et al.’s projection of “slow growth” of “warming to ~ 2.5 degrees Celsius” “at the end of the next century”. Why are we trying to reduce our CO2 emissions, with great disruption to the world economy and stunting the rate of development for billions of people, when observations indicate that the impact of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are relatively small?
My use of the D word is limited to those who show not the slightest skepticism in their belief system, who react with hostility to any challenge to it and who shoot the messenger with attacks on the integrity and professionalism of scientists who present evidence that does challenge it, and will not even accept the existence of such evidence.
Frankly your description seems to apply to many of the supporters of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative. But I would never use the term denier to label them, as I find it disrespectful to the approximately six million European Jews killed during the Holocaust, “in particular, over one million Jewish children were killed in the Holocaust, as were approximately two million Jewish women and three million Jewish men.” as well as, “some 200,000 Roma (Gypsies)”, “at least 200,000 mentally or physically disabled patients, mainly Germans, living in institutional settings, were murdered in the so-called Euthanasia Program.” and “between two and three million Soviet prisoners of war were murdered or died of starvation, disease, neglect, or maltreatment. The Germans targeted the non-Jewish Polish intelligentsia for killing, and deported millions of Polish and Soviet civilians for forced labor in Germany or in occupied Poland, where these individuals worked and often died under deplorable conditions. From the earliest years of the Nazi regime, German authorities persecuted homosexuals and others whose behavior did not match prescribed social norms. German police officials targeted thousands of political opponents (including Communists, Socialists, and trade unionists) and religious dissidents (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses). Many of these individuals died as a result of incarceration and maltreatment.”
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143
Using the loaded term denier in relation to people who have differing opinions on climate science, equivocates vigorous scientific debate with denial of the Holocaust. Frankly, it seems more like lashing out and throwing around ad hominems, because you are losing this argument…
“Smokey says:
August 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Philip Shehan says:
“I was a skeptic when I did not consider the evidence for AGW sufficiently well established. I remain a skeptic having concluded that accumulating evidence was well established.”
Philip, there is no empirical, testable evidence, per the scientific method, of catastrophic AGW – or for that matter, of AGW. None at all.
Now, AGW may exist. It may cause some warming of the atmosphere. But that assumption is based entirely on models, which are based on radiative physics, but not on reproducible, testable, replicable, real world evidence.”
Let’s see if we can get you your evidence Smokey.
First, lets get clear on some terms and basic questions.
1. If the earth had no atmosphere would it be warmer or cooler than it is?
A simple yes or no.
2. Do you need to do an experiment ( take away the atmosphere) to test #1.
A simple yes or no.
3. Are there other ways, short of removing the atmosphere, that we can give you evidence on this question?
4. Can you weigh the sun? can you put it on a scale repeatedly, or are there other ways we can test a sentence like “the sun weighs more than the moon?”
5. Do you use a cell phone? If I told you that radiative physics was used to design that working
system what would you say?
6. Do you believe the images a weather satellite shows you? Do you believe the physics required to derive that image?
7. Do you believe in the physics described by Radiation Transfer equations?
8. Do you think that radars work? Is the physics they are based on “settled”? If not,
explain how they work.
Part of the problem we have is understanding what we mean by AGW, what we mean by evidence, so I’m trying to understand what you mean by evidence.
Steven Mosher,
1. If the earth had no atmosphere would it be warmer or cooler than it is?
Answer: It would depend on whether you’re measuring the temperature on the day side or on the night side.
#2: Yes. But you can do it on a small scale.
#3: Yes. See R.W. Wood.
#4: There is empirical evidence confirming the sun’s mass.
#5: Misleading. Cell phones are empirically tested.
#6: See #5.
#7: Yes. [More accurate: I accept the physics. But there are still major unknowns.]
#8: See #5.
There is correlation between the rise in CO2 and the [very mild] rise in temperature over the past century and a half. There is also correlation between postal rates and temperature. But there is no empirical evidence, testable per the scientific method, proving that the rise in temperature – with parameters well within those of past rises – is due to the rise in CO2. If that question was settled, the question of the climate sensitivity number would be settled. It’s not.
I could go into the scientific method, the null hypothesis, and Occam’s Razor again, but it gets tedious. Suffice it to say that they all support natural climate variability as the reason for temperature fluctuations. CO2 may have an effect, and I accept that. But there is no testable evidence proving that CO2 caused the rise in T, or how much of that rise is attributable to CO2. There are only educated guesses, and they vary all over the map.
1. If the earth had no atmosphere would it be warmer or cooler than it is?
You dodged the question. would it be warmer or colder during the day AND during the night
2. Do you need to do an experiment ( take away the atmosphere) to test #1.
Really?
3. Are there other ways, short of removing the atmosphere, that we can give you evidence on this question?
Woods “experiment” Says NOTHING about the removal of the atmosphere. A few points
1. the atmosphere is miles thick. His greehouse wasnt
2. The atmosphere is moist in some places and super dry miles up. he didnt control
for this.
3. he provided no data.
4. It doesnt answer the question of whether the earth would be warmer or cooler with an
atmosphere.
5. What does his experiment predict for temperatures on the moon which has no atmosphere
4. Can you weigh the sun? can you put it on a scale repeatedly, or are there other ways we can test a sentence like “the sun weighs more than the moon?”
You failed. We “know” what the sun weighs by applying a theory and doing calculations, NOT by weighing it. There is no direct empirical evidence.. ie putting the sun on a scale.
5. Do you use a cell phone? If I told you that radiative physics was used to design that working
system what would you say?
So you accept the phsyics as true
6. Do you believe the images a weather satellite shows you? Do you believe the physics required to derive that image?
You accept the physics as true
7. Do you believe in the physics described by Radiation Transfer equations?
What unknowns? exactly
8. Do you think that radars work? Is the physics they are based on “settled”? If not,
explain how they work.
It looks like you accept RTE. That means WOODS WAS WRONG. What physical theory has come out of woods “experiment”. Nothing. No cell phone no radar no satillite would work if woods were correct. WHY. because the physics of RTE, the physics of cell phones and radars and satillites ALL depend upon the atmosphere ATTENUATING signals that pass through them.
Why do radars transmit in X band? what is a transmission window?
Here is the thing Smokey. RTE which you accept, tells us that the atmosphere with more C02 will block more IR. More h20 will block IR. Is a clear night with no clouds warmer or colder than one with clouds? Can an IR sensor see through clouds?
the first step is passed. You now admit that RTE is working tested physics. You accept that the molecules in the atmosphere can block the transmission of radiation ( ever shine a flashlight in the fog?)
The next step.. What happens to surface temperatures as a result of the physics you accept. physics that works. physics you rely on.
steven mosher says:
“The next step…”
No. I’ve answered your quiz, and I’ve tolerated your bird-dogging of my posts for a long time now. So ‘the next step’ is that I get to ask you a question. Not eight questions. Just one:
Were you actually an English professor, or anything similar, or related?
Because based on your complete lack of grammar, spelling, writing and punctuation skills, that is impossible for any rational person to believe. An eighth grader could do better. So, maybe it was just a rumor?
If I’m mistaken, now is your opportunity to correct the record. After you’ve answered, I’ll gladly answer more of your questions.
Philip Shehan says:
August 13, 2011 at 2:31 am
My use of the D word is limited to those who show not the slightest skepticism in their belief system, who react with hostility to any challenge to it and who shoot the messenger with attacks on the integrity and professionalism of scientists who present evidence that does challenge it, and will not even accept the existence of such evidence.
Sounds like a perfect description of Michael Mann to me.
Aside to Anthony – I do like the improved reply facility. The preview function is excellent; I’m glad there is no edit function as that makes revisions of history possible.
http://www.salelahome.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Tumbleweed.jpg