[Note: I don’t agree with everything Joe has said here 100%, but I provide his comment in full edited for punctuation and format and turning image links into images to further the discussion. – Anthony]
Guest post by Joe Bastardi
In response to the article in the Boulder Stand by Tom Yulsman:
I have responded at the newspaper with this, but I want readers here to see what I said back to them, so here is the response:
Just what is so mysterious about the Change in the Pacific ocean cycle to cold 3 years ago and this response globally:
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
So is the satellite lying?
Now let me ask you this.. If this is global warming, why is the March temp globally below normal:
http://policlimate.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom.png
The temp is above the red heat wave in the US and since the year began, why is it below normal?
http://policlimate.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_ytd_anom.png
IF YOU WERE IN ASIA, WOULD YOU BE TOUTING GLOBAL WARMING?
Okay lets look at this.. the correlation between temps and the oceanic cycles, we just[ came] out of the warm PDO and are going into the cycle we were in during the 60s and 70s
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/amopdoustemp.jpg
Now contrast that with the CO2 charts vs Temps during the leveling, and now the recent cooling:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-10-years.gif
Where is the IPCC trapping hot spot that was supposed to lead to the feedback that was supposed to cause the explosive warming? Educate yourself, don’t be lead to the slaughter like sheep
READ THIS: http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
Finally the IPCC 3 scenarios, CO2, and the actual temps… it is below their mid-point, below their bottom point and heading the other way:
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/overlayco2.png
So how the heck can you say it’s cherry picking when it fits perfectly with climate cycle theory that say the ocean cools, the air then cools above ( much like turning down a thermostat, the air in your house cools before surfaces do) THEN THE LOWEST LEVELS COOL?
This is right on target with forecasts made by Bill Gray years ago, since you are close to where Dr Gray is, why don’t you ask him, My forecast stands, made 4 years ago, that the cooling would start ( it has as you can see on the observed objective data) and by 2030 we are back to where we were in the late 1970s WHEN THE PACIFIC WAS ENDING ITS COLD CYCLE. Look for yourself at the PDO values below:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/PDO_latest.gif
We started objective measuring of temps via satellite in 1978, at the END OF THE COLD CYCLE.
Just what do you think is going to happen globally when the world’s number one source of energy, the tropical Pacific, warms? And when the Atlantic does too, it means the global temp rises as heat is a measure of energy. The continents warm and that in turn warms the arctic. However the turn to the opposite is starting now.. it is intuitive that the drop starts and it is. There is no tipping point, the IPCC panic forecast is busting and we are causing untold misery by tying up the life line of our economy over a ghost that will be proven to be a scam.
The idea that there is a well oiled machine is nonsense. I don’t ask anyone to trust me, just take an hour out of your day to read the other side of this issue and you will understand that people who are pushing this want you to believe its complex. Well it’s not. The sun, the oceans and to some extent, volcanic activity, far outstrip the ability of a “greenhouse” gas that is 400 times LESS PREVALENT than the number one greenhouse gas, water vapor, that occupies only .04% of the atmosphere, has a heavier specific gravity than air (1.5 to 1.) heats and COOLS faster than air and has different radiative properties.
Do you understand how small the odds of this having anything to do with the climate is?
And the screams of derision are coming because with the change in the ocean and even solar cycles, the major disconnect has started, showing CO2’s relationship to temperature is coincidental and all we need do, since we are nowhere near the tipping point, since RECORD COLD has been occurring in the very places the IPCC were going to be warm with the trapping hot spots, is watch the data, WITHOUT ADJUSTMENT, just the pure satellite data that I showed you above, that you can watch every day.
Going forward, the global temp will RISE back to above normal for a time over the next 3 months, but the drop will start again against the normals and when we look at this chart next year:
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
It will have had a lower spike down than this year.
That is the difference between me and these folks pushing this issue. I will make a forecast that you can see, right or wrong, over a definable period of time. I will ask you to read for yourself and test the ideas I have. Not simply ask you to follow like sheep to the slaughter.
Its your life, your country. At least look at the issues from all angles.
For the record, as I send this to WUWT, here is what they have under my comment, the only ones submitted.
I like it. What is there to disagree with?
Mixed feelings. I would really rather have a warmer world but I do not want the government told you sos in charge of my life. The fact that it is a cooling world should be recognized but the worry is that the government told you sos will regroup and begin telling us so with redoubled alarm ism. Blowing us up again with their newly begotten righteousness.
It’s funny how the warmists accuse us of cherry-picking when their “theory” falls apart in the absence of Goldilocks-picking.
All those people who froze to death in Europe over the last year may have wondered what a minor heat wave in the USA has to do with GLOBAL warming.
IF YOU WERE IN ASIA, WOULD YOU BE TOUTING GLOBAL WARMING?
===========================
At 12.7 degree celsius, Mumbai’s coldest ever March morning
Pratibha Masand, TNN Mar 11, 2012
Chicago actually covers most of the planet.
http://www.real-science.com/india-doesnt-count
It’s politics. The red area over North America covers most US voters.
Perhaps Anthony should put a disclaimer in the sidebar stating:
“Note: I don’t agree with everything guest bloggers on this site say.”
Otherwise you are implying that when you don’t write that, you DO agree with everything they say. Plus, writing your comment at the top of Joe’s article spins the reader to plan on being extra-skeptical about the article. That’s not fair to Mr. Bastardi.
Joe, everyone knows that the facts matter not a whit to the warmista’s or the media. Frustrating as hell, but that’s the way it is.
Joe Bastardi always shows his data and his methodology. He never hides anything. One can’t say that about the Climate Liars aka global warmers. Joe puts it all out there, afraid of nothing and willing to admit he’s wrong if his forecast fails. Unlike the Climate Liars Joe does real science. Keep up the great work Joe. Your many followers are proud of your integrity and honesty.
Thanks Anthony, whether we disagree or not on some things, always remember to me this is a big forecast, its about the weather, be it one day, month year or whatever. I feel the main drivers of all this are the oceans, with the sun playing a bigger role in coming years than it has because of the change in its cycles, Volcanoes are a wild card.
My belief on co2 has evolved so that while I am not one of the theologians arguing over how many angels you can stick on a head of needle, I do not believe it a factor worth the fight. The heat capacity of air next to water is very small. In addition the amount of the atmosphere with co2 is only .04% and increase of 1.5 parts per million a year, of a gas that an increasing number of learned people believe is incapable of doing what it is purported to do, especially since water vapor is 400 times more prevalent and has different physical capacities makes me believe that this is a red herring.. By attacking the source of the debate, you would simply rip the feet out from under those that will resort to anything to keep their agenda going.
But consider this. The policies being forced fed down your throat and mine, are based on a gas that increases 1.5 ppm a year, of which according to a DOE study in 2004 man contributes 5%. Of that the US contributes 10%. This of a greenhouse gas that is 1/400th the amount of water vapor, of a global energy system in which the ocean is far more important. I will use a graphic that you apparently did not disagree with , since it was from this wonderful arcticle
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/energy-content-the-heat-is-on-atmosphere-vs-ocean/
and now the graphic
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/atmosphere-vs-ocean-heat-capacity.jpg
Now I want you to ask yourself, given what we know about heat, as a measure of energy, do you really think that co2 can possibly have anything to do with this.. It is acting on something that is tiny compared to the whole system. The disconnect proves the point, earths temps have leveled off in response the the fact that once the amo and pdo became warm in tandem in the mid 90s, there could be no more heat added from ocean to air, since the oceans had warmed to their max Responses to the el nino and la nina in the global temps are for all intents and purposes , one to one with the air temperature ( there is a lag, but the mid levels cool first as we have seen..or warm) then the response below. I dont know how much more plain it can be. In the coming years I have my forecast out. But for this year, lets test me again. I said last May the La nina was not done, because as D Aleo has pointed out, in a cold PDO they last an average of 21 months. The el ninos 9 months, It is, as I argued with Bill Nye when he tried to pull Venus into the argument and some oil in water experiment A SIMPLE TEST OVER THE THE NEXT 20 TO 30 YEARS. A cooling planet in relation to the flip in the PDO then AMO is the forecast. I am being conservative saying we will return to the late 1970 as measured by satellite. With the solar cycles, which some believe have a greater weight, and the wild card, volcanic activity, perhaps the little ice age theories are right.
3 years ago when I introduced the triple crown of cooling ( summer 08) on OReilly the left attacked with the same vitriol they are with the fact I am saying co2 has nothing to do with this and my reasons. I will not stand by, when my forecast is right ( bad enough when they are wrong) and yield an inch to them on this matter either. This will be proven to be a hoax and a scam by people who refused to look at the other side of the matter for fear of their believe system being challenged. There is a name for this, its called the Dunning-Krueger effect
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved-primate/201006/when-ignorance-begets-confidence-the-classic-dunning-kruger-effect I suspect the piece identifying the legs of the triple crown of cooling hit them hard, and if its understood that co2 can not cause warming, they would be cooked. Even if they did cook the books, they could not blame man
And by the way, while my Fox hits get me attacked, no one seems to have read Hasif Nahle’s defense of my assertion that this gas can not cause climate change ( or is it warming.. or disruption I cant keep up with it)
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Joe_Bastardi_is_Correct.pdf
As for the squabble in our ranks, in the end we will find out who is right. My take is co2 has nothing to do with climate, at least not worth arguing over and certainly not worth starving mans greatest chance for freedom, the US, to death over. So what are we going to do if it does cool argue it would have cooled more if no co2 ( which by the way is interesting since co2 heats and COOLS faster than air. This is like theologians arguing over how many angels you can stick on the head of a needle
I leave you with the words of Thoreau: The sum of all our fictions, add up to a joint reality.
I am confident that the data and truth will prove my forecast to be reality, not fiction
thanks again for giving me a forum, and even if you dont agree with me on some things, you are still one of my heroes!
I wish to hell everybody would send me what they’ve written so I could proofread it for errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and proper word usage – or send it to Willis Eschenbach, who seems to always be able to get things right…! I hardly ever read a post here (or anyplace else, including major publications, for that matter) that is not rife with ridiculous errors. How can anybody expect to be taken seriously if they write like a sixth-grader? (Rant over)
It’s the first winter in my ~20 years in New England that I’ve been able to ride my motorcycle just about any time I please. We had a wicked, heavy snowstorm in October 11 that took down a lot of trees and did considerable damage. Since then we’ve had maybe one or two snow events of an inch or so. Heck, I’ve put the screens in my windows and have had fresh air flowing through my house, day AND night, for a couple of weeks now–in MARCH in NEW ENGLAND. It’s WONDERFUL.
To put this in context, last winter I shoveled my driveway so many times that the berms of snow on either side got too high for me to throw more snow over–about 8′ (well over 2 meters) high. I finally went to a neighbor and told him that if he let me borrow his snowblower, which can easily throw snow much higher and farther than can I with a shovel, I would clean off both my driveway AND his, and return the machine with a full tank of gas. Deal made, and I was grateful for it.
I much prefer this more leisurely, warmer winter clime. 😉 One of these days I’ll have to take the time to compare last year’s winter heating costs to this year’s. No doubt I’ve saved a bundle.
Warm is much, much better than cold.
blogagog says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:42 pm
“Perhaps Anthony should put a disclaimer in the sidebar stating:
“Note: I don’t agree with everything guest bloggers on this site say.”
Otherwise you are implying that when you don’t write that, you DO agree with everything they say.”
I disagree. Counting on the readers intelligence does not always fail. It depends a lot on the audience, though.
If I think of temperature as analogous to voltage, I see two big capacitors (ie blocking highs) on that map. One is holding a positive charge east of the Rockies against a negative charge in Alaska. Those charges appear to be about the same size and strength. The other cap (blocking high) is holding a positive charge in the Arctic against a negative charge in Siberia. (The Arctic positive is wildly exaggerated by the Mercator map, and is probably due to one or two stations anyway.)
In a real circuit we wouldn’t say the whole circuit was positive just because one of the positive plates was more visible or more noisy than the rest of the circuit. We shouldn’t do that for temperature either just because one of the hot spots contains lots of visible and noisy people.
Anthony, as per first comment; what’s there to significantly disagree with? The data is there, it shows what it shows and is seemingly ignored; swept under the table; or massaged and merged into other forms – but it’s still there!
Sure, I don’t believe the post can cover all the issues, but I think it’s an excellent basic reference for some folk to try and grasp how to read the ‘data’ instead of reading the newspapers! I’d respectfully suggest more illustration/annotation on the graphs to aid interpretation though – such as big red arrows pointing to highlighted areas, etc (you’d be amazed how many folk don’t know where Asia is!)
The well-oiled machine is Climate Central, Inc. From http://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do/funding/ Since its start in 2008, the following foundations, government agencies, and institutions have provided funding for Climate Central:
Changing Horizons Fund of the Rockefeller Family Fund
Flora Family Foundation
Foundation for Environmental Research
Google.org
Island Foundation
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
NASA Headquarters
NASA Langley
National Institutes of Health via Johns Hopkins University
National Science Foundation via Columbia University
National Science Foundation via George Mason University
NOAA CICS (Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites) via North Carolina State University
Northrup Grumman
Peter T Paul Foundation
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation via Pepperwood Preserve
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Saul D Levy Foundation
The David & Lucille Packard Foundation
The Dixon Family Fund
The Robert & Ellen Gutenstein Foundation
The Schmidt Family Foundation
Town Creek Foundation
Turner Foundation, Inc.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Department of Energy
University of Tennessee
The Winslow Foundation
The World Bank via The Nature Conservancy
I’ve been meaning to ask about this little gem that I found , According to NOAA , February was the ” 22nd warmest ” on record . Yet , upon reading the article , this appears to be somewhat misleading in light of the fact that they go on to state that Feb. was the coldest since 1994 . Can anyone shed some light on this ? What do you think , Joe ?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc
Owen says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:46 pm
+1
Cherry picking by picking a day of a current warm spell to run a story like this is still cherry picking.
I do like cherry pie though. There was that cherry tree in a church parking lot in Pittsburgh around 1970. I didn’t nibble as I picked, but when I got home I washed the cherries, my clothes, and myself. Then they tasted pretty good!
Typo dept. You missed a couple. No surprise, I’m sure.:
we just cam out of the warm PDO
we are no where near the tipping point
““In a long-term trend that has been found to be inconsistent with natural variability alone, daily record-high temperatures have recently been outpacing daily record-lows by an average of 2-to-1, and this imbalance is expected to grow as the climate continues to warm. According to a 2009 study, if the climate were not warming, this ratio would be expected to be even.”
It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to write a piece criticizing others for cherry picking and then to base your argument on an even more blatant cherry pick. The warministas have been trotting out the high-low record ratio for some time, and while it is technically correct, it disregards the fact that over the longer run the total number of both have been declining.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/16/hall-of-record-ratios/
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_b5jZxTCSlm0/Sv31ZY99ioI/AAAAAAAAD38/zHZkCLYg590/s1600-h/image017.png
This March has definitely been the warmest in my more than six decades of life here in southern Minnesota, but last year at this time I still had three feet of snow in my front yard, so I’d say it’s a little early to be declaring a trend. Personally, if this kind of Spring was to become typical, the only real downside I can see is that I’ll be stuck mowing my lawn for a couple of extra months every year. Although this warm spell is highly unusual it has produced one even more unprecedented phenomenon. In all my encounters with my fellow Minnesotans in this month of March I haven’t had a single one utter the least complaint about the weather and that is absolutely unique.
Better git with the program, folks. CAGW, Global Warming, Climate Change are so last year. ‘Sustainable Development’ is the new all encompassing paradigm. Very ‘touchy/feely’ . CO2? Fagidaboutit.
What matters is money and political influence. Yet more pathological pursuit of an impossible Utopia.
polistra says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:53 pm
That’s not a Mercator projection, it would be infinitely tall. Sorry – hot button of mine.
I forgot to add one other thing to my comment above. The notion that the ratio of high to low records should normally be equal seems to be utter nonsense based on any data that I’ve encountered.
“we just cam out of the warm PDO” – needs an “e”
It looks fair to say that Climate Central receives government money, do they receive grants (simple benevolently-given sums of money to be spent as they see fit), or do they perform work for specifically ‘let’ contracts I wonder?
.
Absolutely clear, thanks Joe. Cycles cycles cycles cycles (ad infinitum).
Global is global unless it is against the consensus trend, in which case regional is more representative of global than global. As sea-ice extent is falling, except when it is rising which is just a temporary glitch until it is falling again.
Weather is not climate except for those times that the weather characteristics are the same as climate.
Unfortunately Joe, lord monkton disagrees with you, as does Lindzen, as does Christy, as does Spencer, as does Singer.
1. The heat capacity of air has nothing to do with the effect of GHGs. GHGs operate by SLOWING the escape of radiation back to space.
2. The % of C02 is misleading. yes water vapor is the dike holding back most of the radiation from reaching space. The “holes” in the dike are small. The ‘fingers’ that are working to plug the holes
are small relative to the whole dike, but they have an effect nevertheless.
3. The science and physics you dont believe ( radiative physics ) is actually used to give you
the weather satillite data you rely on. Yup, climate science code produces the very images
you interpret. You probably didnt know that. To actually derive satellite images you have to
apply Theory to the sensor output. That theory is called radiative physics. That theory says you are wrong. That same theory is used to design the cell phone you use. Does it work?
http://www.climatecentral.org/about/people-bio/heidi_cullen
How many of us have forgotten where Heidi Cullen ‘landed’?
Bracketed [additions] mine.
.
Pete:
Sorry about mis spelling Nasif I pushed an H rather than the N
And sorry that I put together responses in 10 minutes that make me seem like 6th grader. I got an A in English 117 at PSU , technical writing, but believe me, with working 12-16 hours a day, 7 days a week as we are a start up, is much different from having 2 weeks to prepare a 1000 word paper in those days in college, it was easy to make sure I had everything right ( A girlfriend that was an English Major helped too).
I do agree with Pete though, but sometimes ( even now I am preparing forecast for clients) I am rushed. Last night, I fired this off at 12:15 am as I was working up until then and the letter came to my attention then.
If its any consolation, my dad, who graduated from A and M in 1965 with a degree in meteorology, gets my writings from my mom ( she prints them out), and corrects them, There are boxes of red inked writings in our house. My defense is I just have to get information out as quickly as possible, and that is my goal. Rest assured that if I had 10 days to prepare a thousand word missive, I would do better. Since my wife doesnt read my writings, I would have my dad edit it and it would be the Kings English.
Point well taken though, Pete.. will try to be a little better ( cant promise it)
cheers
P Walker says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:09 pm
There are several things going on that can explain this, some that come to mind immediately:
1) With the switch to the negative PDO, global temperatures have peaked and are beginning to fall. This is a good time to look for parkas on sale, at least in the eastern US. Get a warm one.
2) The comparison is to the 20th century record. I believe GISS has had a hand in this, at least for US temps, and they’re well known for adjusting past temperatures cooler. I thought I had accurate measurements back then. Heck, I still have a Taylor max/min thermometer I bought in the late 1970s that still seems to work fine.
3) Climatologists used to compare climate to the previous 3 decades, so every 10 years people would produce a new “normal.” These days it looks like people are looking for a time period that shows the preferred anomaly. At least folks like Roy Spencer have a good reason to use the first 30 years or so of the satellite record in their comparisons.
4) Looking at data that old starts getting to the point where the comparison is showing the continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age – note these comparisons reflect on both the past and the present. I like Sunichi Akasofu and others have developed nice models showing a 60 periodic change with a linear increase that is suggested to be the LIA recovery.
I must admit that I agree with the idea that ocean oscillations hold the basics of global warming and cooling.
The Pacific ocean is huge and certainly must have a greater effect on global temps.
Here is NOAAs reconstruction of the PDO over the last 1,000 years and shows incredible extremes from hundreds of years of cool phase to warm phase in the early centuries of the graph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO1000yr.svg
Just think of the super cyclones on the eastern Australian coast and flooding rains for hundreds of years, plus the mega droughts in the western USA as well.
Then a reversal of that change to a warmer phase of the PDO for 150+ years. If this graph is accurate we certainly enjoy a more desirable climate today than humans experienced over much of this record. BTW all those early climate extremes were NATURAL and much more extreme than todays mild climate.
But what does this graph say about the MWP and the LIA I wonder?
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
“2. The % of C02 is misleading. yes water vapor is the dike holding back most of the radiation from reaching space.”
Bad analogy. That would be a leaky dike, as gaseous H2O molecules, just like CO2 molecules, absorb and re-emit IR photons, so 50% of them reach space.
Very good post Joe, as usual. You were certainly right about this upcoming heat wave, and the fact that the alarmists would use it as propaganda, and I hope you’re right about the potential for snow in the northeast in April, it sure would leave them speechless. I personally prefer warming over cooling any day, as you said, “It takes more energy to warm up than it does to cool down.” I’d like to see this winter very cold and snowy, just so the global warming alarmists wont have anything to say, but I’m sure they’d find some reason. What is also intriguing is the fact that the US has been quiet in terms of hurricane activity over the last several years, with areas like Florida not being struck since Wilma in 2005, sure isn’t what the AGW alarmists expected back in 2007. I personally think you dont need another 20-30 years to prove your point, we already have an abundant amount of data to support our claims, whereas the other side of the issue uses ALL extreme weather events, manipulated computer models, and adjusted satellite temperatures, anything extra is ‘icing on the cake’.
Quick question for Joe! Who won the bet Joe? Remember you had a bet going last year with the UK Met Office as regards prediction for global temps in 2011? I guess you lost that one!? Is it posponed to this year…the same bet? I would be very keen to know, as the UK Met O is unashamedly stating that its mild spring forecast is due to global warming! Please remind us all how your predictions have measured up over the last year or so….!
I liked this methodical article. As the first comment says, what’s there not to like about this fine argument? Joe puts out all the data and shows his arguments. He reveals the cherry picking, what is ignored or swept under the carpet, what is massaged or merged away.
It’s excellent as a reference for grasping how to see the data instead of relying on the propaganda in the newspapers. From the propaganda, one would believe that Mid-West America covered 90% of the World and Asia was a small off-shore island.
You are a man “after my own heart” Mr. Bastardi. – You go by the data available which is all anyone can do. – To those who “believe” Global temperatures to be proportional to Atmospheric CO2 content, all I can say is: “Show me the evidence.” – Oh and; “theories won’t do – never mind how good they are”
I would like this concept of ‘photons’ explained; in my world, there is EM (Electro-Magnetic) energy which can be described by frequency/Wavelength/Wavenumber, and magnitude as measured in a plane wave by a Volts/Meter figure, or a flux density measurement such as Watts/cm2.
If you change your perspective to EM (electric and magnetic rather than another particle e.g. ‘photon’) energy, many of the concepts become clearer, especially if you consider it is the wiggling/vibrating molecules like H2O and CO2 which have unequal distribution of ‘charge’ exposed to the outside world and the known vibrational modes with that exposed moving charge is what ‘radiates’ IR (and microwave) EM energy in a ‘wave’ in the various known bands …
Key words here would be: IR Spectroscopy. Many reasonable references on the web explaining all this.
.
On the subject of cherry picking did something change in the way they are picked in 2,001?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
I understand the laboratory results about the effect of CO2 in relation to the aspect of upward dwelling long wave radiation; however, the question remains to be satisfactorily answered concerning those findings being extrapolated to complex planetary phenomena with a high degree of accuracy.
Engineers can design great systems only to discover later that things did not quite pan out as expected due to an unknown factor. The Titanic disaster comes to mind.
_Jim says:
March 25, 2012 at 3:20 pm
“I would like this concept of ‘photons’ explained; in my world, there is EM (Electro-Magnetic) energy which can be described by frequency/Wavelength/Wavenumber, and magnitude as measured in a plane wave by a Volts/Meter figure, or a flux density measurement such as Watts/cm2. ”
A photon is a quantum of EM radiation. More about absorption and re-radiation, and vibrating / oscillating modes of molecules here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/
Reply to Ben
They had .44 according to the running mean they use ( 1961-1990) and so I had to translate that to my forecast which would be .22 ( I believe that is the difference in the latest 30 years and theirs, which I cant trust since its part satellite and part non satellite. I wish they would just come along into the satellite era, as its more objective). I believe they said it was .34 which would mean it was closer to theirs than mine, if that is the number, and I am not going to argue with them. If I have to go against them, they I have to use their results. They also said 3 of the 6 years would be the hottest on record 2010-2015. Well this year I have it at . 24 against their means, which would mean the push is .29. I needed to adjust for whatever it is they are doing, and since last year was around -.34, I figure this year I have to be smart about it.after all if its colder I win anyway
by the way , if the frontier research model is right, its actually colder than normal
Here is the confusion though and why this is a bit shady. Global temps against latest 30 year means are about -.14 for the year. But for their period is liable to be anywhere from plus .7 to plus .11. who the heck really knows.
I wish we can just use the past 30 years, but if I am going to play its got to be on their terms, with their figures, I will have to make an adjustment for what I think is a warm bias and take .24
Again, one of the interesting things here is we have several different measuring agencies and then there is the matter of the rewrites, always adjusting temps now up. If it had been .01 colder I would have scored it a wash. In any case the temp from last year fell, and I think it will do so this year as this graphic will find another low point next fall or winter
keep in mind there is another debate here. first of all the global temps did cool from the year before and if I am right and I guess them too it cools, or at least their forecast is lower than it was for last year. That means that they will have to get 3 of the following 4 to be the hottest year ever.
The big picture is cooling is underway. Since they believe it will get warmer, shouldnt they be giving me odds ( ha ha)
JB
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
as you can see by eyeballing the forecast I had last year against these means was not bad
@Pete Olson: I second your rant. I just think you are being unfair to some sixth graders, who probably write better than many who post here. How can I accept that which can not be expressed? Still, WUWT is the only game in town.
Tom Yulsman talks of cherry picking then goes on to pick a few himself. Tom, if you are reading this then please note that climate is 30 years or more according to the WMO and IPCC. Now read the following and you will realise that despite global warming we have not yet seen any worsening trends. It’s all arm waving, wash, rinse repeat. It’s not working.
Floods, extreme weather events, global precipitation, rate of sea level rise, weird weather, forest fires
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/25/the-end-is-near-for-faith-in-agw/#comment-690783
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/#comment-689783
Steve Mosher, I’m not sure Joe “denies” the CO2 radiative component, he states that it is insignificant and not worth arguing about.
The warmies would be cackling … we’re still arguing about the micro-effect of CO2, and they’ve moved on to “sustainable development”. Get with the program, the main game has moved on … they know that CO2 is b-all.
Tom Yulsman, we can all pick cherries. What did you make of the killer cold winter in Europe earlier this year? Is this a sign of something or other? Is it a sign of global cooling? Nahhhhh. Is it a sign of global warming? ………..[fill with preferred cherries]………..
It’s cherries all the way down…………
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
“1. The heat capacity of air has nothing to do with the effect of GHGs. GHGs operate by SLOWING the escape of radiation back to space.
2. The % of C02 is misleading. yes water vapor is the dike holding back most of the radiation from reaching space. The “holes” in the dike are small. The ‘fingers’ that are working to plug the holes
are small relative to the whole dike, but they have an effect nevertheless..”
So Steven as CO2 molecules scatter (absorb and almost immediately re-emit) the 3 very narrow bands of IR that they are sensitive to, and we are talking about CO2 in the troposphere from the surface to say 40,000 ft (say 8 miles). How long even if it bounces about a little would a photon of IR take to travel that 8 miles say a hundred times at the speed of light? Ohh around 4 thousandths of a second (assuming that it bounces all the way to the troposphere and back each time). WOOOOO what a really LONG delay that CO2 causes to IR — 4 thousandths of a second and then its out to space. That is really “slowing the escape back to space”!. Of course, as pointed out above, a little over 50% of the time the radiation is re-emitted towards space . But lets give you the climatology benefit of the doubt and say 4 thousandths of a second.
Now water vapor can absorb and carry the heat as latent heat giving it up higher in the atmosphere when it cools. Look at the GOES East http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/natl/flash-rb.html where you can see all the radiation from the water vapor in the weather fronts. Note this is IR (heat) radiation NOT temperature.
Water vapor raises the enthalpy of the atmosphere allowing the atmosphere to hold more heat without increasing its temperature. It just so happens that atmospheric humidity has been dropping so the enthalpy of the atmosphere has been dropping – so the same amount of heat will make the atmospheric temperature higher. So perhaps there is no heat being trapped at all – perhaps all we are seeing is the effect of a drop in atmospheric enthalpy.
Try to rework the AGW hypothesis using the correct metric _heat content_ ideally using the oceans, and the hypothesis is falsified
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
“Tom, ever wonder why the earths temps spike after el ninos and fall after la ninas?” – Joe Bastardi
GHGs operate by SLOWING the escape of radiation back to space.
Steve Mosher says above.
How does this square with Willis E’s back radiation heats the surface causing warming?
That EPA petition ad is wasted here.
Sorry, ‘quanta’ is not applicable here.
You *do* know we aren’t talking electrons jumping/changing orbitals here, with a corresponding release or store of energy, don’t you?
Do you want me to show how Maxwell et al equations come into play here (the IR rad and re-rad)?
Each of these molecules represents a small dipole (literally: two-pole) element, meaning, two different charges. And the are oscillating/vibrating or capable of vibrating. It’s how antennas operate (moving charges whose velocity changes at a sinusoidal rate, or in the case of a molecule, the charges comprising the molecule are literally moved and moving, as the molecule either stretches or twists or torsions .. or vibrates in some manner such that the charges are made to move.)
When we speak of EM radiation we do not speak of photons, or quanta; the quanta is infinitively variable. This might be where a lot of ppl ‘go wrong’ on this too. Thinking about the 1S and 2P orbitals jumps etc and that being the ‘photon’ (a known and fixed quantity of energy) release or gain …
It is really quite elementary.
.
The 12 easy steps to understanding physics of the minor, but important, GHG effect.
1. The ‘motion’ of Electrons and Protons can be affected by externally applied electric and magnetic fields. Computer CRTs are an example with the electron beam forced towards the phosphor-coated screen by more or less ‘static’ electric field all the while under the back and forth influence of a dynamic magnetic field from the deflection cols (called ‘the yoke’ in the trade).
2. Conversely, when Electrons or Protons move, they create ‘fields’ and then perhaps (propagated) ‘waves’ as well. Electromagnets and antennas are examples.
3. Molecules, such as CO2 and H20 are comprised of atoms the components of which are Protons and Electrons (we ignore the Neutron). This is elementary; consult any HS text for a refresh.
4. Many molecules such as O2 (and even CO2 and H2O) have specific mechanical resonances, at specific frequencies (or wavelengths if one prefers).
5. These mechanical resonances are like miniature tuning forks. The vibrational modes get a little intricate and differ from molecule to molecule on account of the ‘atomic relationship’ of the member atoms.
6. During these vibrational modes, certain ‘member’ atoms can move more than others, and some ‘parts’ are electrically charged … referring to 2. above this will create a ‘field’.
7. Should a particular frequency EM field pass by a resonant molecule, the molecule, like a resonant dipole antenna will ‘pick up’ (the field will induce into the molecule) energy from the passing field .. refer to 1. above.
8. The actual resonant frequencies of resonant molecules is affect by pressure; this means more collisions between atoms, and sometimes vibrational energy can be absorbed in a collision while sometimes energy is given off. ‘Broadening of spectral lines’ is the basic effect.
9. Any vibrational modes amount to ‘stored energy’,
10. Said ‘stored’ energy is also continually being re-radiated (refer to 2. above) in basically all directions (any given molecule will have a given radiation pattern, but in the aggregate among all randomly oriented molecules this yields an ‘omni’ directional pattern).
11. A increased amplitude ‘Vibrational mode’ (no matter how arrived at) amounts to a ‘higher temperature’ locally.
12. From insolation (incoming sunlight), to heating of the earth’s surface, some convective heating of the air near the surface (consult a meteorology text; the MAJORITY of the heating of the air is in the boundary layer), to radiation of LWIR from the earth’s surface, some LWIR is captured’ (excites or is EM induced into) various GHG molecules e.g. CO2 and H2O … and that ‘captured’ EM energy is re-radiated in all directions, *including, and this is very important: BACK to earth … some term this ‘back radiation’, perhaps after the close radio term, ‘back-scatter’ (as used in RADAR to identify energy ‘reflected’ or scattered off a target).
And so there you have it.
The 12 easy steps to understanding the minor but important (as to moderating the surface temperature) GHG effect.
.
blogagog says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Lame try and no cigar. The fact that Anthony publishes something on WUWT does not mean that he endorses it. The fact that Anthony endorses something on WUWT means that he endorses it.
Joe: Let me be honest. I’m Mr. Layman and I care about this issue. But most people i know, if not all, don’t care. There is risk their eyes will glaze over even though to you and i it’s all gripping stuff and pretty chisled down as it is. Simplfy it and keep it madenningly Twitter-text Ipod-Byte sized. The simple unvarnished truth will always appeal to those who take 5 minutes (or less) to look at this issue.
IMHO.
Pete Olson says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:48 pm
I wish to hell everybody would send me what they’ve written so I could proofread it for errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and proper word usage….. How can anybody expect to be taken seriously if they write like a sixth-grader? (Rant over)
_______________________________________
HMMmmm Same rant as my Peter (Physicist/tech writer)
I am sorry Pete, but the days of handing a paper over to a secretary to proof and type are long over. Now we are stuck with the result of no real training in English and no way to correct mistakes in WordPress. (me included, but at least my spelling is getting a bit better.)
“The fact that Anthony publishes something on WUWT does not mean that he endorses it. The fact that Anthony endorses something on WUWT means that he endorses it.”
The idea of an open debate and friendly discussion among people who have real disagreements is very hard for some people to understand. Why would you publish something you disagree with? Shouldn’t everyone follow the Real Climate model?
So a little care is in order. Especially In these days when we see even comments on blogs sometimes trumpeted as the words and ideas of the blogger himself (and appropriate “blame” assigned). For most people it’s clear, but for the uber-pedantic out there, who need everything explained to them, an occasional explanation is sometimes required. Lest a debilitating case of the vapors ensue.
We are blessed on a regular basis to read the well-written essays and thoughts of Anthony, the Bishop, the Steve M’s and Joanna Nova on climate on a regular basis. For many years, I also have enjoyed the writings of Joe Bastardi for the passion, in-depth explanations of weather patterns and his abundance common sense on matters of climate. I would rather have Joe’s thoughts, dashed off quickly for our benefit, than miss out on what he has to say because we are too lazy to read it because the spelling is not perfect and the paragraphs run on too long. Keep it coming, Joe. You’re awesome. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and wisdom with us.
Wake me up when a climate model actually predicts something accurately.
(And I’m not talking about the surface temperature records which have been changed so much that they aren’t real anymore, but let’s say the lower troposphere satellite records).
I like the grayscale that represents the range of.5 to 3.5 degrees of warming, and the blue scale that represents the range -.5 to -4.5 degrees of cooling. Touché.
(You might want to adjust your color settings to give a better representation.)
The idea that atmospheric temperature is “climate” is absurd.
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
That theory is called radiative physics. That theory says you are wrong. That same theory is used to design the cell phone you use. Does it work?
Yet another very telling “drive by” response from you, Mosher, when the real question is not whether cell phones and the various thermometers work or cause cancer, but Do the CO2 = CAGW hypotheses work? The proven answer is “no”, and you have actually highlighted this answer by failing to mention even one example of a relevant prediction the radiative CO2 = CAGW “hypotheses” have got right.
So perhaps it’s time for you to turn your own wondrous forensics upon yourself? Lest someone think you are missing something?
Jim –
“When we speak of EM radiation we do not speak of photons, or quanta; the quanta is infinitively variable. This might be where a lot of ppl ‘go wrong’ on this too. Thinking about the 1S and 2P orbitals jumps etc and that being the ‘photon’ (a known and fixed quantity of energy) release or gain …”
Sorry, but quanta and photons can certainly be used to describe the situation. Whether one describes EM radiation as a photon or a wave depends upon what bests suits his/her purposes.
Electrons of an atom are not the only things that absorb and radiate quanta of energy, more commonly referred to as photons.
Photons with specific energies will be absorbed by a molecule if this energy is equal to the difference between the energy levels; this is when the frequency of the IR radiation matches the vibrational frequency of the molecule. Before absorption of the incident photon the molecule is in the ground state. After absorption the molecule is in an excited vibrational state but still in the ground state of the electronic energy level. Of course the molecule does not remain in this excited state forever. The energy absorbed by a molecule is rapidly dissipated: it will be transformed into kinetic energy as result of collisions or released again as a photon.
Molecules irradiated with a whole range of IR frequencies are only capable of absorbing radiation energy at certain specific frequencies which match the vibration frequencies of the molecule. The energy absorbed by a molecule is rapidly dissipated. The excited molecule loses its energy in less than 10-6 seconds. The energy is either transformed into kinetic energy as result of collisions or released again as photon. The direction of the emitted photon is random.
While ‘back-scatter’ may slow the cooling down of a warm body, it cannot increase the warmth of the body. There is a very big difference in a body maintaining a temperature for a short-time longer and a body increasing in temperature. Otherwise, it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Temperature highs are more common in cities world wide thanks to UHI.
JPeden says:
March 25, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
That theory is called radiative physics. That theory says you are wrong. That same theory is used to design the cell phone you use. Does it work?
“Yet another very telling “drive by” response from you, Mosher”
=====================================================
Mosh has resorted to a form of “guerilla warfare” to try and get his point across.
See here…
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-climate-wars/
….and scroll down to the comment on March 2nd. at 10:28pm for confirmation.
Joe, keep up the good work! There is merit to being sincere, and being correct while being sincere.
Your passion for the truth is good.for all of us.
Anyone having lived a part of their life in Pennsylvania has to spend a considerable effort trying not to sound like they have spent part of their life in Pennsylvania – to little effect. Residents of small communities and graduates of individual high schools can be identified by words and phrases, spelling and grammar, and other such things. That Joe writes as he talks and talks as though from Pennsylvania is one of his endearing characteristics. Me – I was born and raised in Clarion County and will suggest the critics of Joe’s style go jump in a crick.
Its all that hot air coming from the twin cities of New York and Washington affecting half of North America.
Note: I don’t agree with everything Joe has said here 100%, but I provide his comment in full edited for punctuation and format and turning image links into images to further the discussion.
Which is one of the reasons WUWT has more (and better-informed) readers than Brand CAGW…
Bring a sweater it’s Slow out side!
Inspired by the following quote.
“Have you ever wondered how humans would be different if they had evolved from lizards instead of mammals? As you know! Lizards cold blooded animals lack the ability to sense temperature but they do move more sluggishly when it’s cold, so, lizard weathermen would say things like, bring a sweater it’s Slow out side!” ~Sheldon Cooper.
On the one hand I see James Delingpoles’ brilliant writing being ridiculed because he isn’t a scientist and Joe Bastardis’ science being ridiculed because he isn’t a brilliant writer.
Did that come out right?
Many years ago, in elementary grade school, I was ridiculed because I had the worst score on a spelling test of the names of my fellow students. I did go on to graduate from high school with honors as well as receiving an award for being a brilliant drafting student, the best of the entire school. I once retrieved one of my drafting assignments from the garbage, where I had tossed it, ironed it out and taped the corners back on and submitted it and got a mark of 49 out of 50. I have kept that drawing as a reminder (I actually keep everything as I am a pack rat).
I am still terrible at spelling peoples names.
_Jim says:
March 25, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Thanks for those 12 steps Jim, my beef is you left out the platform from which the whole kit and kaboddle starts from. The Sun.
It is the heat of the surface that drives temperature that regulates atmospheric gases and their level of illumination. It is not the capacity of CO2 that drives its temperature, it is the Sun.
Moreover, the force of pressure distributes heat not the gas that is under pressure.
Mosher is wrong, Bastardi is right. The irradiation from atmospheric gas does not drive climate. I am also right, in saying, the mass of atmosphere, not composition determines planetary temperatures.
While I was organising my thoughts on why I disagree with Bastardi, this following statement he makes in his comment to his own article, speaks volumes. He has this phrase: “… man’s greatest chance for freedom, the US”
I’m sorry, but for me right there he loses his credibility to see things objectively.
My spelling is nothing to writing home about, but there’s hope, There’s this new Center For Kids Who Can’t Read Good!
@Pete Olson
There is no such word as “proper” in the english language, and for many bloggers english is a second language. Perfection of language is not part of the issue even if it is occasionally frustrating to read. The important thing is to get the thoughts down.
So Mosher believes in AGW. I believe in AGW. Most sceptics do too, as far as I’ve observed. That doesn’t mean I buy into CAGW though. And it doesn’t mean that I don’t think guys like Hansen aren’t 97% FOS. Is Bastardi right? Maybe, at least some of his claims could be. He is a chartist, and at the end of the day, given the primitive state of the science, being a chartist might mean you’re closer to the truth than the modellers. But even if it does cool, it would be surprising if we cooled all the way back down to the level of the 1960’s in 30 years from now. Bastardi is definitely going out on a limb there. Even if the bath water is pretty dirty I’m not one to throw the baby out with it.
Looks like that hotspot from last summer over South-Central US moved northeast. If it stays there or captures more of New England, our ears are going to bleed leading into an election. Any chance that’s going to happen or is related to each other?
Pete Olson says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:48 pm
It’s not an english exam. Just get on an read it. Get a life.
The hotspot moved to the UK this week – yesterday Scotland recorded warmest March day since records began, which eclipsed a similar day in 1957.
That’s right, 55 years ago was, until yesterday, the year with Scotland’s warmest day in March.
Just remember, you need a LOT of cherries to make a cherry pie, fortunately we do have lots and lots of cherries. Wasn’t it Feynman who said you only need one piece of contrdictory data to disprove a theory?
: BACK to earth … some term this ‘back radiation’, perhaps after the close radio term, ‘back-scatter’ (as used in RADAR to identify energy ‘reflected’ or scattered off a target).
Let me get this straight. Energy from the sun strikes the atmosphere in the form of a spectrum of radiation energies. CO² absorps some of that spectrum at 10 and 15 µ as does H²O. Some of that energy strikes the ground and gets re-radiated at a lower energy which is then somehow reabsorped at a different energy by the CO which is still absorping the follow on energy from the sun. The CO then releases this energy at 10 and 15µ back to the ground where it reheats the ground and re-radiates back to the CO² molecules which have been absorping the insolation while it’s friends have been on the ground.
Get away with you.!!!
Stephen Richards says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:41 am
Seriously! it’s like a crazy laser beam theory where you put 1 watt in and get 30 Tera-watts of thermal energy out.
@Stephen Richards
It is interesting that Monkton, Watts and Evans (See Jo Nova) do not want to go there. This it seems is the settled science that no real scientist has a problem with, yet the logic does seem a bit odd, even if in the end it proved to be right.
Thanks for your reply Joe! Interesting stuff and good work!
I am also very keen to establish why the Met Office has upped its ramping this year on how AGW is affecting longer range forecasts and I guess this is related closely to its pediction for things hotting up fast over the next few years!
Keep us updated as to how your predictions play out this year against those of the Met Office.
Thanks again,
Ben
I can explain the Roasting Arctic.
GISS is fiddling the figures:
http://endisnighnot.blogspot.com/#!/2012/03/giss-strange-anomalies.html
It’s settled science (quatum mechanics) that is in the sense that the model and it’s limits are known. I.e. QM breaks down after the event horizon of a black hole but for all other purposes it provides an acceptable and testable answer.
The problems arise when people with no physics education what-so-ever try to interpret the model.
The point about GHG theory is that it is not a theory but an hypothosis which has never been developed into a testable theory. No-one has yet brought forth SteveMc’s request for an engineering quality proof of the hypyhosis and even the hypothosis is proposed in many different forms.
Example: Newton developed his theory of gravity within the framework of classical physics. That was all he had to work with at that time. Later, scientists took his equations and tested them, by observation, beyond their proposed limit (limits imposed by classical physics) and found that they broke down.
Then along came Eistein with his theory of relativety and the space / time continuum. This theory resolved the problems with the Newtonian physics and pushed the limit of knowledge out to the singularity of the black hole.
All this happened without consensus. Science stagnates within a consensus. This is why I am sooo angry with modern scientists. They allow the likes of Nurse to hijack science for political advocacy. I am thoroughly disgusted with the Inst.of Physics and other scientific institute for not speaking out. They disgust me to the point of making me sick to the stomach.
It is worth noting at this point that Einstein and his ‘old guard’ pushed back QM because of their religious beliefs (ring a bell ?). “god created symetry”. There was a lot of vitriol between the old guard and the new renegades over a period of perhaps 10 yrs before QM was accepted. It is why Quantum Mechanics is QM and not Quantum Physics. That was, in effect, the compromise.
The current batch of world leaders are the worst in history IMO. There isn’t one of them with the intellect, knowledge or guts to stand up and be counted except for the Czecs.
We have lost the freedoms, that our forebears so cherished and fought for, to a bunch of political scumbags whose only competences are lying, deceit and stupidity.
I cannot thank enough the likes of Anthony, SteveMc, JoeB et al for their sterling efforts in seeking to push back this corruption. The corruption of science and the corruption of politics. BUT, we should all be mindful of the fact that we get the politicians we deserve, no better, no worse.
We have the duty to get out there and explain the reason for our scepticism in terms of science not coming from a consensus and why good science does not come from consensus.
Sermon over 🙂
Stephen Richards BSc physics. MSc Solid state Physic, Ex-ChPhys, Ex- M.Inst.of Physics
fredb says:
March 25, 2012 at 10:34 pm
fred, AFAIK the US is the only country on the planet founded on the assumption that government is a problem. Respectfully, as an Australian, would you USA citizens please remember that, get back to it and be a shining example to the rest of the world.
I also live in Queensland and we just delivered a message to the green commie statists that makes the 7th Cavalry at Little Big Horn look not so bad.
Stephen Richards says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:41AM
I thought the theory was that the greenhouse gases absorbed the long wave radiation, the excited CO2 molecules collided with O2 and N2 and raised their temperature as they gave up their added energy. As we’re told that N2 and O2 aren’t at all good radiators in the LW infrared could somebody please explain just what exactly is radiating to cause this “‘back radiation”?
I asked this on Roy Spencer’s blog and didn’t get an answer.
Whenever this back and forth on what heats the earth comes up, I always go back and re-read this piece from the late Dr Robert Stevenson, an Oceanographer, who spent years taking ocean temperature measurements the hard way. You can find it here
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html. This is what I have cherry picked about how he says the atmosphere warms, but read the whole piece.
“The atmosphere cannot warm until the underlying surface warms first. The lower atmosphere is transparent to direct solar radiation, preventing it from being significantly warmed by sunlight alone. The surface atmosphere thus gets its warmth in three ways: from direct contact with the oceans; from infrared radiation off the ocean surface; and, from the removal of latent heat from the ocean by evaporation. Consequently, the temperature of the lower atmosphere is largely determined by the temperature of the ocean.”
“How the Ocean warms
The first thing to remember is that the ocean is not warmed by the overlying air.
Let’s begin with radiant energy from two sources: sunlight, and infrared radiation, the latter emitted from the “greenhouse” gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and various others) in the lower atmosphere. Sunlight penetrates the water surface readily, and directly heats the ocean up to a certain depth. Around 3 percent of the radiation from the Sun reaches a depth of about 100 meters.
The top layer of the ocean to that depth warms up easily under sunlight. Below 100 meters, however, little radiant energy remains. The ocean becomes progressively darker and colder as the depth increases.
The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean. This means that the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere affects only the top few millimeters of the ocean. Water just a few centimeters deep receives none of the direct effect of the infrared thermal energy from the atmosphere! Further, it is in those top few millimeters in which evaporation takes places. So whatever infrared energy may reach the ocean as a result of the greenhouse effect is soon dissipated.
The oceans, by virtue of their enormous density and heat-storage capacity, are the dominant influence on our climate. It is the heat budget and the energy that flows into and out of the oceans that basically determines the mean temperature of the global atmosphere. These interactions, plus evaporation, are quite capable of cancelling the slight effect of man-produced CO2.”
In 1987 Stevenson was appointed the Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans (IAPSO). He organized and conducted two major International Scientific Oceanographic Assemblies as part of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, in Vienna in 1991, and in Honolulu in 1995. In addition to working as Secretary General for IAPSO, Stevenson continued to work as a consultant to NASA instructing astronauts on earth observation from space. A pity he isn’t around to weigh in on this debate.
Finally the IPCC 3 scenarios, CO2, and the actual temps… it is below their mid-point, below their bottom point and heading the other way:
———–
Did anyone else notice that the temperature graphs Joe favours are all shifted vertically to start at 1990?
This will of course exaggerate the differences at the other end of the time series.
DirkH says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:50 pm
blogagog says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:42 pm
“Perhaps Anthony should put a disclaimer in the sidebar stating:
“Note: I don’t agree with everything guest bloggers on this site say.”
Otherwise you are implying that when you don’t write that, you DO agree with everything they say.”
I disagree. Counting on the readers intelligence does not always fail. It depends a lot on the audience, though.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Personally, I agree with blogagog. It would be preferable to have a standard disclaimer for the reason that blogagog gave.
I suspect that it is rare for Anthony to agree complely with what is said in a post, I rarely so agree. Npw that Anthony has started placing a caveat on some articles and not on others, the lack of a caveat by Anthony is now beginning to appear as if the article carries his 100% approval rating.
Joe, punctuation-in-a-hurry makes a mess.
Here’s one correction:
And throughout (I make it about 8X) you use “its” to mean “it is”. Should be the abbreviation, “it’s”.
_________
The ironies and stupidities of the AGW position are so many and egregious it’s hard to stay focussed.
So I stick with the following: CO2 is beneficial. Warming is beneficial. Together or separate, we need more of both. Any expenditures should be directed towards achieving that.
DennisA says:
March 26, 2012 at 4:33 am
“….
“How the Ocean warms
The first thing to remember is that the ocean is not warmed by the overlying air.
Let’s begin with radiant energy from two sources: sunlight, and infrared radiation, the latter emitted from the “greenhouse” gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and various others) in the lower atmosphere. Sunlight penetrates the water surface readily, and directly heats the ocean up to a certain depth. Around 3 percent of the radiation from the Sun reaches a depth of about 100 meters.
The top layer of the ocean to that depth warms up easily under sunlight. Below 100 meters, however, little radiant energy remains. The ocean becomes progressively darker and colder as the depth increases.
The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean. This means that the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere affects only the top few millimeters of the ocean. Water just a few centimeters deep receives none of the direct effect of the infrared thermal energy from the atmosphere! Further, it is in those top few millimeters in which evaporation takes places. So whatever infrared energy may reach the ocean as a result of the greenhouse effect is soon dissipated.
The oceans, by virtue of their enormous density and heat-storage capacity, are the dominant influence on our climate. It is the heat budget and the energy that flows into and out of the oceans that basically determines the mean temperature of the global atmosphere. These interactions, plus evaporation, are quite capable of cancelling the slight effect of man-produced CO2.”
….”
///////////////////////////////////////////
I do not consider that enough thought has gone into DWLWIR and the oceans.
First, DWLWIR is not hitting the oceans at a vertical angle. The simple model of IR being radiated by CO2 is half up (UWLWIR) and half down (DWLWIR). However, the reality is that of the half that is down welling much of this must be bombarding the oceans at a low angle of incidence (much like the setting sun) and one issue that arises is how much DWLWIR is simply reflected by the oceans. Consider the difference of absorption of solar by the tropical ocean in summer and the artic/antartic ocean in spring and autumn. The low incidence of solar in the artic and antartic leads to much reflection and reduced absorption. Logic suggests that something similar may well occur with DWLWIR.
Second the absorption of LWIR in water is measured in microns, not millimeters. 20% of IR is absorbed within 1 micron and 60% within the first 4 mictons. Given the average DWLWIR suggested by T & K, theoretically, there is so much energy going into the first 4 microns that there would be a huge amount of evaporation. The energy would not penetrate into the ocean but would cause evaporation. We are not seeing that evaporation. This suggests that DWLWIR is not being absorbed by the oceans in accordance with recognised absorption characteristics of water, or at any rate not consequent upon the levels suggested by K & T, alternatively DWLWIR being absorbed is incapable of performing sensible work.
There is a substantial dofference between water and land and more consideration is needed as to how DWLWIR works and interacts with the oceans.
The idea is that it also comes back to the CO2 from O2 and N2 from collisions. But really, it all amounts to a detour on the way to the Black Void Out There. Also, increases in CO2 in the upper atmosphere cool it faster, which indirectly “sucks” energy from down below. It may be that overall CO2 rises cool the planet. Otherwise, that non-radiative O2 and N2 “blanket” would just get hotter, and hotter, and …
P.S. to above “It may be that overall CO2 rises cool the planet. Otherwise, that non-radiative O2 and N2 “blanket” would just get hotter, and hotter, and …” — ignoring, of course, à la IPCC, the overwhelming emissivity of H2O vapor and droplets. 😉
RE: February was the ” 22nd warmest ” on record .[] misleading in light of the fact that they go on to state that Feb. was the coldest since 1994.
Under Communism, Russians and Americans raced two cars. The American car won easily. Pravda reported that the Russian car came in second while the American car finished second to last.
What does 22nd warmest mean? Sounds pretty average to me.
@SunderlandSteve says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:16 am
//////////////////////
I fail to understand the concern regarding cherry picking.
You cannot cherry pick data/scenarios to prove a theory. In these circumstances, at best cherry picked data/scenarios merely demonstratate consistency with the theory.
However, you can legitimately cherry pick/data/scenarios to show a problem with a theory. A theory if correct should be able to deal with all scenarios and with all anomalies, ie., it should be able to explain these sceanrios in a manner that remains consistent with the theory.. This is precisely how theories are disproved, ie., cherry picking an extremity with which the theory cannot adequately deal. For example Newtonian phyiscs and relativity.
Sceptics should not be so defensive when accused with cherry picking. They should be bold and should argue that even though the data is cherry picked (a small sample whatever) nonetheless the theory should be able to adequately explain what is seen in the cherry picked scenario if the theory is correct. If it cannot, the theory needs some revision, it may even be the case that the theory is fatally flawed.
I don’t like it, because in Europe temperatures are also above normal. Something the used charts in Bastardi’s text do not show at all.
For example: These are the March temperatures in the Netherlands:
http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/grafieken/jaar/index.cgi
In the UK:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomalygraphs/
And there are even record breaking temperatures in Scotland at the moment going on: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/uk_forecast_weather.html
All above normal. So the chart is not accurate enough and probably cherry-picked as well.
When is the climate going to cool down significantly Mr. Bastardi? Let’s say back to the eighties. I would like to see that in the UAH-graphs or the CRU-graphs.
Barghumer says:
March 26, 2012 at 2:31 am
@Stephen Richards
It is interesting that Monkton, Watts and Evans (See Jo Nova) do not want to go there. This it seems is the settled science that no real scientist has a problem with, yet the logic does seem a bit odd, even if in the end it proved to be right.
//////////////////////////////////
If the globe does not warm over the next 20 years and if by then it appears that all we have witnessed this past century was nothing other than multidecadal natural variation, I suspect that the entire back radiation theory will be re-examined.
At first, some will argue that it is low sensitivity to CO2, but I suspect that others will on the basis of the disconnect between CO2 and temperatures in both the geological record (where CO2 lags temperature and does not appear to drive it) and the instrument record (where there are several periods of anti-correlation as well as stalled temperatures) start arguing that the back radiation theory is itself flawed.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out and to what extent the science gets revisited..
Will Nitschke says:
March 25, 2012 at 11:28 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Will
I doubt that it will cool to 1960 levels. However, do not forget that it has been warming since before the 1800s and before man caused much rise in CO2 levels. There is at the very least some element of rebound from the LIA. We do not know whether that rebound has ceased or when that rebound will cease. We do not know whether the rebound will via natural causes rebound at a different rate of warming. Accordingly, even if in 30 years temperatures are not as low as the 1960s it does not necessarily establish merit with the CO2 warming theory (although I accept that it could be viewed as being consistent with that theory).
The ‘science’ is in its infancy and I suspect that in 30 years we will have a much improved understanding. At this stage, I am not pre-judging what that will lead be or what that will lead to.
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Unfortunately Joe, lord monkton disagrees with you, as does Lindzen, as does Christy, as does Spencer, as does Singer.
1. The heat capacity of air has nothing to do with the effect of GHGs. GHGs operate by SLOWING the escape of radiation back to space.
Do they? As usual we see half the story or what most people call a half-truth. Like so many others, you have ignored the cooling effect of GHGs.
Yes, GHGs do operate as you stated. However, they also get excited (see _Jim’s points above) by energy in the atmosphere. Much of that energy gets radiated to space. If you add more GHGs you also INCREASE the ability of the atmosphere to radiate energy to space, that is, it cools. This “cooling effect” is probably just as strong as the warming effect you mentioned since we are close to saturation in bands where CO2 absorbs radiation.
I believe the net effect is that GHGs work like little thermostats that try to maintain a temperature consistent with the amount of radiation available and the air pressure where they are located. This helps establish the lapse rate which is responsible for the warmer surface. Adding more GHGs just makes the thermostatic effect stronger.
Joe
The ‘science’ is in it’s infancy. Noone knows or understands very much about precisely what is going on, or why.
It is good to see your forecast/prediction and the courage of your conviction. If I was a betting man, I would favour your forecast/prediction over that of say the Met Office, or the IPCC.
Keep up the good work and time will tell as to how this pans out.
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
That theory is called radiative physics. That theory says you are wrong. That same theory is used to design the cell phone you use. Does it work?
///////////////////////////
Stephen
I would like to hear your explanation as to how that theory is used to design the cell phone and how given that explanation one can phone home from the moon (or other planetary bodies in our solar system) in the absence of CO2 (or other radiating/reradiating molecules) filling the void of space.
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
That theory is called radiative physics. That theory says you are wrong. That same theory is used to design the cell phone you use. Does it work?
///////////////////////////
Steven
I would like to hear your explanation as to how that theory is used to design the cell phone and how given that explanation one can phone home from the moon (or other planetary bodies in our solar system) in the absence of CO2 (or other radiating/reradiating molecules) filling the void of space
Stephen Richards says:
March 26, 2012 at 3:50 am
… hypyhosis … Quoi?!
Don’t hit me! Don’t hit me!
🙂
Joe
Weather forecast models use greenhouse effect.
Dr Roy Spencer has written:
“Regarding those weather forecast models, without a proper handling of the greenhouse effect, they would utterly fail in about 24 hours or so, with unrealistic surface cooling and a marked change in weather systems away from reality.
Do the critics of greenhouse theory ignore tomorrow’s weather forecast because weather forecast models depend critically upon greenhouse effect calculations? I doubt it.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/yes-virginia-the-vacuum-of-space-does-have-a-temperature/#comment-34679
Left-wing Playbook#1:
If you can’t attack their ideas, attack their words!
Keep at it Joe, there’s a silver-lining (OK, not literally).
Joe asks “is the satellite lying?”, from which I conclude he thinks the data he’s presenting is satellite imagery. Actually it’s the result of an atmospheric model which assimilates data from many sources such as: radiosondes, aircraft flights, surface stations and satellites. I guess asking ‘is the model wrong?’ wouldn’t sound so good.
davidgmills says:
March 25, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Its all that hot air coming from the twin cities of New York and Washington affecting half of North America.
__________________________
NAH it is because of BosNyWash the new city that stretches from Fredicksburg VA to Rockingham NH. Just try to drive though that area some time. Traffic jams at 3 am in the morning!
Markus Fitzhenry says:
March 25, 2012 at 10:15 pm
….It is the heat of the surface that drives temperature that regulates atmospheric gases and their level of illumination. It is not the capacity of CO2 that drives its temperature, it is the Sun….
_________________________
To add to what you and Joe Bastardi said.
We get from NASA: “We are fortunate that visible and IR light, which contribute the majority of energy to Earth, exhibit the smallest relative variation. But, although TSI varies by only a fraction of a percent, it has the greatest magnitude of change (~1.2 W/m2). This may be enough to cause observable changes at Earth.”
From the looks of the CHARTS in the article as the wavelength decreases the variability increases, so that by the time you reach extreme ultraviolet (shorter than about 180 nm) the change is 100% .
The energy that has the most change is the energy that effects the atmosphere at various levels as shown. HOWEVER the variation at the critical wavelengths ~ 300nm to 700nm, the wavelengths that penetrate the ocean, are varying up to 1% which is more than the 0.1% that is trotted out every time the sun as a factor in climate is mentioned. Yes you are looking at 15.4 W/m2 total energy @ 300nm to 700nm with a change of 0.17 W/m but that is over 70% of the surface of the earth where the energy is not released immediately back to space. Sort of think of the ocean as a capacitor with the El Niño as the capacitor discharge cycle…
At that point you are looking at a change of 0.17W/m times 361 million square kilometres over the time period between El Ninos.
Total solar spectrum vs ocean absorbtion spectrum
(I am leaving the solar/earth magnetic discussion to Vukcevic)
CONCLUSIONS:
…..In our opinion, cyclic dynamics of ENSO phenomena are due to solar activity and geomagnetic variations. It is background long-period variations on which high-frequency oscillations are imposed.
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Unfortunately Joe, lord monkton disagrees with you, as does Lindzen, as does Christy, as does Spencer, as does Singer.
1. The heat capacity of air has nothing to do with the effect of GHGs. GHGs operate by SLOWING the escape of radiation back to space.
Richard M says:
March 26, 2012 at 6:40 am
Do they? As usual we see half the story or what most people call a half-truth. Like so many others, you have ignored the cooling effect of GHGs….
________________________________________
The whole CO2 “SLOWING the escape of radiation back to space” is a bit of a magician’s trick in my opinion. Lots of flapping around about 0.004% of the atmosphere, greenhouse effect, logarithmic curves, saturation of wavelengths and its “slowing” the escape of radiation while there is 133,804,000 square miles of open water an average of 13,000 ft deep acting as a HUGE heat sink and REALLY slowing the escape of heat back to space. CO2 doesn’t even rate being called a flea on the rearend of that elephant.
Looking at the 30yr climate normals, 1981-2010 was warmer than previous ones, so your gonna get negative anomalies easier than before. I was just tinkering with GISS surface temp generator. Using their baseline of 1951-1980, Feb 2012 was 0.40. Using a century long baseline(1901-2000) gives you 0.39. Using 1961-1990 gives you 0.32. Using 1971-2000 gives you 0.18. Using 1981-2010 gives you -0.01. Baselines for anomaly maps/graphs make a big difference. So what’s normal? You pick (or cherry pick).
Fouse,
“Do the critics of greenhouse theory ignore tomorrow’s weather forecast because weather forecast models depend critically upon greenhouse effect calculations? I doubt it.”
They would if the forecast was for 100 years in the future!
Steve:
I was in the the camp of those guys a couple of years ago. But if you actually listen to all of them, the argument comes down to, in the overall scheme of things, theologians arguing over how many angels you can stick on the head of a needle. I opined that the leveling off of temps is because the two oceans had warmed and could add no more warming, as soon as the Pacific started to cool a trend down has begun. I got hammered from the left in 08 when I said this would happen. At that time co2 had continued to rise, but if a rise in temp resumed, it would have left this, in my opinion open for debate. Now that there is a disconnect, the rise is being proven coincidental. They hammered me because I am sure they were worried it would happen, well it is
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
While Roy and those guys have an honest debate, one I bought up until recently, I think the screams of derision at me from the left are because combined with the cooling alot of them know that is coming, they suspect that proving c02 has virtually nothing to do with the earths temps, and plenty to do with plant life, would drive home the hoax this is. So attack the messenger. I will remind you I have plenty of people and a growing number it seems in my corner, which is based on the data and my occams razor philosophy of go to the big drivers. For starters please read Nasif Nahles defense of my summer statements on Fox and perhaps instead of dismissing it, it will tweak you enough to understand what the odds are, given the heat capacity of the ocean being much greater than air, that co2 is only .04% of the air with a different specific gravity, rate of heating and cooling and radiation property, of this actually having any effect
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Joe_Bastardi_is_Correct.pdf
But that all being said, I dont see the schism as something that should be blown out of proportion, for in the end, There high priests on our side see the end game as the same. Its a scam
And when we clear the playing field so we can restore sanity to all this, so we are not handcuffing our country over this ghost, whether its Roys Ghost or mine, then we can get in a big room, sell pizza and beer and watch the two sides go at, the folks who think it has a slight effect and is not worth our time, or people like me who have come to the conclusion, that it has no more affect than me as a Phillies fan ( someone will hammer me for that too) rooting on my team, has anything to do with them winning. Either way, its not worth crashing the economy and leading to untold misery and not progress, but the opposite, when it comes to a better life for all
Brian D says:
March 26, 2012 at 9:51 am
excellent point Brian – and one that needs to be constantly repeated to the warmista!
There is no climate ‘norm’, and there is no possibility that a couple of hundred years of human ‘science’ can know what a ‘norm’ might be!
Ideally, an average temp anomaly would at least have to be based on data since a major climatic event (say 12000 years? ice age anyone?) – so, flip knows where this so called 30 year climate data range requirement comes from. Any scientist worth his/her salt would always say that you can never have enough data in order to assess a trend accurately – but in terms of climate?, well, IMHO we need at least a few centuries worth of current data levels to build a real picture!
The difference between Joe and climate scientists somewhat similar to difference between engineers and scientists. Engineer produces working device. Meteorologist produces working weather forecasts. Scientists produce publications.
Engineer’s and meteorologist’s work, if wrong, have very detrimental results on their pocketbook.
Scientists, if wrong, often can still publish their results, so they would not loose much (or anything).
Ok, meteorology is not an exact science, so they are wrong quite often, but good meteorologists, like Joe, are right much more often than not.
The work that Joe does is very verifiable and when he is wrong it is very obvious, just like when he is right.
Whatever his underlaying assumptions are correct or not, I take Joe’s predictions over any scientist’s prediction, even if they are skeptics (Lindzen, etc).
polistra says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Your analogy of voltage isn’t entirely false in my view but not quite in the way you think.
Think of voltage representing temperature and capacitance being humidity.
A 1pF cap charged to 400V would give you some kick but a 2F cap charged to 100V would likely kill you!
DaveE.
Steven Mosher says:
March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm
“Unfortunately Joe, lord monkton disagrees with you, as does Lindzen, as does Christy, as does Spencer, as does Singer.”
Aha, appeal to authority.
“The heat capacity of air has nothing to do with the effect of GHGs. GHGs operate by SLOWING the escape of radiation back to space.”
No but it has everything to do with conduction and convection.
“The % of C02 is misleading. yes water vapor is the dike holding back most of the radiation from reaching space. The “holes” in the dike are small. The ‘fingers’ that are working to plug the holes
are small relative to the whole dike, but they have an effect nevertheless.”
But so small an effect! And cancelled by negative feedback in the long run.
“The science and physics you dont believe ( radiative physics ) is actually used to give you
the weather satillite data you rely on. Yup, climate science code produces the very images
you interpret. You probably didnt know that. To actually derive satellite images you have to
apply Theory to the sensor output. That theory is called radiative physics. That theory says you are wrong. That same theory is used to design the cell phone you use. Does it work?”
I opened up my phone, and it was all filled up with ….backradiation.
I would have been much more impressed by the top post if it didn’t seem so much like, well, cherry-picking. The graphs have multiple formats, indicating they were cobbled together from multiple sources. The data for temperatures
* comes from different instruments
* covering different areas
* over different time-frames.
It just feels like specific bits or data were gathered to try to prove a specific point, rather than to actually understand what was happening. For example, PDO & AMO data is available for decades before the start of the graph, and for a decade after the graph. Why choose this time frame? Why only compare to US temperatures instead of world temperatures? I might imagine this area and this time was specifically chosen because the correlation looks strong only in this circumstance. Without context or explanation, this graph doesn’t do much for me.
And why only plot the last 10 years for Temp & CO2? Perhaps because the fit would look much too good if 100 years of data was included (as was plotted for AMO & PDO)? http://www.warmdebate.com/sites/default/files/co2-globa-temperature.gif
The data is all out there. Do an apples-to-apples comparison instead of an apples-to-oranges comparison, and then the results will tell us something useful.
Joe, love your writing. However, the “CO2 has no effect” isn’t the best science c.f. Lindzen, Spencer, etc. We’re looking at about a degree C per doubling (at most) with measured negative feedbacks. The “sky dragon” stuff, makes all of us look bad.
Civilly.
tjfolkerts says:
Indeed! Some of the plots shown are also mind-bogglingly deceptive! For example, this plot http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-10-years.gif engages in the tactic of plotting CO2 and temperature on the same graphs but with CO2 drawn such that the transient climate sensitivity would have to be about 13 C per CO2 doubling in order for the temperature trend to match the climate trend! Nobody but someone who is incapable of recognizing such deception would promulgate such a plot!
This graph http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/overlayco2.png at least shows a larger period of temperature and overlays CO2 such that it corresponds to a transient climate sensitivity of about 4.5 C per doubling or so. So now, they are only about a factor of 2 too high compared to best estimates although they have also strangely offset the CO2 curve up so it is less obvious that the temperature record followed that curve for about the first decade. Furthermore, the “IPCC High”, “IPCC Best” and “IPCC Low” seem suspicious to me…perhaps Joe Bastardi could explain in detail where these come from as I am sure that any self-proclaimed “skeptic” would not just accept that graph at face value!
Anybody who shows these plots is basically just blowing their own credibility out of the water! (And, we won’t even comment on the very poor understanding of atmospheric physics that other like Steve Mosher have already pointed out.) No wonder that even Anthony is trying to distance himself from such poor arguments!
@tjfolkerts
And why only plot the last 10 years for Temp & CO2? Perhaps because the fit would look much too good if 100 years of data was included (as was plotted for AMO & PDO)? http://www.warmdebate.com/sites/default/files/co2-globa-temperature.gif
=============================
Your graph shows that 2010 was about .25C warmer than 1998 with no decadal temperature flattening. Bad start there….
Your graph also shows temperatures shooting up from 1910-1945 by nearly 1C, with no relationship to CO2 at all. Your graph tends would actually refute your argument, not support it, assuming it was accurate, even if it was real.
Will
The problem is that if co2 is causing this, it shouldnt just come and go willy nilly. The global temp is tied into major features, probably originating with the sun but most closely tied with the ocean and the decadol shift. 2010 WAS NOT .25C WARMER THAN 1998 thats absurd, it was a tad below.
Let me end this again by saying this. By 2030 the temp will fall back to the levels they were at at the start of the warm PDO which is when we got OBJECTIVE data. The 2010 spike and 1998 spike were both off El ninos and behind the 2010 spike has come the cooling of the la ninas. It is a simple test it will or it wont.
SO if it falls back to 1978, what are you going to say, it would have fallen more? There is just not getting around the excuses made for co2 until the day that dragon is slain, which is what an increasing amount of scientists whose prime concern is just that are trying to prove, or at least open peoples eyes up too.
as for me, I think it has no effect on the climate, the times it moves along with rises is coincidental since its always rising so its like a broken clock that has to be right twice a day… in this case its right during times of warm pdo and amo,
We will have our answer, sooner rather than later
Will,
I think you missed my main point. Anyone can go to Google and find lots of pretty graphs and pick and choose some to show a particular point. Add in that the graphs may not be accurate to begin with and the whole exercise is worse than useless. I found a graph that seems to show a STRONG correlation of CO2 & temperature, while Joe found one that seems to show NO correlation. Given that 10 years is a very short time to establish a climate trend, Joe’s graph is pretty useless. The graph I found at least covers 100 years, so that is already in its favor.
In any case, what is needed is careful analysis of “apples-to-apples” data, not “sound bite science”. I see this post as “sound bite science”.
(And my post was a bit of “sound bite science” as well. Arguing about sound bites is not going to lead to answers. It takes a much deeper level of scientific inquiry to start to answer the questions of climate drivers.)
@tjfolkerts
“I found a graph that seems to show a STRONG correlation of CO2 & temperature”
=================
Yes but the graph looks rather bogus (seems to be some funny smoothing going on there), but even if we assumed for the sake of the argument that your graph was true, then for 2/3rd’s of the temperature record there is no correspondence with CO2 and a heck of a lot of natural variability that needs explaining.
Look at the major sets together:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:1440/plot/uah/last:1440/plot/rss/last:1440/plot/gistemp/last:1440
You see flat temperatures circa 1940-1980. Rapidly rising temperatures circa 1800’s-1940. And flat temperatures again from 2000-2010. So you have 130 years of records and a good match up for CO2 for only about 20 years of the record. You find that impressive?
Doesn’t mean that there isn’t a relationship between CO2 and temperature. But if you want to make that argument *solely by looking at the data* then you seem to be seeing things there that nobody else can see.
Will says “Yes but the graph looks rather bogus (seems to be some funny smoothing going on there)”
… which is exactly what is going on the in PDO/AMO graph. They even admit it in the paper. The smoothing was required to get the high correlation.
“then for 2/3rd’s of the temperature record there is no correspondence with CO2 and a heck of a lot of natural variability that needs explaining.”
No … I see considerable correspondence for the entire time, with some clear short-term variations (the “noisy” from month to month) and some longer-term variations.
A simple correlation calculation shows R^2 = 72% (and p=0.000) between CO2 & HADCRUT3 monthly temperature from 1958-present. I could artificially enhance that score by smoothing (like the PDO/AMO fit). The data for CO@ is not so readily available earlier, but I suspect the R^2 would be about the same going back to 1900 or earlier.
Repeating: taken as a whole, there is very STRONG correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 50 (or 100) years, not NO correspondence for most of the time. Now, correlation is not causation, but denying the correlation itself is not very accurate or wise. Maybe the correlation is coincidence is coincidence. Maybe BOTH CO2 and PDO/AMO are important (as is almost certainly the case).
@tjfolkerts
there is very STRONG correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 50 (or 100) years
=============
There is also a STRONG correlation between CO2 and stock market prices. Or CO2 and any number of things that have increased periodically over time. So what?
Re: Steven Mosher – March 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm:
Steven, these comments are completely out of left field, so much so that I went back and read entire piece again to see what I’d missed. 1&2 are about GHG theory & interpretation, have been beaten to death, and are hardly even implied, much less mentioned, in Joe’s essay (and BTW, while I’m not an atmospheric physicist, I’m pretty sure that “GHGs operate by SLOWING the escape of radiation back to space.” is far from the whole story. Everything I’ve read on the subject says that when you change one of the inputs or variables of a climate system, there will be a transient heating (or cooling) that will eventually equilibrate to a “new normal”, i.e.: increasing GHGs will eventually STOP at least part the planet’s radiation leakage).
No. 3 is not only irrelevant, but presumptuous: I doubt that Joe Bastardi needs you or anyone else to tutor him on basic radiative physics, and even if he did, what part of his essay led you to believe that he doesn’t believe in it? And he probably didnt know that raw satellite data has to be interpreted? Make that arrogantly presumptuous. He simply provided some evidence and reasoning that the oceans, the Pacific in particular, are much bigger climate drivers than CO2, may in fact completely swamp the CO2 signal. Whether or not that turns to be the case, the warming stall of the last 12-15 years should cause empirically-minded people to doubt whether CO2, in the total scheme of things, is a major player; and, he makes specific, verifiable/falsifiable predictions. I think you owe Joe Bastardi an apology.
PS: And what’s this about cell phones? Is it that energy transfer through the atmosphere is based partly on long-wave IR, and cell phones use low-power longer-wave EM radiation, and therefore that the same type of energy is used? Isn’t that a bit trivially obvious? Or did I miss something? If I have, would you be so kind as to educate us (or at least me)? If not, wouldn’t it have been more apropos to use as example something closer to the same wavelength & power – an IR under-desk heater, or those gas-fired IR heaters that have become so popular for café sidewalk seating?
The world awaits the one theory that if applied to long range weather forceasting is correct. Not one theory or model centers around CO2 can, with any precision, forecast even mid-range changes in our atmosphere.
Joseph Bastardi says:
March 26, 2012 at 7:14 pm
well said again, Sir!
just one slight comment – and that is that we may well have ‘OBJECTIVE’ data, but I do seriously wonder how long that data will be around, and certainly how long before it is massaged even further!
Will Nitschke says:
March 26, 2012 at 10:49 pm
absoflippinlutely! The rising temps can correlated to many many things, not just CO2. In fact, if one is being really scientific, one should be looking at ALL the other things, just to be sure that they are not the causation! Of course, I’m being a bit facetious – but the fact remains that until a direct causation and correlation is proven – it is still a damned theory!
I have always held the contention that CO2 increases may not simply be because of mans emissions, but may be also be partly due to increased natural emmisons and/or reduction of natural extractions (sinks). In the same way as there is no way of measuring a real global temp anomaly, there is no way of measuring natures + or – CO2 movements – as usual it’s all a question of scale, and guestimates are not really much help IMHO.
Steve M says: “The science and physics you dont believe ( radiative physics ) is actually used to give you
the weather satillite data you rely on.”
Is it not O2 they get the temperature from?
@Kev-in-Uk says:
absoflippinlutely! The rising temps can correlated to many many things, not just CO2.
===================
It’s actually worse than that Kev. You only get your STRONG correlation by adjusting the data first. You see a change in CO2 from 315ppm starting in 1960 to 390ppm now. How do you relate that to a .6C change in global temperature? If you plotted the actual data you’d see no relationship at all because the scales are completely different. So you first have to scale CO2 by some arbitrary amount so that it looks like CO2 and temperature are in lock step for your nifty graph. There is little point at that stage to talk about how STRONG the correlation looks between the data sets… because you’ve adjusted your data intentionally to achieve that effect. Tjfolkerts’s statements are therefore completely meaningless. What you need to talk about is your *physical theory* that justifies the adjustment you just made, which produced that wonderful apparent correlation.
Yaah – except that CO2’s ability to (partly) block IR radiation isn’t a theory, it’s a demonstrable fact, and has been probably thousands (millions?) of times. To suggest that Joe Bastardi doesn’t know this is really ludicrous presumptuousness. But since temperatures have flat-lined the last 12 or so years while CO2 concentrations have continued to smoothly climb, there can no longer be any doubt that other factors are in play. Hell, we probably haven’t even identified yet all the confounding variables. There are few things I’m sure of, but one is that Nature will always have another card up her sleeve.
I believe that the warmers’ current spin on this latest divergence problem is that the added heat has gone into the oceans, but since globally averaged ocean temps have also flat-lined the last 5 years, or even declined slightly, there is a slight problem . . . where oh where has that heat gone? Is it hiding out in the karsts of Central America & Florida? Have the Atlantuseans commandeered it for their spas & dish washers? Guess we’ll just have to stay tuned.
IPCC Temperature Predictions versus Observations (Hadcrut3 is now out for February).
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/8535/ipccforecastsobsfeb2012.png
And the canary in the coal mine – Water Vapour Levels – no feedback showing up yet even though the IPCC AR5 climate model hindcasts have this showing up for the “first time” in about 1995.
Nope.
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/4600/watervapouripccvsreanal.png
Will Nitschke says: March 27, 2012 at 2:11 pm
“You only get your STRONG correlation by adjusting the data first. … If you plotted the actual data you’d see no relationship at all because the scales are completely different. … Tjfolkerts’s statements are therefore completely meaningless. What you need to talk about is your *physical theory* that justifies the adjustment you just made, which produced that wonderful apparent correlation.”
I must say this confuses me. With or without adjustments, temperatures are going up, and CO2 is going up. There is no need to “scale” anything. In fact, I DID use the data straight from the source without any “scaling” or adjustments. You seem to be thinking that a strong correlation must be 1:1 eg1 ppm change in CO2 = 1 C change in temperature. But the scales are completely arbitrary. I could plot temperature in C or F or nK. I could plot CO2 in ppm or % or ppb or slugs per square mile. The scales would look completely different, but the correlation (R^2 and p value) would be exactly the same.
Will’s rebuttal is therefore completely meaningless.
PS One “adjustment” that WOULD improve the correlation would be to smooth both data sets — which is indeed exactly what the PDO/AMO graph does to get their high R^2 value.
Will Nitschke says: March 26, 2012 at 10:49 pm
“There is also a STRONG correlation between CO2 and stock market prices. Or CO2 and any number of things that have increased periodically over time. So what?
So anytime you have a strong correlation, that is Mother Nature suggesting there MIGHT be something interesting there. The next step is to look for a plausible REASON for the correlation, which is easy to find — the IR properties of CO2.
The last step is the tough one — determining just how much this factor matters, and considering other plausible explanations for the same observations. I don;t pretend to know the answer to that one. The sun matters; the earth’s orbit matters; volcanoes matter; ocean cycles matter; soot matters, clouds matter … and so on.
In my book, there is no way to conclude that there is no connection between CO2 and climate (as Joe did). There is also no way to say that CO2 is the ONLY factor (which no one argues to my knowledge). So we are left with some challenging science to determine the extent of CO2’s contribution.
@tjfolkerts
===================
What I tried to explain to you confused you….
Let me try to explain this another way concerning confusions over correlation/causation. IPCC climate models predict accelerated warming. The current trend is about 1.35K per decade for the past 30 years (RSS). Climate models predict a future trend of 3X that. Let’s assume for the sake of the argument, that the IPCC climate models are accurate. What happens to your nifty graph? CO2 trend doesn’t change much but now the temperature shoots off in a different direction. What happens to your R^2 statistic then? 😉
Fundamentally, I think the problem here is that a lot of individuals want to be “climate warriors” but want to skip the part where they have to acquire basic reasoning skills and an understanding of rudimentary scientific principles. (sigh)
“. . . current trend is about 1.35K per decade for the past 30 years (RSS).”
Umm – believe you meant per century.
1.35K per decade really would be catastrophic!
Will asks: “Let’s assume for the sake of the argument, that the IPCC climate models are accurate. What happens to your nifty graph?”
Nothing — the correlations I was discussing were actual CO2 data with actual temperature data (or at least HADCRUT3 global temperature averages). There were no models involved.
Will continues: “CO2 trend doesn’t change much but now the temperature shoots off in a different direction. What happens to your R^2 statistic then? ;-)”
Again, it does (approximately) nothing to R^2 or p. Whether we correlate with “T” or “3T”, the values will be about the same — CO2 correlates very to both since both have been increasing similarly.
In fact, CO2 probably correlates BETTER with the models than it does with the real temperatures, which would actually be a strike AGAINST the models.
It seems what you are REALLY interested in is the correlation between actual temperatures and model temperatures. Although the correlation between the two would be excellent, the SLOPE would be poor. The slope should be 1, but in reality it would be 3 (using your assumed 3X value above). The bigger the difference between these two slopes, and the longer that difference persists, the worse it looks for the models. Focus on this slope rather than the R^2 or p values, and you will be a more effective anti “climate warrior” warrior.