By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
What is science for? Its end and object is to stretch out a fumbling hand for the truth by a humble and eternally-unsatisfied attempt to constrain uncertainties.
The scientific method is hungry curiosity, followed by acute observation, followed by careful measurement, followed by the meticulous application of pre-existing theory to the results, followed by the detailed drafting and reviewed publication of a hypothesis, followed by other scientists’ attempts to overturn the hypothesis, which is either discarded or slowly accorded credence to the extent that it has survived the process of error elimination.
In the physical sciences, absolute proof – which mathematicians call demonstration – is very seldom available. In mathematics, the art that is the language and the queen of the sciences, demonstration is more often available, particularly in number theory, the branch of discrete mathematics that concerns itself chiefly with the integers. Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, said Kronecker. Alles übrige ist Menschenwerk.
One of the reasons why the Thermageddonite superstition has been so successful until recently is that just about the only formal demonstration that nine-tenths of the population recall – and even then hazily – is that in the Euclidean and hyperbolic planes the square (or semicircle) on the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares (or semicircles) on the other two sides.
Now, the problem with the theorem of Pythagoras is that it is unquestionably true. For those who agree with the philosopher Schopenhauer that Euclid’s demonstration is “a triumph of perversity”, here is the admirably clear proof by dissection attributed to the fifth-century Hindu mathematican Aryabhatta.
However one looks at the theorem, the wretched thing is objectively true. There are hundreds of distinct demonstrations of it. It is true whether or not you or I or anyone else wants it to be true or believes it to be true or knows it to be true. In the language of theology, it is intrinsice honestum. It is right in itself.
I submit that it is the theorem of Pythagoras that has allowed the Thermageddonites to succeed when, scientifically speaking, they should simply have been laughed at.
For the truth of that venerable theorem has misled generations who have been given some acquaintance with the sciences but little or none with the philosophy of science into believing that every scientific finding is definitive, unalterable, unchallengeable and unquestionable.
Yes, liberating greenhouse gases by combustion will cause some warming – all other things being equal. Yes, we are liberating greenhouse gases by combustion. These things have been established beyond reasonable doubt. But what has not been established is the crucial quantitative question how much warming we may cause.
That simple fact has been relentlessly and artfully concealed from the population, who have been sedulously deluded into believing that “the science is certain” and that anyone who questions how much warming we may cause is by implication also challenging the well-established experimental results showing that greenhouse gases cause warming.
It is worth briefly considering the how much question – or, as the climate scientists call it, the question of climate sensitivity.
In response to my recent posting pointing out that on the RSS satellite record there has been no global warming for 17 years 10 months, a commenter, one Stacey, asked:
“Please could you … demonstrate the actual climate sensitivity in respect of the last 30 years due the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere? My guess is that it’s zero. :-)”
“Stacey” is adopting a sound, scientific approach, beginning with that vital first step: curiosity. Socrates used to say that the first step on the road to knowledge was an awareness of one’s own ignorance. And what is curiosity, the wellspring of the sciences, if not an awareness of one’s own ignorance coupled with a determination to do something about it?
“Stacey” offers the hypothesis, that climate sensitivity to CO2 over the past 30 years has been zero, and asks whether she is right.
So let us examine the hypothesis. We begin with the observation that in the climate there appear to be quasi-periodicities of about 60 years in global temperature – roughly 30 years’ tendency to warm followed by 30 years’ tendency to cool – and that these cycles are tied to, and may be caused by, the great ocean oscillations, of which the most influential seems to be the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Therefore, in order to cancel these naturally-occurring cycles, it is necessary either to take periods that are multiples of 60 years in length or to take periods that straddle a phase-transition from one 30-year phase of the PDO to another.
Usefully, the most recent phase-transition in the PDO was in about the year 2000, so that the past 30 years will have been about equally influenced first by a warming phase of the PDO and then by a cooling phase. That removes the most obvious potential natural distortion of our attempt to determine climate sensitivity from what has actually occurred.
Next, measurement. How much global warming was there in the past 30 years? For this, we shall take the mean of the global mean surface temperature anomalies on all five principal datasets – GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, RSS, and UAH.
We now make the assumption, for the sake of beginning somewhere, that all of the global warming over this 30-year period was attributable to us.
As the CO2 record on the chart shows, CO2 concentration rose by 54 ppmv over the 30-year period. We shall assume that all that increase in concentration was anthropogenic. If so, official theory suggests it caused 0.78 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing.
We shall also assume that over the period CO2 represented 70% of all anthropogenic forcings, so that the total anthropogenic forcing was 1.11 Watts per square meter. This assumption is derived from the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report.
We shall further assume that none of the warming was committed but unrealized warming from before 1984, or that, if there was some, it was approximately balanced by uncommitted warming generated over the 30-year period but not yet apparent in the temperature record.
Now we can divide the measured temperature change of 0.48 Cº by the total anthropogenic forcing of 1.11 Watts per square meter to obtain the transient-sensitivity parameter λt where t = 30 years, which is 0.43 Cº per Watt per square meter.
However, the instantaneous, Planck or zero-feedback sensitivity parameter λ0, which is the mean of the first derivatives across all latitudes of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer at the characteristic-emission altitude, where incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes balance, is just 0.31 Cº per Watt per square meter (IPCC, 2007, p. 631 fn.).
Next, some handy equations, that you will not find in most textbooks, will help us to determine the system gain Gt, the closed-loop feedback gain gt, and the feedback-sum ft directly from the Planck sensitivity parameter λ0 and the transient-sensitivity parameter λt:
The transient system gain Gt, which is the factor by which the direct warming from anthropogenic forcings is multiplied to allow for the action of feedbacks over the 30-year period, is simply 0.43 / 0.31, or 1.39, showing that short-acting feedbacks have increased the direct warming by almost two-fifths.
The loop gain gt, which is the product of the sum of the short-acting feedbacks and the Planck parameter, is 1 – 0.31/0.43, or 0.28.
Then the feedback sum ft, the sum of all short-acting feedbacks over the period, is 1/0.31 – 1/0.43, or 0.9 Watts per square meter per Celsius degree of warming over the period.
The IPCC’s current central estimate is that at equilibrium, when all short-acting and long-acting feedbacks have acted, the feedback sum is just 1.5 Watts per square meter per Cº (IPCC, 2013, table 9.43, red dot at top right). This is a substantial reduction from the 2.1 Watts per square meter per Cº (blue dot at top right) central estimate implicit in IPCC (2007).
From that current estimate of the equilibrium feedback-sum f∞, which is the sum of all feedbacks acting over the thousands of years till the climate has established a new equilibrium following perturbation by a forcing, the equilibrium system gain G∞ may be determined, using the Bode system-gain equation:
From the Bode equation, the equilibrium system gain G∞ is [1 – 0.31(1.5)]–1, or 1.87. In short, the IPCC’s current implicit central estimate is that feedbacks increase the direct forcing-driven warming by seven-eighths.
The central estimate of Charney sensitivity implicit in the IPCC’s current central estimate of the feedback sum is given by
Thus, the IPCC’s current central estimate of Charney sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration ought to be (5.35 ln 2)(0.31)(1.87), or 2.1 Cº. So the 3.2 Cº that is the current central estimate of the CMIP5 model ensemble is too big by at least half.
The eventual warming as a result of the anthropogenic forcings of the past 30 years will be (1.11)(0.31)(1.87) = 0.64 Cº, of which 0.48 Cº, or three-quarters, has already occurred, leaving just 0.16 Cº warming committed but unrealized over the period. Yet the IPCC says there is about four times that amount of committed but unrealized warming in the pipeline.
Now, all that is set out above is mainstream climate science. It is possible that we caused some of the warming of the past 30 years. It is possible, though by no means certain, that we caused at least half of it.
Why, then, can we not be more precise in deriving a climate-sensitivity estimate from the temperature change and CO2 concentration change we have seen over the past 20 years?
The answer – though you will very seldom hear it from the Church of Thermageddon – is that there are far too many unknowns. The biggest outright lie in the IPCC’s 2013, 2007, and 2001 reports is the notion that we can determine with any confidence the fraction of global warming over recent decades that is attributable to us.
In 2001 the IPCC said it was 66% confident we had caused most of the warming since 1950; in 2001, 90% confident; in 2013, 95-99% confident. All of these confidence values are direct lies. For there is no dataset from whose values any such supposed confidence levels can be determined by any recognizable statistical process.
It is a measure of the contempt in which today’s scientific elite holds the rest of the population that the IPCC, as the elite’s soi-disant spokesman on climate change, could have made and persisted in and doubled down upon these particular lies. It knows it can get away with them, for scientists have abdicated, forfeiting their high priesthood to far-left politicians and profiteering environmental protection rackets.
We do not know enough about the climate to say in what direction, let alone by how much, the climate would be changing in the absence of any anthropogenic influence. We do not know the forcing from CO2 or any other greenhouse gas to a sufficient precision. The official value of the CO2 forcing was cut by a massive 15% in 2001.
We do not know the value of the Planck parameter to any great precision. We thought we did: then the actual mean surface temperature of the Moon was measured, and was found to be 40% adrift from the official value that had been determined on the basis of the lunar sensitivity parameter, and had been confidently published on official government websites.
We do not know what fraction of manmade warming is attributable to each of the greenhouse gases. We do not know the magnitude or even the sign of the forcing from our emissions of soot to the atmosphere.
We certainly do not know the values of the individual temperature feedbacks to anything like the narrow error bars falsely claimed by the IPCC. We do not even know the sign of the cloud feedback, and the IPCC has recently been forced to reduce the value of that feedback drastically.
Then there are the major non-radiative transports: evaporation and convection up, advection across, and precipitation and subsidence down.
We cannot predict the behavior of the oceans – indeed, we cannot even measure changes in their heat content with sufficient resolution to give a meaningful result.
We cannot predict el Niño and la Niña events. Look how many enviro-left news media predicted a record-busting event this year. They predicted it because they wanted it.
They needed it, desperately, to bring the Great Pause to an end and reduce the humiliation that the less dishonest among them are beginning to feel now that the laymen like me at whom they have viciously snapped and sneered for so long are – so far, at any rate – closer to the mark than they and their expensive but useless models.
For it would take only a very small reduction in each of the assumed values on the basis of which the IPCC makes its predictions to reach a climate sensitivity far less than the models’ currently-claimed central estimate of 3.2 Cº per CO2 doubling. And there are powerful theoretical reasons why some of those values must have been greatly overstated, though there is no space to consider them here.
My own best estimate, for what little it is worth, is that a doubling of CO2 concentration would warm the world by about 1 Cº, if that. The IPCC is heading – albeit far too slowly – towards the same answer. It has cut the CO2 forcing; it has accepted that the next-biggest anthropogenic forcing, from methane, has been vastly overestimated; it has slashed the feedback-sum and consequently the equilibrium system gain; it has all but halved its near-term predictions of global warming.
However, the honest answer to Stacey’s question about what climate sensitivity is indicated by the temperature record of the past 30 years is, “We do not know”.
But you will never hear that honesty on the lips of the Thermageddonites, as they furtively and profitably cement in place the last of the thousand interlinked supranational bureaucracies that are the silent sinews of what – if they get their way in Paris in December next year – will be an all-powerful world government founded upon the greatest lie ever told, the lie of certainty in a cloud of unknowing, elected by none, loved by few, feared by all, and answerable only to itself.
dbstealey says:
August 4, 2014 at 3:59 am
———————————
The judges would also have accepted “overconfidence” 😉
However in terms of provocation the comment served its purpose…
Normally when I’m using the “smartest guy in the room” line I include the caveat –
“Serving suggestion only. Results may vary depending on telephone booth/broom closet size”
And the reason for such caveats? While I frequently play the fool, I am not (despite Christopher’s claims) an idiot. I work with people far smarter than me, people far, far smarter than climastrologists. Where did I learn to empirically double check such inane assumptions like “the oceans are near blackbody”? Unlike me Christopher assumed that the initial assumptions underlying his maths were correct. He did not personally check. And assume makes…?
Monckton of Brenchley says:
August 4, 2014 at 6:27 am
——————————————-
Viscount Monckton,
I find your lack of faith in the scientific method….disturbing.
You shriek to present and future readers that my empirical experiments have not been pal reviewed, and that this justifies your epic failure to replicate or verify.
There are a few little problems with that. My selective surface experiments are just a replication of work from Texas A&M peer reviewed in 1965, and my 2011 experiments into incident LWIR on water that is fee to evaporatively cool were published in an engineering journal by proxy by an author who simply cut and pasted my work and experiment photos from Talkshop.
“Konrad waves his arms, but fails to provide a quantitative value for his proposed amendment to the 255 K emission temperature for Earth that theory would lead us to expect. What proposed alternative value for mean terrestrial emissivity in the near infrared would he propose, and how has he determined it?”
The relevant value is “well above 15C for 71% of the planets surface”, and you too could understand this if you replicated my experiments ( come on, I provide full build instruction…)
“And in which reviewed publication has his work appeared? We are not told.”
You what? I need pal review for replicable empirical experiment to be science? Do I need a pal reviewed consensus to be right? Is that the level you have descended to?
“Otherwise, one should be as skeptical of “Konrad’s” claim as of all other such claims. If a new hypothesis is incapable of withstanding scientific scrutiny, then why should I or anyone give it credence?”
To what actual scientific scrutiny did you subject my empirical claims? None. You made a call to authority argument. You cannot fight an empiricist and win, after all you are but a mathematician. Is it out of your depth on a wet pavement, or so far out of your depth the fish have lights on their noses?
“There is plenty of that in the climate science debate, but I am not impressed by it, and nor should anyone else be.”
You’re not impressed? Therefore no one else should be? You are the guy on permanent record who accepted the climastrologists 255K assumption. Call to authority arguments don’t work in these circumstances….
Ultimately if all you’ve got is “it’s not pal reviewed”, then you have nothing.
I checked Christopher, You assumed. What does assume make…?
Konrad:
How right you are – it is all in the assumptions and the data does not support the theory which all assume to be correct. Well, time to examine the assumptions. The poster M*nckt*n pretended to do just that but when commenters raised doubts about “climate sensitivity” this touched a nerve and he responded by labeling them as
“SL*y*rs. You were right to remind that fellow that empiricism trumps theoretical musings.
Matthew R Marler says, August 4, 2014 at 11:04 am:
“I think it is a serious research question: where the DWLWIR impinges on the non-dry surfaces of the Earth, how much evaporation does it cause?”
No need to waste money on such a project. The answer to your question is very simple: 0.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/03/the-central-climate-fallacy-is-that-the-unknowns-are-known/#comment-1701396
“There isn’t enough to “boil off” the oceans, but there is no reason to believe, or to assert, that there is no evaporation caused by the DWLWIR.”
Yes there is. Because it couldn’t cause any evaporation. It is not a separate, thermodynamically working flow of energy.
“(…) if DWLWIR isn’t energy carrying, then it can’t result from electrons changing from higher energy orbits declining into lower energy orbits. You are better off saying that an important energy transfer process has been too little studied.”
DWLWIR is not an ‘energy transfer process’. It is one conceptual part of an integrated thermal radiative energy exchange through a continuous radiation field between two systems at different temperatures. The radiative heat going from surface UP, moving through that radiation field, is a real (as in detectable) ‘energy transfer process’. It is the net of the mathematically derived (potential) DWLWIR and UWLWIR ‘fluxes’. You cannot separate the one from the other within the exchange. The radiative heat is the only actual transfer of radiative energy between surface and atmosphere.
Again, this has been pointed out so many times to those of you who actually believe DWLWIR (‘atmospheric back radiation’) to be a real, separate working flow of energy to the surface (an extra (and equal) input of energy next to the solar heat flux): If this were really the case, then why aren’t we harnessing this energy flux? It is seemingly twice as intense as the solar flux, evened out globally and across the diurnal cycle. Why aren’t we seeing ‘back radiation’ power plants all over the world?
And for the benefit of others I will complete your last: “…an ass out of u and me”
Christopher,
I agree, in a practical sense it probably doesn’t matter whether the sensitivity is zero, or one or two degrees. It wouldn’t be a problem, some warming is a benefit. History repeatedly shows that mankind prospered during the warm periods, and suffered during the cold periods.
But in another sense it is important, because it’s one of the great scientific questions, a bit like the age of the universe. Not necessarily of practical use, but nevertheless very important.
I’m certainly not an expert on climate science, but here are several reasons why I think the sensitivity is probably unmeasurably small:
1. Nearly half of the modern warming occurred before there was sufficient CO2, so clearly something else is at work.
2. As far as I’m aware, there is no empirical scientific data that shows a change in CO2 followed by a corresponding change in temperature. Surely, if the sensitivity is one degree, it should show up repeatedly in the ice core data? Of course, the CO2 follows the temperature, and not the other way around.
3. There have been four major warming periods over the last few thousand years: 1500BC, the Roman and Medieval periods and the modern warming. Based on ice core data, each warming period was a bit smaller than the previous one. Most likely they all had the same cause, whether it was solar or something else. But in the most recent warming, there should have been additional and fairly significant warming from the extra CO2. But there is no sign of it: the modern warming is no warmer than the previous three, and may well be slightly less warm. Surely, this strongly suggests that CO2 had essentially no warming effect at all.
4. AGW theory makes a number of specific forecasts: the equatorial hot spot, forecast warming, and the trend of Earth’s infra red emissions. The emissions are predicted by AGW to be getting smaller, but Lindzen showed that, not only is the size of the trend wrong, it has the wrong sign!
All these predictions based on AGW have turned out wrong. If science were working properly, AGW would have been scrapped years ago.
5. Much of climate science is corrupt almost beyond belief. If AGW were true, why is the most prominent paper supporting it (MBH98, the dreaded hockey stick) provably fraudulent?
And yet you do actually believe in a theory that looks to be completely discredited!
Finally, if the sensitivity is one degree, where is the empirical evidence to support that? Where are the examples of a step change in CO2 being followed by a corresponding step change in temperature?
Best regards,
Chris
Konrad 4:52am: “My selective surface experiments are just a replication of work from Texas A&M peer reviewed in 1965, and my 2011 experiments into incident LWIR on water that is fee to evaporatively cool were published in an engineering journal by proxy by an author who simply cut and pasted my work and experiment photos from Talkshop.”
Yet more handwaving “bluff and bombast” (top post Christopher term 6:27am comment). Citation and/or link please Konrad.
“The relevant value is “well above 15C for 71% of the planets surface”…”
Provably false by the bulk of papers in the field from reasoned analysis of both CERES, ERBE et. al. experiments, Earth weather station experiments, in situ ocean measurements. For the reasoned analysis featuring data from all the planets with thick atm.s proving Konrad claims are false bluff and bombast cite:
http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf
“To what actual scientific scrutiny did you subject my empirical claims?”
The 1st law of thermodynamics and Planck distribution et. al. basic intro. text physics including Fourier conduction, convective science of a bottom warmed fluid in a gravity field. ALL backed by extensive lab and field experiment accounted for with precise, calibrated equipment and informed, critical reasoned scrutiny.
“You’re not impressed?”
Not by Konrad. False prophet claims have always been with us. Reasoned analysis is a good defense.
Assume nothing, reasonably analyze & test claims. Konrad’s bluff & bombastic claims are found entirely lacking of reasoned analysis. Konrad’s central climate fallacy is unknowing, unreasoned analysis of known experiment.
H Grouse says:
August 4, 2014 at 10:38 am
“Grab a mercury thermometer.
The device does not measure temperature.
Not really all that different than the instruments aboard a satellite????”
——————-
You can keep on citing examples “until the cows come home” …. but they will not serve your purpose.
All thermocouples and thermometers are thermal “heat” energy measuring devices that rely on the “conduction” of said energy, …. directly from whatever molecular entity they are designed to measure, …… for their correct functioning regardless of what their “medium-of-exchange” is, ….. be it mercury, alcohol, water, a coiled spring, etc.
Satellites, IR cameras, rattlesnakes, insects, pythons, other pit vipers, etc. rely on the detection of specific wavelengths of “radiation” in the Infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum …. for their correct functioning regardless of what the source of the IR is.
And like satellites, ….. insects and rattlesnakes can not measure temperature. Pit vipers have evolved the ability to “detect” a specific frequency of IR radiation which is emitted from their various “warm-blooded” prey animals.
An “air” thermometer is used to measure the temperature of ALL of the gas molecules in the near-surface air surrounding said thermometer, ….. and not just a specific gas molecule such as CO2 or whatever.
And don’t be forgettin, …. the majority of all increases in near-surface air temperatures are the direct result of “conduction” from the surface.
Kristian 4:59am asks: “…”DWLWIR (‘atmospheric back radiation’) to be a real, separate working flow of energy to the surface (an extra (and equal) input of energy next to the solar heat flux): If this were really the case, then why aren’t we harnessing this energy flux?”
As I’ve pointed out to Kristian before, the known 2nd law of thermodynamics deters efforts due the top post fallacy of separating out this particular energy flux to harness. There will always be a loss in trying to do so – proven by extensive test and reasoned analysis in intro. text books. All matter – gas, liquid, solid – at all temperatures radiates at all frequencies all the time. An atm. is matter so radiates at all frequencies at all temperatures all the time although in varying amounts.
That sort of comment does not go down well with his lordship. He called me a SL***r for expressing the same notion on this thread.
I refer to Chris Wright’s at 5:43.
Steve Oregon says:
August 4, 2014 at 4:37 pm
“During all of my searches I’ve noticed that all of the government and alarmist sites avoid any mention of proportions. They speak about tonnes of CO2 etc. but not the EPA, NASA or any other I could find mention the percentages. ”
—————
Steve O, there is a primary “reason for their madness” that they speak about “tonnes of CO2” which has its origin in the work conducted by Charles Keeling that began producing more accurate and reliable results in 1958. And I cite the Keeling Curve Graph and/or Mauna Loa CO2 ppm measurements in conformation of the above.
In the early 1980’s the proponents of CAGW, …. and James Hansen et el specifically, needed some form of physical evidence to prove and/or justify their “junk science” claims that human emissions of their claimed “greenhouse” gas CO2 was the culprit directly responsible for their “fuzzy math” calculated increases in/of Average Surface Temperatures (Global Warming) via the highly questionable Surface Temperature Records being maintained by the NWS. See: History of the NWS – 1870 to present @ur momisugly http://www.nws.noaa.gov/pa/history/evolution.php
Anyway, the Mauna Loa data has steadily and consistently shown an average 1 to 2 ppm annual increase in atmospheric CO2 from 1958 thru the 1980’s …. which was proof enough for Hansen et el that human emissions were partly or totally responsible for. (And ps, that steady and consistent increase of CO2 ppm continued on thru to present, 2014 )
And if the average mass of the atmosphere had been calculated to be about 5 quadrillion (5,000,000,000,000,000) metric tons, ….. then atmospheric CO2 in the 300+ ppm (0.03+%) range would mean that every one (1) ppm of CO2 would be equal to about 5 billion tons of CO2.
Therefore, Hansen et el now had the “magic number” of ….. 5bt/1ppm CO2 ….. for converting ….. “calculated temperature increases directly to increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm”.
And thus, …. all Hansen et el had to do then was to insure that the highly questionable estimations of total yearly human emissions of CO2 were stated in “tons of CO2” of sufficient quantities that would correspond to the aforesaid ….. average 1 to 2 ppm annual increase in atmospheric CO2 as defined by the Mauna Loa record.
But, when their “calculated temperature increases stalled” …… with “the pause”, …… but the annual average increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm” ….. did not “stall” with “the pause”, ….. then there was “BIG trouble in River City”.
ferdberple says:
August 4, 2014 at 6:50 pm
“there is one and only one test that will tell us the effects of CO2. And that is to observe what happens when CO2 is released PRIOR to warming. Do we see any CONSISTENT evidence of warming following natural events that release CO2?”
—————–
Now I devised a cheap and simple experiment … like 10 years ago …. that will permit one to accurately measure the effects, … if any, …. that an increase in CO2 ppm will have on near surface air temperatures.
Just build two (2) identical frameworks, ……. say 20′ x 10′ x 8′ square, …. out of 1/2″ plastic pipe, …. outside in an area where each will receive the same amount of Sunshine, ……. place calibrated temperature sensors (thermocouples) inside of them that are connected to an auto-recording unit outside of said frameworks, ……… then cover them “air tight” with 4 mil clear plastic sheeting including the floors of each unit …… and when the night time temperatures in both stabilizes and reads the same degree F, …….. then at say 2 AM inject enough CO2 at the same degree F in one of them to increase the current 400+- ppm of CO2 to say 800 ppm of CO2. Thus, both units should be at the same degree F.
Then turn on the auto-recorder and record the temperatures in both structure …… and again every hour on the hour (or every half hour, or ten minutes) ……. for the next 24 hours.
And if CO2 is the global warming “greenhouse”gas that all the proponents of CAGW claims it is, then when the Sun rises in the morning and starts shining on the structures, the temperature in the structure containing 800 ppm CO2 ……. should start increasing sooner and faster and reach a greater temperature than in the other structure ….. and when the Sun starts setting the temperature inside the structure with 800 ppm CO2 should remain higher than it is in the other structure up until and past the 2 AM starting point ….. which will be confirmed by the “data log record” …. which will also include any actual “degree” increase in temperature.
And if it doesn’t, …. then the CO2 causing AGW claims are totally FUBAR.
TimNitOz says:
August 4, 2014 at 7:02 pm
“This is a continual work in progress, but at this stage (it took a while) I’ve discovered that my entire set of truths are beliefs, and I actually do “know”, very little, or maybe, nothing.”
—————–
Well now, … congratulations TimNitOz, …. me thinks you have just discovered the literal truth …. of the absolute fact that …… “You are what your environment nurtured you to be”.
Trick says, August 5, 2014 at 6:30 am:
“All matter – gas, liquid, solid – at all temperatures radiates at all frequencies all the time. An atm. is matter so radiates at all frequencies at all temperatures all the time although in varying amounts.”
So how much would an atmosphere at an average of say 255K consisting purely of N2 and O2 radiate to its surroundings? Since, as you say, an atmosphere is matter and all matter – gas, liquid, solid – radiates at all frequencies at all temperatures all the time …
Now, the problem with the theorem of Pythagoras is that it is unquestionably true. For those who agree with the philosopher Schopenhauer that Euclid’s demonstration is “a triumph of perversity”, here is the admirably clear proof by dissection attributed to the fifth-century Hindu mathematican Aryabhatta.
Am I the only one here willing to point out that is not admirably clear? The extra design frippery makes it much more confusing. Lord knows I’ve seen enough optical illusions to question what deception the coloration and possibly variable widths of the extraneous border pieces are hiding. For example, two opposing triangles maintain their orientation and border color cues between panes, but the other opposing set is apparently mirrored yet with different color cues when it is passed off as the same in the second pane. Why?
Interestingly, Googling for “pythagoras proof Aryabhatta” shows that graphic used in a 2010 Bob Arthy interview of Monckton. Which is packaged next to “… and Monckton’s proof by inclusion” which is also too cutesy but without consistent use of bordering, and messy, and not clear.
Further, I have seen more than enough previous claims of cherrypicking to find that it shows anything but a clever combination of lengths that just happen to work, it is not to be taken as a general proof. It lacks enough descriptive detail to show otherwise.
In addition, my spellchecker says “mathematician” was misspelled, while Wikipedia says “Aryabhata” was also misspelled, with “every astronomical text” spelling it as indicated.
And while Monckton says this proof is attributed to Aryabhata, I cannot find such. But I can find this proof by dissection (aka proof by rearrangement) attributed to Pythagoras himself, as given here, and notably without the mirrored set of triangles.
With Pythagoras living circa 570-495 BC, and Aryabhata 476-550 AD, the attribution of the proof to Pythagoras takes precedence until demonstrated otherwise.
And now that I’ve vented about that cluster-coupled frou-frou plopped in my path that prevented me from getting into the flow of piece, that artsy child’s wooden puzzle allegedly containing an “admirably clear proof”, maybe I can finally read it through, if I can find the time!
Kristian: It is not a separate, thermodynamically working flow of energy.
I’ll have to leave you there. I think you are wrong, but if you are right then I am wrong.
It’s difficult for sophisticated people to acknowledge what they don’t know and especially what cannot be known. Science is distinguished from other philosophies by its intentionally constrained scope in time and space. However, as people seek to answer fundamental questions (e.g. origin of life), they callously exploit and corrupt science in order to mold a perception of knowledge, and to marginalize competing interests. Unfortunately, this has predictably (i.e. with precedent) corrupted science, sabotaging its utility and function.
From Samuel C Cogar on August 5, 2014 at 10:38 am:
Except it doesn’t. You propose filling two identical structures with differing concentrations of CO2, as if CO2 was insulation. But the CO2 that provides the greenhouse effect is ABOVE the surface, not AT the surface.
Thus your little boxes would not work. Thus all your proposed experiment can demonstrate is you don’t understand enough about how greenhouse gases work to begin to test how well they work.
Plus by the logarithmic effect of CO2, 400 to 800 ppm actually won’t show much, as the effect is already essentially saturated at 400ppm. Again, design fail. Try pure nitrogen vs pure nitrogen with 400ppm CO2, once you figure out an effective experiment design.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says, August 5, 2014 at 12:40 pm:
“Except it doesn’t. You propose filling two identical structures with differing concentrations of CO2, as if CO2 was insulation. But the CO2 that provides the greenhouse effect is ABOVE the surface, not AT the surface.
Thus your little boxes would not work. Thus all your proposed experiment can demonstrate is you don’t understand enough about how greenhouse gases work to begin to test how well they work.”
Meaning there has never been an experiment in the history of humanity really showing us what effect increased CO2 in the atmosphere will have on the surface temperature. So far it’s all been purely theoretical conjecture.
So how do we test your proposed CO2 warming mechanism in the lab? How do we begin to test how well it supposedly works?
It’s easy to show that the effect of doubling CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm in dry air would negligible at best.
Consider first the case of the moist tropics. There you have about 40,000 ppm of the GHG water vapor. Adding 300 ppm of CO2 means the total of the two far & away most important GHGs would grow from 40,300 to 40,600 ppm, ie practically no increase, especially when considering the logarithmic nature of the effect.
Consider now the dry high latitudes, especially polar. There water vapor concentration might be of about the same magnitude as CO2, ie three or four molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules. So, starting from three H2O & three CO2 molecules for a total of six per 10,000, jumping to seven still means practically no effect, due to initial thinness rather than abundance of water.
Same goes for all the cases in between, in the temperate zone & dry tropics. The global average for water vapor level is probably around 30,000 ppm. CACA should have been laughed out of the room long ago.
PS: The Team knows this, which is why their GIGO models make such absurd, unfounded assumptions about water vapor feedback.
Kristian 10:56am: “So how much would an atmosphere at an average of say 255K consisting purely of N2 and O2 radiate to its surroundings?”
Good question, see Christopher’s top post discussion concerning “Stacey” adopting a sound, scientific approach. For a detail discussion, I would refer you to the link I posted for Konrad 6:12am section S.3 and Fig. S5 for reasoned analysis of IR optical depths at 1 bar in hypothetical but plausible planetary atmospheres compared to observed. N2 & H2 et. al. are discussed but not O2, so for your answer you are going to have to do some line by line radiative transfer integration of your own given the cited ref. work methods.
Eqn. S19 will be helpful in your approach to an answer also – using the gas mixing ratios of your choice, mass extinction coefficient (kappa) for each gas species and some reasoned analysis.
Back of the envelope with some “unknowns are known” (Christopher term) parameters to play with: as a surface 1bar atm. in such as Earth’s orbit was reduced toward primarily N2, O2 from current composition, the emissivity measured looking up from the surface would substantially reduce (optical depth tau become less thick) from global 0.8 to a much lower number and the surface Tmean approach 255K by simple 1st law, Planck distribution, Fourier conduction and fluid convection reasoned analysis based on lab experiment.
At measured N2, O2 global atm. emissivity of say 0.1 (from the line-by-line integration surface to TOA) looking up from surface for example, the atm. component of DWLWIR radiating to surroundings would be about 13 W/m^2 at a surface global Tmean of about 258K once approx. long term equilibrium was established with the sun & albedo as is in the current epoch.
******
Kristian 2:10pm: Concur. See Christopher in top post already coming to your conclusion:
…the honest answer to Stacey’s question about what climate sensitivity is (to CO2 forcing) indicated by the temperature record of the past 30 years is, “We do not know”.
To answer your new questions though: Looking over centuries of thermometry, there is some basic physics since Callendar’s 1938 paper estimating & predicting what the added CO2 ppm sensitivity should be from lab test and it came out reasonably close to observed global experiment correcting for the actual observed ppm CO2. The prediction is near the error bars of the thermometry record so observe the number of resulting blog posts – that alone should tell you something.
******
milodonharlani 2:24pm: ”..practically no effect, due to initial thinness rather than abundance of water….”
The emissivity of Earth atm. composition measured looking up from surface in the moist tropics is ~0.95, in the drier polar regions it is ~0.7 so there is real effect of atm. water vapor content in a column, not so much from well mixed CO2 – but not quite negligible as Callendar 1938 paper demonstrates from lab test and reasoned analysis.
Mr Knoebel sneeringly and futilely quibbles about the spelling of Aryabhatta (the older transliteration, still widely used in India). He prefers Aryabhata. If he wanted to be successful in being pathetically picky and pusillanimously pedantic he should really have spelt it Arya-Bhata.
Then he says he can’t understand Aryabhatta’s proof and doesn’t think it rigorous. Well, since his idea of doing homework is to trawl the internet, where he seems to be saying he was unable to find the spelling Aryabhatta, cites Creepymedia (the most unreliable source of information on the planet) and says he was unable to find the proof by dissection attributed to Aryabhatta, let him try a little harder and look up the proof for himself, and think about it before shooting his mouth off.
He also implies that I had said Pythagoras’ proof was in fact first demonstrated by Aryabhatta, when I had manifestly said no such thing. If he had wanted to be successfully picky rather than merely inadequate, he would have mentioned that the theorem was certainly known to the Babylonians long before Pythagoras. Perhaps he would have preferred it to be called the Babylonian Theorem. Then he could have quibbled and driveled about the spelling of “Babylonian” as well,
And let him not, in future, sneer to the effect that something he does not understand is likely to be incorrect. On his past form here, it is more likely that he is simply not bright enough to grasp what children of 11 have not the slightest difficulty in understanding. More adult standards of conduct and of intellect are expected here. And, in future, for Heaven’s sake stick to the main point, which is that – whether Mr Knoebel likes it or understands it or not – the theorem of Pythagoras is true.
Trick says:
August 5, 2014 at 2:41 pm
I expressed that part of my argument poorly. There is some effect even from a small amount of water vapor in the Arctic & Antarctic. The addition of one more molecule of CO2 per 10,000 dry air molecules to this thin envelope of GHGs however would indeed have little effect, especially when considering the logarithmic nature of the effect.