Roger Tattersall (aka Tallbloke) writes on his blog of a WUWT comment. Unfortunately WUWT gets so many comments a day that I can’t read them all (thank you moderators for the help). Since he elevated Dr. Robert Brown’s comment to a post it seems only fair that I do the same.
I saw this comment on WUWT and was so impressed by it that I’m making a separate post of it here. Dr Brown (who is a physicist at Duke University) quotes another commenter and then gives us all an erudite lesson. If Nikolov and Zeller feel they need to take any of the complaints on WUWT about the way they handle heat distribution from day to night side Earth seriously, they probably need to study this post carefully. this is also highly relevant to the reasons why Hans Jelbring used a simplified model for his paper, please see the new PREFACE added to his post for further elucidation.
———————————————————————————-
I can’t speak for your program, but I will stand by mine for correctly computing the ‘mean effective radiative temperature’ of a massless gray body as a perfect radiator. Remember, there is no real temperature in such of an example for there is no mass. It takes mass to even define temperature. (but most climate scientist have no problem with it and therefore they are all wrong, sorry)
I’d like to chime in and support this statement, without necessarily endorsing the results of the computation (since I’d have to look at code and results directly to do that:-). Let’s just think about scaling for a moment. There are several equations involved here:
is the total power radiated from a sphere of radius R at uniform temperature T. \sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and can be ignored for the moment in a scaling discussion. \epsilon describes the emissivity of the body and is a constant of order unity (unity for a black body, less for a “grey” body, more generally still a function of wavelength and not a constant at all). Again, for scaling we will ignore \epsilon.
Now let’s assume that the temperature is not uniform. To make life simple, we will model a non-uniform temperature as a sphere with a uniform “hot side” at temperature T + dT and a “cold side” at uniform temperature T – dT. Half of the sphere will be hot, half cold. The spatial mean temperature, note well, is still T. Then:
P’ = (4 \pi R^2) epsilon sigma ( 0.5*(T + dT)^4 + 0.5(T – dT)^4)
is the power radiated away now. We only care how this scales, so we: a) Do a binomial expansion of P’ to second order (the first order terms in dT cancel); and b) form the ratio P’/P to get:
P’/P = 1 + 6 (dT/T)^2
This lets us make one observation and perform an estimate. The observation is that P’ is strictly larger than P — a non-uniform distribution of temperature on the sphere radiates energy away strictly faster than it is radiated away by a uniform sphere of the same radius with the same mean temperature. This is perfectly understandable — the fourth power of the hot side goes up much faster than the fourth power of the cold side goes down, never even mind that the cold side temperature is bounded from below at T_c = 0.
The estimate: dT/T \approx 0.03 for the Earth. This isn’t too important — it is an order of magnitude estimate, with T \approx 300K and dT \approx 10K. (0.03^2 = 0.0009 \approx 0.001 so that 6(0.03)^2 \approx 0.006. Of course, if you use latitude instead of day/night side stratification for dT, it is much larger. Really, one should use both and integrate the real temperature distribution (snapshot) — or work even harder — but we’re just trying to get a feel for how things vary here, not produce a credible quantitative computation.
For the Earth to be in equilibrium, S/4 must equal P’ — as much heat as is incident must be radiated away. I’m not concerned with the model, only with the magnitude of the scaling ratio — 1375 * 0.006 = 8.25 W/m^2, divided by four suggests that the fact that the temperature of the earth is not uniform increases the rate at which heat is lost (overall) by roughly 2 W/m^2. This is not a negligible amount in this game. It is even less negligible when one considers the difference not between mean daytime and mean nighttime temperatures but between equatorial and polar latitudes! There dT is more like 0.2, and the effect is far more pronounced!
The point is that as temperatures increase, the rate at which the Earth loses heat goes strictly up, all things being equal. Hot bodies lose heat (to radiation) much faster than cold bodies due to Stefan-Boltzmann’s T^4 straight up; then anything that increases the inhomogeneity of the temperature distribution around the (increased) mean tends to increase it further still. Note well that the former scales like:
P’/P = 1 + 4 dT/T + …
straight up! (This assumes T’ = T + dT, with dT << T the warming.) At the high end of the IPCC doom scale, a temperature increase of 5.6C is 5.6/280 \approx 0.02. That increases the rate of Stefan-Boltzmann radiative power loss by a factor of 0.08 or nearly 10%. I would argue that this is absurd — there is basically no way in hell doubling CO_2 (to a concentration that is still < 0.1%) is going to alter the radiative energy balance of the Earth by 10%.
The beauty of considering P’/P in all of these discussions is that it loses all of the annoying (and often unknown!) factors such as \epsilon. All that they require is that \epsilon itself not vary in first order, faster than the relevant term in the scaling relation. They also give one a number of “sanity checks”. The sanity checks suggest that one simply cannot assume that the Earth is a ball at some uniform temperature without making important errors, They also suggest that changes of more than 1-2C around some geological-time mean temperature are nearly absurdly unlikely, given the fundamental T^4 in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Basically, given T = 288, every 1K increase in T corresponds to a 1.4% increase in total radiated power. If one wants a “smoking gun” to explain global temperature variation, it needs to be smoking at a level where net power is modulated at the same scale as the temperature in degrees Kelvin.
Are there candidates for this sort of a gun? Sure. Albedo, for one. 1% changes in (absolute) albedo can modulate temperature by roughly 1K. An even better one is modulation of temperature distribution. If we learn anything from the decadal oscillations, it is that altering the way temperature is distributed on the surface of the planet has a profound and sometimes immediate effect on the net heating or cooling. This is especially true at the top of the troposphere. Alteration of greenhouse gas concentrations — especially water — have the right order of magnitude. Oceanic trapping and release and redistribution of heat is important — Europe isn’t cold not just because of CO_2 but because the Gulf Stream transports equatorial heat to warm it up! Interrupt the “global conveyor belt” and watch Europe freeze (and then North Asia freeze, and then North America freeze, and then…).
But best of all is a complex, nonlinear mix of all of the above! Albedo, global circulation (convection), Oceanic transport of heat, atmospheric water content, all change the way temperature is distributed (and hence lost to radiation) and all contribute, I’m quite certain, in nontrivial ways to the average global temperature. When heat is concentrated in the tropics, T_h is higher (and T_c is lower) compared to T and the world cools faster. When heat is distributed (convected) to the poles, T_h is closer to T_c and the world cools overall more slowly, closer to a baseline blackbody. When daytime temperatures are much higher than nighttime tempratures, the world cools relatively quickly; when they are more the same it is closer to baseline black/grey body. When dayside albedo is high less power is absorbed in the first place, and net cooling occurs; when nightside albedo is high there is less night cooling, less temperature differential, and so on.
The point is that this is a complex problem, not a simple one. When anyone claims that it is simple, they are probably trying to sell you something. It isn’t a simple physics problem, and it is nearly certain that we don’t yet know how all of the physics is laid out. The really annoying thing about the entire climate debate is the presumption by everyone that the science is settled. It is not. It is not even close to being settled. We will still be learning important things about the climate a decade from now. Until all of the physics is known, and there are no more watt/m^2 scale surprises, we won’t be able to build an accurate model, and until we can build an accurate model on a geological time scale, we won’t be able to answer the one simple question that must be answered before we can even estimate AGW:
What is the temperature that it would be outside right now, if CO_2 were still at its pre-industrial level?
I don’t think we can begin to answer this question based on what we know right now. We can’t explain why the MWP happened (without CO_2 modulation). We can’t explain why the LIA happened (without CO_2 modulation). We can’t explain all of the other significant climate changes all the way back to the Holocene Optimum (much warmer than today) or the Younger Dryas (much colder than today) even in just the Holocene. We can’t explain why there are ice ages 90,000 years out of every 100,000, why it was much warmer 15 million years ago, why geological time hot and cold periods come along and last for millions to hundreds of millions of years. We don’t know when the Holocene will end, or why it will end when it ends, or how long it will take to go from warm to cold conditions. We are pretty sure the Sun has a lot to do with all of this but we don’t know how, or whether or not it involves more than just the Sun. We cannot predict solar state decades in advance, let alone centuries, and don’t do that well predicting it on a timescale of merely years in advance. We cannot predict when or how strong the decadal oscillations will occur. We don’t know when continental drift will alter e.g. oceanic or atmospheric circulation patterns “enough” for new modes to emerge (modes which could lead to abrupt and violent changes in climate all over the world).
Finally, we don’t know how to build a faithful global climate model, in part because we need answers to many of these questions before we can do so! Until we can, we’re just building nonlinear function fitters that do OK at interpolation, and are lousy at extrapolation.
rgb
Kelvin Vaugn says
All the heat is being convected away from them towards the ceiling. The floor 6″ below the radiators is cold.
What can the problem be?
——–
The radiators are not aimed at the floor. So tilt them over a bit. Ensure the carpet is a dark colour, ensure the radiators are a dark colour, raise the temperature of the radiators.
For more radiator hints
– add a reflector
– paint the ceiling a dark colour so the ceiling warmed by the air re-radiates the heat down as IR.
tallbloke says: January 6, 2012 at 1:57 pm
“Arctic ice”
And so yet another potentially interesting thread is hijacked…
About time Gates had an enforced WUWT holiday IMO.
==============
So this is how to conduct a debate?
Gates is the only sceptic here amongst a sea of true believers (in anti-AGW)
Amazing!!
If anyone needs a holiday it is smokey who has said nothing but denigrating those of different views.
Amazing!
Dr Brown makes a very good point.
The energy radiated by the earth’s surface does not vary as not ((avg(temp)) ^ 4) as climate science teaches. It radiates as the (avg(temp ^ 4)), which is significantly higher. Fore example:
(AVG(2,4)) ^ 4 = 3^4 = 81 (what climate science teaches)
AVG (2^4,4^4) = AVG(16 + 256) = 136 (what physics says)
136-81 = 55 = A travesty of missing heat.
By averaging temperatures, climate science underestimates the amount of energy radiated by the earth’s surface, of the order of a couple of watts/m2 minimum. This error is in excess of the amount of the TOTAL heating attributed to CO2.
Thus, this is a likely reason that the climate models have done such a poor job of forecasting climate. The missing heat is not missing at all. It is a result of sloppy physics by climate science, and sloppy pal review by their cronies..
LazyTeenager says on January 6, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Could you point us to a link that provides some support for that claim?
Isn’t just possible that they have been sniffing the CAGW glue themselves? Indeed, isn’t it also possible that they understand natural cycles and that the Arctic has seen very low ice levels in the past?
OK, so it’s another biscuit for the troll, but here goes nothing…
LazyTeenager says: (January 6, 2012 at 6:31 pm ) “Exxon just paid 15% of the company based on less ice in the Arctic.”
You are reaching here young man.
The Exxon deal was based on the Russian government’s pledge to reform oil taxation and improve investment conditions for foreign oil companies.
Exxon plans to use ice-proof platforms that cost at least $15bn each and are able to withstand being struck by a 1 million ton iceberg.
I’m not seeing this as “based on less ice in the Arctic”.
R.Gates
“Climate models do not predict natural variability, as that is not their intent, nor is it even possible…”
So a sudden 15C drop like the Younger Dryas is of no concern to you and your models yet, 1C a century warming is catastrophic enough to saddle poor Hansen’s grandchildren with intermittent power, a Medieval economy and enough debt to make the entire world dream about the standard of living that might have been.
What good is a model that cannot see what naturally happens?
On WUWT, there have been several didactic posts like this one that combine to enhance knowledge by raising aspects pf physics and maths that might otherwise be glossed over. The more of them I read, the more complexity I see.
The human body is kept at a relatively constant temperature. There are many processes and cycles and feedbacks that achieve this. Some are repetitive, like heartbeat and respiration rate, but they can sometimes rise and fall in unison and sometimes not, they can change relative frequencies, one can change without the other – complexity. The dynamics of the various processes – there are more, such as perspiration, the content of some foods with toxins, some ailments like the common cold and medications like warfarin that change blood viscosity, clothing, body hair change, nearness to skin, thickness of body part ….. All of these, in some way, affect the body temperature. That is not even a comprehensive list.
When medical scientists can model the comprehensive causes of variation of human body temperature with high predictive ability, then I’ll start to take notice of climate modelling. Some might feel that the medical solution is more important than the climate one. I certainly do. Therefore, I resent funding being misdirected onto passing fads.
ferd berple says: January 6, 2012 at 7:35 pm
The energy radiated by the earth’s surface does not vary as not ((avg(temp)) ^ 4) as climate science teaches. It radiates as the (avg(temp ^ 4)), which is significantly higher. Fore example:
(AVG(2,4)) ^ 4 = 3^4 = 81 (what climate science teaches)
AVG (2^4,4^4) = AVG(16 + 256) = 136 (what physics says)
136-81 = 55 = A travesty of missing heat.
===========
Lets use some real figures -15C night 15C day (much greater than reality)
(I will not bother with your calcs as they are obviously wrong!!)
Convert to K (where zero is a real zero!
night=258
day=288
average 258+288=273
273^4=5554571841
average 258^4+288^4 = 5655236616
An error of 1.8% – i.e. an error bot not gross
CO2 plus CO2 = CO2
1C + 1C = 1C
R. Gates says:
January 6, 2012 at 12:50 pm
tallbloke says:
January 6, 2012 at 12:26 pm
The biggest problem we have in this debate is that the climate modelers actually believe the guff you are coming out with.
_____
Of course they believe it…their entire careers are based on the advancement of scientific knowledge,
————————————————-
LOL, Of course they believe it…their entire careers are based on procuring their next grant based on the post normal next predicted but never occuring disaster.. Their, fixed.
As far as useful predictions it is quit funny you choose one for industry that BENEFITED them, and not one of the endlessly predicted, always failed to materiale disaster senarios. However model predictions have zero to do with it. Decisions are observation based, not computer mode based, DUH. Now please tell me what disaster predicted by models has manifested.
Geoff Sherrington said @ur momisugly January 6, 2012 at 8:05 pm
“On WUWT, there have been several didactic posts like this one that combine to enhance knowledge by raising aspects pf physics and maths that might otherwise be glossed over. The more of them I read, the more complexity I see.
The human body is kept at a relatively constant temperature. There are many processes and cycles and feedbacks that achieve this. Some are repetitive, like heartbeat and respiration rate, but they can sometimes rise and fall in unison and sometimes not, they can change relative frequencies, one can change without the other – complexity. The dynamics of the various processes – there are more, such as perspiration, the content of some foods with toxins, some ailments like the common cold and medications like warfarin that change blood viscosity, clothing, body hair change, nearness to skin, thickness of body part ….. All of these, in some way, affect the body temperature. That is not even a comprehensive list.
When medical scientists can model the comprehensive causes of variation of human body temperature with high predictive ability, then I’ll start to take notice of climate modelling. Some might feel that the medical solution is more important than the climate one. I certainly do. Therefore, I resent funding being misdirected onto passing fads.”
That was rather well put Sherro 🙂
I am curious to know if the sunlight reflecting off of the moon and striking earth has been taken into consideration. I have seen moon lit nights that have been bright enough that I could read by the light of the moon. This has got to add up over the earths surface to a quantity of energy that I have never seen mentioned even once in my now multi-year climate science research.
By the way, I skip right over R Gates comments. I just don’t trust this person. (I skip “physisist” as well, for a different reason).
Frank K–
I didn’t know that having direct experience in working with climate models was a requirement to make a comment about them. If that’s the case, then about 99.9% of the comments about climate models need to be removed from WUWT. But I don’t think it is the case, but rather, I think you like to pick on “warmists” like me.
Agile Aspect says:
January 6, 2012 at 1:56 pm
“I can’t speak for your program, but I will stand by mine for correctly computing the ‘mean effective radiative
temperature’ of a massless gray body as a perfect radiator.”
I couldn’t get past the above enclosed statement since it’s riddled with contradictions.
First, you need to explain how a massless body can radiate with a continuous frequency distribution according to Planck’s Law at absolute zero (no temperature.)
Second, a gray body is one where the surface emissivity is independent of the wavelength and less than one. A perfect radiator has an emissivity equal to 1.
If you want to fiddle with Stefan-Boltzmann Law, you need to fiddle with the frequency distribution in Planck’s Law prior to integration. The only free parameters for SB Law are area and time.
>>>>
The entire quote was:
“I can’t speak for your program, but I will stand by mine for correctly computing the ‘mean effective radiative temperature’ of a massless gray body as a perfect radiator. Remember, there is no real temperature in such of an example for there is no mass. It takes mass to even define temperature. (but most climate scientist have no problem with it and therefore they are all wrong, sorry)”
You call yourself agile but I see no agility.
A perfect radiator does not need an emissivity equal to 1.0, it must only radiate instantly all it accepts, the remaining is reflected. Zero transmission in this case, we are speaking of a hypothetic Earth in this particular context.
The statement you quoted is not from Dr Brown, that is my statement that Dr Brown was quoting, and, being a physicist, he had already read all of my multiple comments and had interpreted them correctly it seems, and in context. There never was a claim of “radiating at zero K”, of course the back side of such a body without mass to store energy is at zero K and is in fact zero radiation. I was careful to term it as the ‘mean effective radiative temperature’ as climate science term it, no sense of mass involved, but they calculate it, and use it, anyway. The emissivity was not 1.0 but was included in the calculations of 0.955 that this statement was referring to.
More on, a gray body does not need “per frequency” analysis for it follows the Planck curve perfectly by definition thought not of full intensity per the emissivity.
No one is “fiddling” with Stefan-Boltzmann Law further than current climate science fiddles with it, well… that is not correct, it is usually used as a black body, not a gray body, and black bodies never occur in the this real universe. All applications of S-B in context were in fact applied correctly.
And above all, you even took that single sentence out of context. Shame!
Seems you are not too agile today Agile Aspect, you need to go way back and read what most here have already read and get a concept of this discussion, this time in context. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/30/feedback-about-feedbacks-and-suchlike-fooleries/
P.F. says:
January 6, 2012 at 9:02 am
Is there any doubt that WUWT is the hands-down best science blog on the Internet? One simply does not see this kind of insight and reason on any of the AGW/climate change sites.
——————————————————————————————-
the reason you see civil discourse and open science is Anthony allows the discussion to progress and simply learns from the points of view shared.. what science was meant to be… the other sites are driven by agenda…
a proud Climate Realist…
Refreshing to see a physicist assertively publicly challenging bad assumptions made either naively or deceptively (ugly, unacceptable, & trust-busting either way) by delinquent mainstream colleagues:
“The sanity checks suggest that one simply cannot assume that the Earth is a ball at some uniform temperature without making important errors” / “Are there candidates for this sort of a gun? Sure. Albedo, for one. […] An even better one is modulation of temperature distribution.”
And this is exactly what EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters) tell us empirically, so perhaps there’s something to this variant of physical abstraction, which is at sharp odds with the usual mainstream narratives which definitely don’t match the data.
I offer Dr. Brown 2 cautionary notes:
1. Don’t ignore land-ocean spatiotemporal contrasts.
2. Be aware that the major ocean gyres are wind-driven and that the thermal wind is driven by temperature contrasts.
Please see the climatology animations listed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/25/solar-terrestrial-power-update/#comment-843523
(I’ll add a 3rd cautionary note in the future. A majority of the community first needs to grasp cautionary note#2.)
Regards.
John Crane says:
January 6, 2012 at 7:56 pm
R.Gates
“Climate models do not predict natural variability, as that is not their intent, nor is it even possible…”
So a sudden 15C drop like the Younger Dryas is of no concern to you and your models yet, 1C a century warming is catastrophic enough to saddle poor Hansen’s grandchildren with intermittent power, a Medieval economy and enough debt to make the entire world dream about the standard of living that might have been.
What good is a model that cannot see what naturally happens?
______
Seems you are talking about many issues, and trying to blend the all together in to a happy whole that may actually not have any inherent relationships.
The Younger Dryas event is of exteme interest to climate research, as it was one strong indication of how quickly the climate can change, yet, as a “black swan’ event, involving the rapid tipping of the climate from one state to another, it is hardly “predictable” by any model. We can howeer, study the paleoclimate record for clues as to what precipitated such a “black swan” event. We know, for example, that the Younger Dryas oooling happened very rapidly…in a few years or less, far too rapidly for the slow but steady Milankovitch cycle to have directly caused it. A breaking of a large ice dam releasing a flood of fresh water that altered the ocean conveyor. Certainly possible. But whatever the cause, not predictable by climate models– no more than the eruption of Mt. Toba 70,000 years ago that nearly wiped out the human race.
As far as “saddling” Hansen’s grandchildren with a return to the dark ages, or reducing the standard of living for the world etc.– none of this will happen based on policies. Your fear is unfounded, though understandable as fear mongering is a great pasttime on all sides of the political spectrum. It’s a great way to get votes in times of change and uncertainty.
Finally, as far as models that cannot see what “naturally” happens– no model can predict “black swan” events, as they are inherently unpredictable, yet quite natural. You can’t predict when an earthquake will strike, or a meteor, or the breaking of a large ice dam, of a large CME, or when an La Nina will coincide with a quiet sun, etc. etc. etc. Yet these events happen naturally all the time on earth and across the cosmos and can radically alter the course of things. And even though models can’t tell us exactly when these events will happen, they can tell us what the potential effect might be.
George E. Smith; says:
January 6, 2012 at 6:00 pm
“Well I’m not quite sure what magic Dr Brown is revealing here. I don’t know how many times over the last ten years or so, I have pointed out both here at WUWT, and other climate discussion sites, such as Tech central Station (years ago), the importance of the effect of cyclic Temperatures, on raising (always) the effect of a cyclic Temperature over a steady Temperature.
If we write T as (T0 + t) or as T = T0 (1 +t/T0), then T^4 becomes:
T^4 =T0^4 [1 + 4t/T0 + 6(t/T0)^2 + 4(t/T0)^3 + (t/T0)^4 ]
If we now allow (t) to undergo any cyclic variation, such as a diurnal cycle, and we integrate T^4 over the full period of the cycle, then the integral over the cycle of the term 4t/T0 is zero, since T0 is the average Temperature, leaving us with T0^4{1 + 6(t/T0)^2]
Actually, if the Temperature cycle is repetitive, so we can represent the cycle as a fourier series of a fundamental and harmonic components, then ti willl be found that the inegral of the third power term is also zero, and in practical cases (t/T0)^4 is negligible compared to the second order term.”
>>
First George, thanks for clarifying that for me. I seem to seen where the crossover in the math occurs.
But you also said:
“Actually, if the Temperature cycle is repetitive, so we can represent the cycle as a fourier series of a fundamental and harmonic components, then ti willl be found that the inegral of the third power term is also zero, and in practical cases (t/T0)^4 is negligible compared to the second order term.”
Doesn’t the integral of third power term in the Fourier series mean it has no periodicy at all in time since it is zero and therefore is always present at all times. I didn’t understand your point there. To me that is exactly what Dr Brown is saying, this maximization of radiation as temperatures are separated to an ever increasing degree and does not depend on time (invariant in time), even if the body is revolving. As he, no magic, I see no cycles in this factor either.
Anyone want to lay odds (or design a model) on whether and when RG will have an epiphany during 2012 regarding the irrelevance of current and predicted co2 levels to the probability of mankind’s continued existence ???? To avoid issues with interstate gambling, a pool could be created using carbon credits.
WUWT needs to re-post another entry by Robert Brown from Tallbloke’s Talkshop : Beer Boiling and bypassing the Greenhouse.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/robert-brown-beer-boiling-and-bypassing-the-greenhouse/#more-4109
Steve Mosher and RG need to read it. Enthalpy and convection dominate the system, lifting the heat to the top of the troposphere where it is above 80% of the atmosphere and almost all of the CO2. There is no physical barrier to this convection created by CO2. The tropopause is where the radiative cooling kicks in, unimpeded by CO2. Assuming that CO2 is still 0.038%, 20% of that is a very small number. My understanding is that the stratosphere on up is mostly N, O, and H.
OK school me up.
Actually, R. Gates illustrates the danger with modeling. If the table is standing on a sloped floor/ground, then actual results may be the exact opposite of model predictions. The drop would run to the opposite edge. In this instance the consequences have no impact.
However, with reality, resources diverted to wrong action can be disastrous. Putting all research and mitigation towards warming, when severe cooling results, can cost lives and economies. As I have said before, humans are poor at discerning all reference planes, when assigning + or – values. We often get things ass-backwards. Gates would have us take actions when we don’t know the slope of the ground yet. Depraved indifference… I would say. GK
Just because you disagree with R. Gates would never be a reason to ban his posts on WUWT. From all appearances, Anthony does not ban posters who post different ideas than his. We will leave that for other sites to do.
R.Gates@10:01:
You are reading much more certainty into models than exists at present. You have admited that models do well in a static atmosphere. We do not live with a static atmosphere.
You understand that the models do not do well with the Younger Dyas. They do not do well with the warming of the early 20th century either. Nor, in fact, do they do well with past climatic type events.
The resolution of the current models is not even close to good enough to represent time scales of decadal, nor century time scales. They seem able to present an existing trend, but cannot delineate a change in that trend.
Prof Brown: Thank you for a very thought provoking article.
Also R. Gates:
The drop of water is never going to get to the edge of the glass as the film function of the water droplet will evaporate before it can make it.
The Arctic has been ice free for approx 4,000 years of the Holocene period.
The Arctic has had substantially less ice than present during 7,000 years of the Holocene period.
It would only make sense that companies know this, and will develop the Arctic, as the preponderance of evidence shows that haveing large quantities of ice is not the norm, but abnormal.