Guest post by Joe Bastardi, WeatherBell
With the coming Gorathon to save the planet around the corner ( Sept 14) , my stance on the AGW issue has been drawing more ire from those seeking to silence people like me that question their issue and plans. In response, I want the objective reader to hear more about my arguments made in a a brief interview on FOX News as to why I conclude CO2 is not causing changes of climate and the recent flurry of extremes of our planet. I brought up the First Law of Thermodynamics and LeChateliers principle.
The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred in many forms but can not be created or destroyed.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume those that believe CO2 is adding energy to the system are correct. Okay, how much? We have a gas that is .04% of the atmosphere that increases 1.5 ppm yearly and humans contribute 3-5% of that total yearly, which means the increase by humans is 1 part per 20 million. In a debate, someone argued just because it is small doesn’t mean it is not important. After all even a drop with 0.042 gm of arsenic could kill an adult. Yes but put the same drop in the ocean or a reservoir and no one dies or gets ill.
Then there is the energy budget. The amount of heat energy in the atmosphere is dwarfed by the energy in y the oceans. Trying to measure the changes from a trace gas in the atmosphere, if it were shown to definitively play a role in change (and it never has), is a daunting task.
NASA satellites suggest that the heat the models say is trapped, is really escaping to space, that the ‘sensitivity’ of the atmosphere to CO2 is low and the model assumed positive feedbacks of water vapor and clouds are really negative. Even IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth said “Climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is…the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
We are told that the warming in the period of warming from 1800 was evidence of man-made global warming. They especially point to the warming from 1977 to 1998 which was shown by all measures and the fact that CO2 rose during those two decades. And we hear that this warming has to be man-made with statements like “what else could it be?”
However, correlation does not mean causation. Indeed inconveniently despite efforts to minimize or ignore it, the earth cooled from the 1940s to the late 1970s and warming ceased after 1998, even as CO2 rose at a steady pace. Some have been forced to admit some natural factors may play a role in this periodic cooling. If that is the case, why could these same natural factors play a key role in the warming periods too.
Ah, but here is where the 1st law works just fine. After a prolonged period of LACK OF SUNSPOT ACTIVITY, the world was quite cold around 1800. The ramping up of solar activity after 1800 to the grand maximum in the late twentieth century could be argued as the ultimate cause of any warming through the introduction of extra energy into the oceans, land and then the atmosphere.
The model projections that the warming would be accelerating due to CO2 build up are failing since the earth’s temps have leveled off the past 15 years while CO2 has continued to rise.
Then there is a little matter of real world observation of how work done affects the system it is being done on. When one pushes an empty cart and then stops pushing, the cart keeps moving until the work done on it is dissipated. How is it, that the earth’s temperature has leveled off, if CO2, the alleged warming driver continues to rise?
The answer is obvious. They have it backwards. It is the earth’s temperature (largely the ocean) which is driving the CO2 release into the atmosphere. That is what the ice cores tell us and recently that Salby showed using isotopes in an important peer review paper. These use real world observations not tinker toy models nor an 186 year old theory that has never been validated.
Finally, as to the matter of LeChateliers principle. The earth is always in a state of imbalance and weather is the way the imbalances are corrected in the atmosphere. Extreme weather occurs when factors that increase imbalances are occurring. The extremes represent an attempt to return to a state of equilibrium.
The recent flurry of severe weather – for instance, record cold and snow, floods, tornadoes,, is much more likely to be a sign of cooling rather than warming. The observational data shows the earth’s mid levels have cooled dramatically and ocean heat content and atmospheric temperatures have been stable or declined. Cooling atmospheres are more unstable and produce greater contrasts and these contrasts drive storms, storms drive severe weather. A warmer earth produces a climate optimum with less extremes as we enjoyed in the late 20th century and other time in history when the great civilizations flourished.
Time will provide the answer. Over the next few decades, with the solar cycles and now the oceanic cycles changing towards states that favor cooling, there should be a drop in global temperatures as measured by objective satellite measurement, at least back to the levels they were in the 1970s, when we first started measuring them via an objective source. If temperatures warm despite these natural cycles, you carry the day. We won’t have to wait the full 20-30 year period. I believe we will have our answer before this decade is done.
UPDATE: I’m told that a follow up post – more technically oriented will follow sometime next week. Readers please note that the opinion expressed here is that of Mr. Bastardi, at his request. While you may or may not agree with it, discuss it without resorting to personal attacks as we so often see from the Romm’s and Tamino’s of the nether climate world. Also, about 3 hours after the original post, I added 3 graphics from Joe which should have been in the original, apologies. – Anthony
*sigh* That’s supposed to be “temperature”, not “temperture”. The error was due to a temperary lapse in proofreading.
Rats, I mean “temporary”, not–ah, skew it!
Thanks V!
R. Gates says: “Might want to talk to your expert husband on this issue, but Greenland had LOTS of ice 125,000 years ago.”
I don’t think so. Besides, according to the IPCC PR campaigns:
quote: “Approximately 125,000 years ago, Earth was 3 to 5 degrees Celsius warmer on average than it is today, and sea levels were 4 to 6 meters higher. The ice sheets covering Greenland’s land mass have trapped a significant amount of the water that used to be in the sea, thereby lowering sea levels, Susan Solomon, senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (and the co-chair of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) told attendees at the American Association for the Advancement of Science taking place in San Francisco.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6160463-7.html#ixzz1V2UTX1BU
Apparently their science isn’t as advanced as yours is now and they are wrong AGAIN!.
Also please tell us the scientific definition of “LOTS” too. Thanks. lol
Rational Debate says:
August 14, 2011 at 12:23 pm
I suspect the reason that you didn’t get many direct replies is because the effect of various concentrations of GHGs’ in the atmosphere is such a complicated issue – not an easy one to address well in blog comments.
I believe that your premise of varied concentrations of GHGs is too simplistic – that it would clearly be one aspect that would have to be factored in, but wouldn’t be anything close to accurate or correct taken by itself.
####
Thanks for your reply.
As far as “not an easy one to address well in blog comments.”, I most whole heartily agree. I had trouble just stating my question, and that apart from my normal difficulty in expressing myself.
I also agree that my scenario is way to simplistic to represent the actual atmosphere, but that was the point. I wanted to propose a measurable system that was simple enough to demonstrate a phenomena in isolation of other variables. The real question I am asking is this, does the forcing due to a doubling of the concentration of CO2 depend on the presents of another, specifically a more “powerful”, green house gas, absent of all other considerations?
If there is a dependency, then stating that the forcing due to a doubling of CO2 is X looses meaning.
BTW, I did devote thought to trying to conceptualizing the concentration of gases varying with altitude according to species, but the exorcize gave me a headache because we would no longer be dealing with simple Euclidean topologies. It does not take long for the addition of complexity to turn my though experiment into a mathematical nightmare. That was the main reason I tried to keep things stupid simple.
You mentioned biological activity. I actually am pretty experienced with an aspect of that. My other profession involves freshwater ecology. I use to to a lot of experimentation with CO2 injection. It does not take long for CO2 concentrations to come down after the initial spike following an increase in injection rate. Though the behavior is very depending on lighting and nitrogen sources.
Hey,
I logged off on Friday night so I didn’t get a chance to respond. To put the CO2 saturation discussion to rest, the change in radiative forcing due to an increase in CO2 is something like
5.3 ln(C/C0), where C0 is the pre-industrial CO2 level. This would mean a change of radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2 which agrees with the number Alan McIntyre posted above. You will notice that the above formula takes in to account the logarithmic effect of additional CO2.
At this point we need a simple way to get from radiative transfer to temperature. As I already fully concede, this is a back of the envelope calculation, not including feedbacks (positive or negative). But, my point is only to show that Joe is full of crap for suggesting that the warming is thermodynamically impossible.
The formula for the radiative balance of the earth is
Arrhenius’ formula, derived by differentiating the heat-balance equation for the earth-sun system is:
dT = (-T/4)*(de/e)
where dT is the change in temp, T is the global temp, de is the change in forcing, and e is the total forcing. T is approximately 288 Kelvin. Measured by satellites, e is 240 watts/m^2.
We get: dT = (-288/4)*(-3.7/240) = 1.11 Kelvin, which is almost exactly 2 degrees F.
Alan McIntyre: thanks for the intelligent comments. I believe your numbers (although I would like a source if you could direct me to one). And, while 1 degree is smaller than my 2 degrees, it is quite a bit larger than Bastardi’s CO2-can’t-warm-the-earth-because-of-the-first-law-of-thermodynamics argument.
Mr Bastardi,
Even if you are accidentally right about the earth cooling for the next 20 years, your explanations for it are still scientifically incorrect. I have no problems with you believing what ever uninformed positions you choose to accept. But, when you pretend to be an expert on TV to a viewership of millions, it is irresponsible to misrepresent the basic physics. Again, please learn some thermodynamics.
Finally, Mr Watt,
You can say what you will about the mythical Warmista or alarmist or Gaia-person or whatever you want to call them. But, when an actual scientist (though not a climatologist) like myself actually comes to your site with genuine curiosity about the scientific case against mainstream climatology, it really hurts your case to have garbage like this on your site. I would like to see a focused case on the specific scientific points of disagreement with the climate science community, not indiscriminate attacks on even basic physics that I would like to hope we all agree on. In short, nuanced debates on climate sensitivity or the accuracy of models is one thing. Messing around with basic thermodynamics is another.
And sorry, one last thing…I forgot to cite my sources:
The radiative forcing formula comes from Myhr et al, Geophysical Research Letters, v.25, no.14, pp2715-2718.
The formula for the temperature change comes from Svant Arrhenius, but I should also give credit to Scott Denning, who’s talk at the 4th heartland institute conference on climate change (which I highly recommend).
Blade, your comment about lag would seem to contradict Joe Bastardi. Joe Bastari’s above post and appearance on Fox made no mention of a lag. It was clear from him that he believes the current Co2 concentrations are driven by current temperatures. Are you saying Joe Bastardi is wrong or are you saying joe Bastardi misrepresented or are you saying he was not clear? It would be nice if Joe Bastardi would clarify concerning lag so that there would be no wrong interpretation. Joe Bastardi, is the current increase in Co2 caused by recent temperatures or temperatures from centuries ago?
Joe can correct me if he doesn’t agree.
The CO2 response to air temperature is immediate perhaps with a short period of catchup.
However ocean surface temperatures strongly affect air temperatures and there is some evidence of century scale lags in sea surface temperatures as energy taken up by the oceans centuries ago resurfaces. In fact sea surface temperatures are more important than air temperatures for oceanic CO2 absorption capability.
So there is no inconsistency. Once energy reaches the ocean surface the CO2 response is rapid but there may well be century scale lags affecting ocean surface temperatures one way or the other.
reply to post by: Matt says: August 14, 2011 at 4:22 pm
First, “mythical?” Matt, what planet are you living on? Now that that’s out of the way, moving on to the rest of your statement…
Matt, when an actual scientist, no matter what discipline, or for that matter any rational person comes to a website, it is quite reasonable to expect that they actually look at the masthead/site header/banner. For WattsUpWithThat.com (WUWT), said reasonable person would immediately read: “News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts.” One might further expect folks to take a look at the “about” page if a greater understanding of the purpose of a site is desired. For WUWT, there you will find, in addition to other information, the statement “And that’s part of what this blog is about: presentation of weather and climate data in a form the public can understand and discuss.”
Is it your contention that a scientist such as yourself is incapable of understanding these simple statements, or are you just admitting that you came with utterly preconceived notions and weren’t reasonable enough to even do the most cursory evaluation of the site’s stated purpose when you first arrived? Second question, how can this article hurt Anthony’s case, when you don’t seem to have any understanding of the case being made?
From the quoted purpose of WUWT, any rational person would then not expect or rant about failing to find “a focused case on the specific scientific points of disagreement with the climate science community..” Furthermore, had you taken a short time to peruse the site, you would have seen that there are discussions fitting your “nuanced debates on climate sensitivity or the accuracy of models” parameter, some in articles themselves, others spaced throughout comment sections. You would also find that “an actual scientist…with genuine curiosity about the scientific case against mainstream climatology” can pick up tremendously more along those lines here than at most AGW supportive sites, not only because those issues are discussed here, with input from a number of scientists including climate scientists, but also because WUWT doesn’t censor comments based on ideology/dogma/bias as you all too often find at AGW sites.
With regard to this specific blog article, any reasonable person, especially a scientist, would be expected to recognize that accepted blog submissions to such a site don’t necessarily reflect, in each and every claim contained in the article, the view of the blog owner – only that the article meet the stated goals of the site, as this one clearly does. One would also expect a scientist such as yourself to actually read the full article, at which point you would have seen Anthony’s postscript: “Readers please note that the opinion expressed here is that of Mr. Bastardi, at his request. While you may or may not agree with it, discuss it without resorting to personal attacks as we so often see from the Romm’s and Tamino’s of the nether climate world.”
Even you ought to be able to recognize that this article has met the goal of this blog; clearly a number of folks have found it interesting and are discussing various aspects – including the very aspect you find so disagreeable. I seriously doubt many physicists would see Mr. Bastardi’s post as an ‘indiscriminate attack’ on basic physics, nor would they expect the stated audience of this blog to all agree on basic physics, as they would know such a blog is both aimed at and visited by a huge variety of people with a wide range of educational backgrounds.
Some physicists or even just knowledgable folks might, oh horrors of horrors, actually see it as an excellent opportunity to help folks better understand physics, rather than a personal affront warranting public denigration.
Rational Debate, kudos.
@Rational Debate:
I concede your point that it was a dumb of me to suggest that I would be coming to this site for a rigorous scientific case. There are, of course, better resources for that. I wrote that comment in frustration and didn’t think it through.
That said, I stand by the following points:
1. Mr Bastardi’s claims are scientifically incorrect.
2. Allowing postings like this do hurt the credibility of the case this blog is trying to make. Sincere folks with an open mind but a good science literacy are going put off by this kind of stuff, and they’re no longer going to listen to the credible claims.
3. This blog boasts that it is voted the “Best Science Blog” and on that basis I can critique it for being a poor example of science web-journalism.
4. Most importantly, this site influences a large number of people who have a very tenuous grasp of science. I believe that Mr Watt has a genuine interest in science, and I don’t necessarily think he would want to intentionally mislead. But, content like this tends more towards convincing people at the expense of creating confusion, rather than educating them.
You are right that I don’t need to Mr. Watt to focus the debate for my sake. I am suggesting that Mr. Watt focus the debate for all of the confused people who agree with his views based on incorrect notions about the science. Science illiteracy is too big of a problem in this country. A blog that claims to be a science blog should help make the situation better, not worse. And, this particular subject matter is important enough to warrant an *honest* debate (as well as a rational one).
“Some physicists or even just knowledgable folks might, oh horrors of horrors, actually see it as an excellent opportunity to help folks better understand physics, rather than a personal affront warranting public denigration.”
Your last point is the most important one, which is why I should do a better job of biting my own tongue.
Matt says:
“A blog that claims to be a science blog should help make the situation better, not worse. And, this particular subject matter is important enough to warrant an *honest* debate (as well as a rational one).”
Matt, WUWT doesn’t just ‘claim’ to be a science blog, it has won the Weblog Awards for “Best Science” category twice running. And the debate here is honest, unlike the one-sided comments at climate progress, real climate, tamino, and similar echo chambers that censor all opposing views.
You can post your comments here without fear of censorship, and it is not the fault of WUWT if your point of view is deconstructed by more knowledgeable commentators.
Robert Murphy says:
August 14, 2011 at 1:10 pm
…Salby and Bastardi’s claims require there to be essentially none. Temps go up, and CO2 goes right up with it…
…Surely the Eemian interglacial lasted long enough and was warm enough for CO2 levels to top current levels. They didn’t even come close. Salby and Bastardi’s claims are refuted by the evidence…
You should check into the reasoning behind the 800 year time lag. There is your monotonic year over year increase. Still, temps can go up and CO2 right (behind) with it. Why not?
To R. Gates:
If DMS would be presumed to be more abundant in glacial periods, then the CAGW theory is not really supported by that. Cloud nucleation is one of those areas that is still very grey, and we can agree very important. Still, it’s difficult to say whether clouds even had a role in past glacial states. There isn’t any proxy I can think of except for beryllium-10.
Matt says:
August 14, 2011 at 4:15 pm
===================================
So, 1 degree F/doubling per Alan McIntyre’s post is acceptable to you ?
Aside from the fact that this should be more than acceptable to the world’s population, have you also done the back of the envelope calculation for the tropics, i.e. the effect of doubling CO2 (starting at 280 ppm) in a background of vastly greater concentrations of water vapor ?
reply to Matt says: August 14, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Thank you, but I have to suggest that you continue thinking it thru even further, as you still seem to be missing a good bit.
The post of yours that I was replying to had little to do with the accuracy of Mr. Bastardi’s claims, and I wasn’t addressing that issue one way or the other (nor will I). Frankly in several ways that aspect simply isn’t all that relevant (serious food for thought for you there, Matt).
Perhaps my view of folks with science literacy is more positive than yours. While I’m sure there will be a few who respond as you note, personally I believe that the majority will be far more reasonable and rational, will note and understand the stated (and demonstrated) purpose of this blog, and if they are certain factual errors occur in an article they will either share their expertise politely in comments – where they will proceed to either discuss the issues with folks – or they’ll skip on to the next article they find interesting. Ever heard of the saying ‘don’t throw the baby out with the bath water?’
Besides, someone who really has good science literacy won’t be dissuaded from credible claims by those they happen across that aren’t. Science is, after all, all about debating competing claims and providing evidence to support what one believes is correct, while still being open minded enough to consider that someone else may turn out to be more correct or manage to prove one wrong – and then be big enough to admit it if someone comes up with a better hypothesis, or better evidence one way or the other.
What do you think the comment section is all about on this blog?
Smokey already hit on several aspects of this issue. To add to his comments, by your criteria, you will be critiquing virtually every science blog that exists, and for that matter, the most premiere science journals also. Have you seen the retraction rates, even for the likes of Science and Nature? While you are at it, how about Climategate, and the implications that raises regarding every research paper written or peer reviewed by those involved?
Meanwhile, you might try considering just what ‘best science blog’ means. Best science blog only for top scientists? Or best science blog only for climatologists, no geologists, solar experts, or any other discipline allowed? (fill in whatever field you like for climatologist & the following specialities in that sentence) Or best science blog for the general public, with a leaning towards folks who have some science knowledge? Hum???
Furthermore, one might consider that this is a blog, and beyond donations which I suspect don’t add up to much, in order to be a perfect example of science web-journalism, AND cover such a huge number of disparate fields, yet still be able to ensure that no article ever has anything in it that could be perceived as incorrect, the blog owner would have to be at the professorial level for a massive number of fields. Physics, geology, aeronautics, fluid mechanics, engineering, solar sciences, meteorology, climatology, every field related to ‘green’ contraptions, every field related to alternative energy sources, all sorts of biological and chemical disciplines, and on and on and on.
Are YOU an expert in all of these areas, Matt? (If so, why the heck don’t you offer free editorial services to WUWT?) It’s impossible for one person to be an expert in all of the areas that wind up in articles and being discussed here. All things considered, it’s not a very reasonable expectation on your part, now is it?
It’s so good of you to allow that you don’t necessarily think that Mr. Watts might want to intentionally mislead. We are all relieved.
You might try considering just why it is that this site has wound up being so well liked, heavily trafficked, and influential. More to the point, I believe anyone can see that Mr. Watts has not only a strong and genuine interest in science, but overall a pretty darned good grasp of it also. Again, not speaking to the issue of scientific accuracy in the article, the primary points Mr. Bastardi makes are both highly relevant, and unlike all too much of ‘climate science’ presented by the ‘climate scientists,’ he has a stated position which can easily be seen to either be correct, or incorrect, by the end of this decade.
I would hope not, although I have to say this site is great for unfocused but highly meaningful browsing.
Again, it’s mighty big of you to be looking out for all us confused souls out here. Let me ask you Matt, if you are so certain that ‘coolistas,’ or ‘deni—‘ oops, that’ll get snipped, er, ‘skeptics’ (or whatever you want to call them) only believe there are problems with AGW based on incorrect notions about the science why do you even bother looking for sites that present a skeptical view and supporting science? Let me also ask you this – how can you call yourself any sort of scientist, if you aren’t willing to apply some skepticism to a field that is as muddled and fraught with pseudo-science and post normal science adherents as is the case with ‘climate science?’
I couldn’t agree with you more. So why are you carping here, rather than over at realclimate or the likes? Oh, ya, that’s right, because if you took them to task or asked any inconvenient or skeptical questions, or even any trying to *honestly* understand the science behind the skeptical view over at those sorts of sites your comment would either never show up, or promptly be deleted – or you would be made out to be an idiot or worse and given no chance to defend your position. So, which do you prefer – a site like WUWT where a wide variety of subjects are discussed and dissected, including various research papers and viewpoints associated with ‘climate science’ and by folks with a wide variety of backgrounds from layman to very well established scientists – or sites that will only allow a very censored, arrogant, cherry picked, one sided view?
Also, if one *honestly* wants to consider whether a science blog makes things better or worse, they wouldn’t do so on the basis of a few articles out of all that are posted to the site, let alone a single article. Frankly, anyone coming over here and playing with innuendo about *honesty* is pretty questionable in terms of their own level of honesty and motives. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that rather than being a disingenuous flame thrower, you just worded that poorly and really meant *accurate* or something along those lines – and that you weren’t thinking things thru in terms of what effect one or even a few articles really has on such an active site.
Unfortunately it’s all too easy to pop off now and then for most of us, especially on the faceless internet. But ask yourself before you hit the send button if you would really say whatever is in your comment to all who might read it, if you were face to face with them.
Also Matt, if you have in mind exactly what a site ought to be and are so certain that it is easy to develop and manage the perfect educational science blog that you castigated Anthony for not providing, just go create it yourself. Let’s see how that goes and how perfect and influential it is after awhile, ok? Or you can join us here and debate and dissect all sorts of things with a wide variety of people – and hopefully you’ll do so with a far more open and generous spirit, and a bit more practical viewpoint than you’ve shown thus far.
sceptical August 14, 2011 at 5:54 pm
asks”Joe Bastardi, is the current increase in CO2 caused by recent temperatures or temperatures from centuries ago?”
It is, of course, the case that neither suggestion is correct.
The current increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by human emissions.
There no need for any source of CO2 other than human emissions to explain the rise, since human emissions greatly exceed that observed rise.
Further, the amount of CO2 increase observed from ice core evidence during the warming from glacial to interglacial conditions was an order of magnitude too small to explain the current rise in CO2. The recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is around 110ppmv for a rise in average global temperature of scarcely 1degC. The glacial/interglacial warmings caused an increase of just (approximately) 10ppmv of CO2 for each 1degC rise in temperature.
So, not only is there no need for any contribution from warming to explain the current rise in atmospheric CO2, such contribution would anyway be wholly inadequate to explain that rise. Add to that the confusion about whether the warming “responsible” was recent or from the MWP and you end up with only one possible conclusion: the idea is complete and utter nonsense.
phlogiston says:
August 14, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Volker Doormann says:
August 14, 2011 at 11:47 am
“For the changing of the global temperature on a decadal scale, it is known that the earth because of its shape wobbles with a frequency of 1/1.1855 years (Chandler), and that the fluids (air and oceans) on the surface of the earth resonates with the half frequency of 1/2.371 years or 28.45 month. Because of the heat content of the water of the oceans this leads to phases called El Niño e Southern Oscillation (ENSO) occurring again with an average of a half frequency of 1/4.742 years or 57 month. Quote: “The global sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly data from 1950 to 1996 were used to analyze spatial characters of interdecadal SST variations. A wavelet transform was made for the equatorial eastern Pacific SST anomaly time series. Results show that there are three remarkable timescale SST variations: 130-month interdecadal variation, 57-month interannual variation and 28-month quasi-2-a variation. (QlAN Weihong et al.)””
“ENSO events (el Nino, La Nina) are not monotonically regular, but are intermittent. There are “neutral” periods with no ENSO polarisation. This makes it more difficult to propose that ENSO is driven by a constant orbital related parameter. ENSO is quite likely a nonlinear oscillator, oscillating by its own internal dynamics, BUT with the possibility that its oscillation could be driven by outside forcers. However the relation between a periodically forced nonliner oscillator and its forcer, can be very complex – in the case that the forcing is weak. (If it is strong then the forced system follows the forcer directly.)”
In science it is relevant, what is argued with reasons, and it is not relevant, what is NOT.
I have given arguments about three frequencies which are related to the earth, which are sub harmonics to the chandler wobble frequency, which can be related to the geometry of the rotating ellipsoid. ENSO is not an observable in physics.
Physics begins with geometry and/or frequencies (not cycles!) related to geometry. In the discussion about the cause of high temperature frequencies visible in the temperature plots vs ‘ENSO’, a frequency of 1/4742 y^-1 is present as an oscillating heat, and heat is physics.
http://volker-doormann.org/gif/enso_had3.gif
If some three temperature frequencies are related by dividing factors of 2 or 4, this is an indication for a connection of the global heat current. An oscillator always needs a power source, and in this case a heat source in Watts. If the heat source is variable, then this does not change the fundamental frequency, only the amplitude.
There are simple relations present:
The ratio of the Jupiter frequency and the earth wobble frequency is 1:10 (0.08431:0.8431)
The ratio of the Jupiter frequency and the QBO frequency is 1:5 (0.08431:0.42156)
The ratio of the earth wobble frequency and the QBO frequency is 2:1 (0.843125 : 0.42156)
The QBO is a stable oscillation, if it is exited by a (heat) power:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/drift1.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/qbo_5.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/qbo_6.gif
In the discussion of an alternative understanding to the promoted ppm apocalypse it is necessary to give pointers to real physics and geometries. Each simulation model must be based on physics and geometries. There must be a quantitative solution of the physical heat current equations. As it is well known that the celestial objects like it to dance in resonance as Jupiter and Saturn (5:2) did, the frequencies in the solar system can be examined for relations to the global temperature frequencies. Hockey stick function is a label, but not physics. ENSO is a label, but not physics. I think the point is not ‘Fighting against windmills’ on the emotional CO2 war; the point is, science has the job to find the sources of the climate frequencies and amplitudes of the global heat current. I was feeling good, when I read Joe B. was arguing with the First Law of Thermodynamics.
V.
Rational Debate:
I am enjoying your deconstruction of the irrational assertions of ‘Matt’ and by implication those of John B, Chris Colose, R Gates and Slioch.
I write to support one of your points in your post at August 14, 2011 at 10:56 pm that says;
“Again, not speaking to the issue of scientific accuracy in the article, the primary points Mr. Bastardi makes are both highly relevant, and unlike all too much of ‘climate science’ presented by the ‘climate scientists,’ he has a stated position which can easily be seen to either be correct, or incorrect, by the end of this decade.”
‘Appeal to authority’ of ‘climate scientists’ is a mainstay of AGW-alarmists. The alarmists assert that evidence, argument and logic are all trumped by mystical knowledge of ‘climate scientists’. In a discussion that directly related to Bastardi’s argument, I address this assertion (of ‘climate scientists’ having more authority than empirical data) head-on in the thread on Judith Curry’s blog at
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/
I commend a look at all of that discussion because it is very informative of the unscientific and irrational behaviour of leading AGW-alarmists. Here, I provide summarising extracts.
Concening emissions of carbon dioxide, I wrote:
“In this and the other thread I have repeatedly pointed out that the observed dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate that the dynamics of the short-term sequestration processes can easilly sequester ALL of the anthropogenic and natural emission in each year. But they don’t.
This is direct empirical evidence that the system is not being overloaded by the anthropogenic emission such that about half the anthropogenic emission is accumulating in the air.”
Eventually I got a ‘warmist’ to answer the point, but he evaded the issue, Instead, he resorted to claiming there is evidence that he could not quote, reference or explain, but “working climate scientists” know it.
The discussion concluded when I wrote:
“Your argument (more properly assertion) depends on your definitions of
“people, who have solid background knowledge”
and
“not working climate scientists”.
Until those definitions are agreed then everything you say is mere words with no real meaning because they can be interpreted to mean anything.
For example, is a “working climate scientist” somebody who studies climate and has repeatedly published in the peer reviewed litrature? If so, then I am a “working climate scientist” and Chris Colose is merely somebody who has a “solid background knowledge” but he is not a “working climate scientist”.
I could provide several other possible definitions of a “working climate scientist” but none of them support your argument.
And I don’t accept that a useful conclusion is achieved by settling on an agreed definition because I adhere to the principle of
‘Nullius in verba’
Similarly, I don’t accept your claim that an explanation is “not possible” in a net discussion. Either one has an argument, a reference and/or a citation or one does not. If one cannot provide any of those then one is merely making an assertion that any rational person should reject.”
Richard
Slioch:
At August 14, 2011 at 11:34 pm you say;
“The current increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by human emissions.
There no need for any source of CO2 other than human emissions to explain the rise, since human emissions greatly exceed that observed rise.”
OK, then it follows that you accept the following statements.
‘The appearance of toys at the bottom of the bed is caused by Father Christmas.
There no need for any source of the toys other than Father Christmas to explain the appearance, since the toys at the bootom of the bed greatly exceed the number toys in the bedroom befor their appearance.’
A belief in Father Christmas is not evidence that the belief is true. This is because the fact that something can be assumed to be a cause is not evidence that it is the true cause.
Similarly, your statements about anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are nonsense.
And they are especially nonsense because they are refuted by empirical data; e.g.
The observed dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate that the dynamics of the short-term sequestration processes can easilly sequester ALL of the anthropogenic and natural emission in each year. But they don’t.
This is direct empirical evidence that the system is not being overloaded by the anthropogenic emission such that about half the anthropogenic emission is accumulating in the air.
Richard
Slioch says:
The recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is around 110ppmv for a rise in average global temperature of scarcely 1degC
I will say again
This assumption of an increase in CO2 (*and other GHG’s) causing actual warming has never been proven from actual test results.
What the IPCC did, is look at the problem from the wrong end. They assumed that global warming is caused by an increase in CO2 (GHG’s) (even though not everybody agreed with this at the time) and made an allocation (forcing) largely based on the observed global warming since 1750 versus the increase of the gas(es) noted since 1750.
It is the worst mistake any scientist can make.
Understand that it is alleged that due to increased green house gases in the atmosphere, heat is trapped that cannot escape from earth. So if an increase in green house gases is to blame for the warming, it should be minimum temperatures (that occur during the night) that must show the increase (of modern warming). In that case, the observed trend should be that minimum temperatures should be rising faster than maxima and mean temperatures. That is what would prove a causal link.. We have reasonable accurate data from weather stations all over world for the past 35 years. I do not trust most of the data from long before 1975 unless it can be explained exactly how the measurements were done and recorded. (like in the example of the station in Armagh – Northern-Ireland).
So far, after evaluating 15 weather stations, randomly chosen, nearby oceans or in the oceans, \the score on my pool table is as follows:
MAXIMA: rising at a speed of 0.036 degrees C per annum
MEANS : increasing at a speed of 0.012 degrees C per annum
MINIMA: creeping up at only 0.004 degrees C per annum
HUMIDITY: decreasing at a rate of -0.02% RH per annum
PRECIPITATION: slight change at + 0.26 mm /month /year
The latest tables show that, over the past 4 decades, the rates of increase of temperatures on earth i.e. maxima, means (=average temperatures) and minima have risen at a ratio of 9:3:1. Remember: these are the summaries of actual measured results from a number of weather stations all around the world….No junk science. No hypothesis. Every black figure on the tables is coming from a separate file of figures. Obviously I am able to provide these files of every black figure on the table.
As all the balls now lie on my table, surely, anyone must be able to understand that it was the rise of maximum temperatures (that occur during the day) that caused the average temperature and minima on earth to rise? This implies clearly that the observed warming over past 4 decades was largely due to natural causes. Either the sun shone a bit brighter or there were less clouds. There are different theories on that.
Juts get that in your head.
Volker Doormann says:
August 15, 2011 at 12:57 am
phlogiston says:
August 14, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Volker Doormann says:
August 14, 2011 at 11:47 am
Nonlinear oscillators, such as the classic Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, and your heart beat, are real physics. The scientific argument for proposing that the ENSO is a nonlinear oscillator (not a new idea) of the BZ reaction type, is set out here .
I have no doubt that planetary orbital parameters act in some way as periodic forcers of the earth’s climate. But how? If climate oscillations slavishly followed orbital parameters like summer, winter, day and night, then it would be obvious and beyond debate, we would not be having interminable arguments and resorting to statistical sophistry like wavelet analysis etc. to try to tease out the relationships. My guess, for what it is worth, is that we are looking at periodic forcing of one or more nonlinear oscillators, near the boundary between weak and strong (see the reference by Anna Lin cited in the BZ post):
Resonance tongues and patterns in periodically forced reaction-diffusion systems. Anna Lin et al., DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.69.066217, Cite as: arXiv:nlin/0401031v1 [nlin.PS].
phlogiston says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/12/bastardi-science-and-reality-point-away-not-toward-co2-as-climate-driver/#comment-719872
Henry@phlogiston
This was discussed in detail here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/
(not that I could follow it, but I think it has something to do with Jupiter and Saturn acting some force on the sun)
Well let me answer by using the three words which folks in the AGW cult are loathe to use themselves … I don’t know.
Frankly no-one knows this mechanism yet. We are all looking at the same ice core CO2 and temperature reconstructions which show a lag of around 800 years, that is the visible evidence. I am allowing for the possibility that the ice cores are being misread though (if only the same objectivity were present in AGW!).
But we have is what we have, and what we have is this striking record showing temperature leading CO2 by a substantial but consistent period of time. It is a puzzle to be solved, but that is the point of science anyway, solving these puzzles. The controversy in my opinion erupted because of Hockey Stick thinking which completely inverts cause and effect. If Mann and the rest of you want to continue down this CO2 leads temperature, you will have to do some (pardon the pun) real science and avoid sandpapering the historical record by erasing the MWP and LIA to make the handle of the Hockey Stick straight and level.
For now I am willing to consider that we are seeing a slow but steady uptick of CO2 that may correlate to events around the MWP, albeit mechanism unknown. This could mean several more centuries of slowly increasing CO2 (yeah, at a ppm or two per year). But I could certainly be wrong (if only the same humility were present in AGW!).
Whether Joe Bastardi is considering this lag or not I am unaware. You really should quote him verbatim when you attempt to prove he is contradicting something though. I was commenting on his 20-30 year gauntlet. So let me repeat the point I made above …
Joe is zeroing in on this! Either all this added CO2 is present now in the atmosphere or it’s not (Mauna Loa says it *is*). Either it is slowing down radiative cooling or not. Given steadily increasing CO2, how is it possible for there to be anything but increasing warming?
CO2 present into the atmosphere *must* work immediately with no lag (that’s the box AGW is in). Or does CO2 have to cure for a period of time before it begins swallowing up IR? How can there be a lag with radiation? Note that the 800 year lag thing is likely not about radiation at all but about earthly processes (perhaps water, currents, clouds, life, etc).
A cooling or even neutral period must be the Null Hypothesis (unless there is an invisible energy bank of missing heat?). That is how I read Joe’s post above.
The science shows less than a single degree rise in over a hundred years, all the while CO2 has apparently climbed 100 ppm (which coincidentally accounts for every ppm of CO2 that R.Gates in a previous post assigns to human activity versus an Earth with no humans). Frankly I’m amazed the AGW alarmism has gone on this long!
phlogiston says:
August 15, 2011 at 3:29 am
Volker Doormann says:
August 15, 2011 at 12:57 am
[…]
“I have no doubt that planetary orbital parameters act in some way as periodic forcers of the earth’s climate. But how? If climate oscillations slavishly followed orbital parameters like summer, winter, day and night, then it would be obvious and beyond debate, we would not be having interminable arguments and resorting to statistical sophistry like wavelet analysis etc. to try to tease out the relationships. My guess, for what it is worth, is that we are looking at periodic forcing of one or more nonlinear oscillators, near the boundary between weak and strong …”
The question ‘how’ implicates an assumption of causality as vector. But as it can be recognized from resonances in our solar system and in other solar systems, there is that angular momentum that is not a battery of a limited energy [V A s]. Like the connection Earth/Moon, there is no loss in angular momentum, but a transfer of angular momentum from Earth to the Moon (plus some friction loss on the shore).
The problem is, there is no answer ‘how’ (what causal process?, what carrier? how quick?) this angular momentum is transmitted. We can see the result, but not the mechanism between solar objects. The same problem exists if one should say which one of two planets in a 5:2 resonance follows to whom? I think until this problem is only solved as a ‘curved space’ (what IS a space?) by theories, it is a blind alley to take the solar system as an engine or a steam engine.
I think a way out of this blind alley is to study the nature of the many relations between the temperature spectra and some orbital parameters in the solar system. A simplest adding of tide functions of some empiric weighted celestial couple’s (lower black thin curve), shows a remarkable correlation with the temperature proxy from stalagmites in the alps.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/comnispa_vs_x.jpg
As it is done for the terrestrial tide by a simulation of a lot of parameter to come to a good forecast of the tide events and normal height in the future, more people are interested simple in the events of climate in the future, than people are interested in the religion of cause and effect or output vs input like in the ‘science of finance’, from a system of angular momentum.
The problem with periods and oscillators is that these are phantoms, if there are no living real geometry and real frequency of mass is involved. For this I think it has more feet on the ground taking the real movements in the solar system which are known from 3000 BCE to 3000 CE.
I have put these stuff into this discussion, to give an counterpart to the hockey stick function of the climate Gurus. It needs a lot of disciplines, time and data to improve the knowledge in the field.
Neutrino rates vs time seems to play also a role in this climate theater. ..
V.