From the University of Cambridge
Many of the complex computer models which are used to predict climate change could be missing an important ozone ‘feedback’ factor in their calculations of future global warming, according to new research led by the University of Cambridge and published today (1 December) in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Computer models play a crucial role in informing climate policy. They are used to assess the effect that carbon emissions have had on the Earth’s climate to date, and to predict possible pathways for the future of our climate.
Increasing computing power combined with increasing scientific knowledge has led to major advances in our understanding of the climate system during the past decades. However, the Earth’s inherent complexity, and the still limited computational power available, means that not every variable can be included in current models. Consequently, scientists have to make informed choices in order to build models which are fit for purpose.
“These models are the only tools we have in terms of predicting the future impacts of climate change, so it’s crucial that they are as accurate and as thorough as we can make them,” said the paper’s lead author Peer Nowack, a PhD student in the Centre for Atmospheric Science, part of Cambridge’s Department of Chemistry.
The new research has highlighted a key role that ozone, a major component of the stratosphere, plays in how climate change occurs, and the possible implications for predictions of global warming. Changes in ozone are often either not included, or are included a very simplified manner, in current climate models. This is due to the complexity and the sheer computational power it takes to calculate these changes, an important deficiency in some studies.
In addition to its role in protecting the Earth from the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays, ozone is also a greenhouse gas. The ozone layer is part of a vast chemical network, and changes in environmental conditions, such as changes in temperature or the atmospheric circulation, result in changes in ozone abundance. This process is known as an atmospheric chemical feedback.
Using a comprehensive atmosphere-ocean chemistry-climate model, the Cambridge team, working with researchers from the University of East Anglia, the National Centre for Atmospheric Science, the Met Office and the University of Reading, compared ozone at pre-industrial levels with how it evolves in response to a quadrupling of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is a standard climate change experiment.
What they discovered is a reduction in global surface warming of approximately 20% – equating to 1° Celsius – when compared with most models after 75 years. This difference is due to ozone changes in the lower stratosphere in the tropics, which are mainly caused by changes in the atmospheric circulation under climate change.
“This research has shown that ozone feedback can play a major role in global warming and that it should be included consistently in climate models,” said Nowack. “These models are incredibly complex, just as the Earth is, and there are an almost infinite number of different processes which we could include. Many different processes have to be simplified in order to make them run effectively within the model, but what this research shows is that ozone feedback plays a major role in climate change, and therefore should be included in models in order to make them as accurate as we can make them. However, this particular feedback is especially complex since it depends on many other climate processes that models still simulate differently. Therefore, the best option to represent this feedback consistently might be to calculate ozone changes in every model, in spite of the high computational costs of such a procedure.
“Climate change research is all about having the best data possible. Every climate model currently in use shows that warming is occurring and will continue to occur, but the difference is in how and when they predict warming will happen. Having the best models possible will help make the best climate policy.”
###
The models are worse than useless for informing policy decisions and will be for the foreseeable future.
However ozone does play a role in climate change. The “scientists”, ie computer programmers, should have studied the effect of variable solar UV flux on ozone and of those fluctuations on climate, but through observation of reality rather than GIGO, question-begging* models.
*Designed to show what the programmers are paid to make them show.
“*Designed to show what the programmers are paid to make them show.”
ah no.
1. If they were you would see better matches to the observation record.
2. If they were you wouldnt have to tune them.
the models are clearly not perfect. no model is. Whether these models are useful is a good debate.
not a settled question.
Smart skeptics attack the actual data and actual code. They don’t make baseless claims about the behavior and motives of modelers.
..you mean like tuning the temperature history
Smart skeptics want to smash the whole crooked, anti-scientific, anti-human enterprise, which has started to corrupt real science. The Team doesn’t tune the models, it “tunes” the data. I don’t need to speculate as to motive. The words and deeds of the Team make it clear as sky under a blocking high.
Smart Team members are already looking for ways to leave the sinking ship with a tatter of their reputations and chances for future funding intact.
The rigged, GIGO models are worse than worthless for any purpose except to show that CO2 is not the control knob on climate, since the models based upon that absurd assumption have been shown so wildly, laughably to fail epically when compared even with highly “adjusted” observations.
They are certainly worse than worthless as bases for formulating public policy, such as waging war on cheap, abundant energy with which to better humanity and indeed the planet, so reliant upon plant life and other photosynthesizers.
As if you use “actual data”. We do attack your “data”. It’s fun and easy to do, since it’s all an artifact, although less for satellite observations than for the fictional surface station constructs.
It has been shown that nearly all of models are useless at replicating past observations.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-projectons-versus-reality/
There could be some debate about the usefulness of the two or three models that come close to reality but the vast majority should be sent back for retuning and can be safely ignored until they show reasonable skill. A model than cannot be tested is useless.
A model that is tested and fails is equality useless. I don’t see much room for debate here.
Furthermore, the fact that nearly all models show excessive warming, as compared to the observation record, is at least prima facie evidence they were designed to show excessive warming. The fact that the models are tunable, but still show excessive warming, is even more evidence of willful bad intent.
Thomas said: “The fact that the models are tunable, but still show excessive warming, is even more evidence of willful bad intent.”
…….I think we have a winner
Thomas
December 1, 2014 at 3:15 pm
Prima facie evidence of intention.
Case closed. The prosecution can rest easy.
Mosh, it’s a pity you didn’t do Philosophy instead of English at University. That usually has module on logic. Let’s take your point 1. – It begins with two fallacies. a) That the observational record is in fact not being continuously tampered with. As the evidence is fairly conclusive – neatly exemplified in Willis’s recent Buoy post, and many others, that ‘adjustments’ are always improbably biased for ‘up’ and cool the past, what we’re actually seeing is continuous efforts to pretend reality actually conforms with the models, not the other way around. b)That those who pay the programmers want the models to reflect the reality, which is not very alarming. As they have a vested interest in maintaining alarmism, we’d have to see real proof that they were being rigorous in the pursuit of actually matching the observation (like for instance tossing the likes of Jones, Lewadonsky and Mann to join Lysenko, and actually admitting past mistakes) before one can merely say ‘oh this time they’re honest’.
Let’s take your point 2. If you’re continually having to ‘tune’ them and they still don’t work, maybe the answer is they were wrong to start with? It makes claiming ‘certainty’ intrinsically dishonest.
Smart scientist keep their reputations cleaner than any outsider would and attack those among them that tarnish that reputation for integrity and veracity. They don’t make baseless attacks on those who have good reason to be skeptical.
Smart skeptics attack the actual data and actual code. They don’t make baseless claims about the behavior and motives of modelers.
==================
Point taken. But then what the heck is this, if not baseless
“the models are clearly not perfect. no model is. Whether these models are useful is a good debate.
not a settled question.”
“Smart skeptics attack the actual data and actual code. ”
Is there such a thing? I certainly don’t see any evidence for that assertion.
It would require intelligence to see it.
Come off it, Mosher.
Anyone who claims that an effectively infinitely large open-ended non-linear feedback-driven (where we don’t know all the feedbacks, and even the ones we do know, we are unsure of the signs of some critical ones) chaotic system – hence subject to inter alia extreme sensitivity to initial conditions – over any significant time period is either a charlatan or a computer salesman.
Which are you?
Ironically, the first person to point this out was Edward Lorenz – a climate scientist.
dogboi says:
Is there such a thing?
Based on your posts, every skeptic commenting here leaves you in the dust as far as intelligence goes. We run rings around your lame arguments, so naturally you fall back on insults like that.
“Smart skeptics………don’t make baseless claims about the behavior and motives of modelers”
That’s right but it seems that only one side is allowed to do that with impunity. Insisting I’m being paid by big oil and coal companies, get my science from Rush Limbaugh and Fox news and call me names like “denier” and “flat earther” for practicing authentic atmospheric science and pointing out huge flaws in the crumbling theory of CAGW and showing evidence of the massive benefits from the irrefutable law of photosynthesis.
This is the type of response I get from one side when an article is printed. This recent one in our local paper.
http://www.courierpress.com/opinion/columnists/climate-science-has-been-hijacked_79794406
Unfortunately, I believe you need a subscription to read it and it ends with:
“Mike Maguire is an Evansville meteorologist.
Copyright 2014 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed”
Which I assume applies to Anthony’s place.
Regardless, Mosh makes a good point……except it’s aimed in the wrong direction based on my extensive personal experiences over the last decade.
So, even when excluding any factors that don’t fit the theory and even the most careful of tuning, the models still can’t come close to accurately reflecting the actual climate.
I agree that models can be used to help us figure out what it is we don’t know regarding climate.
But as for making predictions, they are beyond useless.
Yet the models still cannot replicate observations. Models ( as all computer code ) are not perfect. I know, I write enough of it. And yes, you need to develop the complexity over time, and yes you are permitted to have a work in progress that oversimplifies and gets it wrong. Its called development and that is how progress is, wwll, progressed.
What is unforgivable, when your model continually fails to explain reality over the course of a decade or more, and continues to fail, is to claim the model has any predictive worth at all.
you say that IF they were designed to show what the programmers are paid to show, they would be better matches. Steve, BECAUSE they are designed to show what the programmers are paid to make them show, they CAN’T make better matches, because, Steve, Carbon Dioxide doesn’t drive the climate, and that is what they are paid to show.
Don’t you find it funny that their “tuning” invariably and begrudgingly, is ALWAYS alluding to natural cycles as the reason the models don’t quite match reality? I find it tragically amusing, and I say tragically because those that they are advising with this bogus model forecast are willingly setting the world population up for a massive die off due to starvation and hypothermia. But not to worry, Steve, because the die off will be at the expense of the poor, the infirm, and the elderly that are both poor and infirm.
@ Catherine Ronconi
“The Team doesn’t tune the models, it “tunes” the data.”
I spent last evening reading at Climate Audit regarding the methods used in Gergis2k. I think it goes past ‘tuning the data’. It goes to using ‘resistant’ proxies upside down when they show the wrong shape, and tacking unrelated proxies into each other. It is a very interesting read.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/11/22/data-torture-in-gergis2k/
I divide the data issues into two groups: changing the raw data and claiming later it is raw data, and torturing the data until it either confesses or “resistance is overcome” a-la-a certain former CBC somebody.
Following the outrageous alarmist claims on CBC TV last night, posed as a ‘debate’ between Tom Rand (who, as a direct beneficiary of public subsidies, was delightfully, hopelessly, alarmingly over-the-top) and the sober, sensible Kenneth Green from the Fraser Institute, there was a vigorous debate on the CBC blog with over 2300 comments racked up in a few hours. The CAGW skeptics did very well, I thought. Tom behaving like a jerk helped a lot.
The subject of ‘tuned data’ didn’t get a mention of course, as Tom, clearly frightened by the prospect of having to face the deep implications of Kenneth’s comments, stomped all over poor Ms Lang’s efforts to chair the event. You could tell, each time Kenneth hit a nerve, that Tom knew he was on shaky ground so he would jump in to prevent Kenneth completing his sentences. Taken aback by the shrill repetition, Kenneth commented, “Repeating something doesn’t make it true.” Neither did repeating it louder. Tom kept yelling excitedly that the IPCC was the ‘gold standard’ for climate science and that their ‘central estimate’ was 4.5 degrees of warming by 2100. I couldn’t believe it. Where has he been for 7 years?
So there is a third option after tuning data and tuning models, and that is lying, bald-faced to the public about what is in AR5. Maybe Tom can’t read. More’s the pity because if he could, he would know what the central estimate is and how it got there.
Tom asked in a ridiculing manner ‘…if the Fraser Institute is an evidence-based institution?’ Rather obviously it is. Apparently that is not the case for Tom Rand of MaRS CleanTech.
See the evidence for yourself at http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2623087990/?page=2 It is awful.
So if tuning the models and data doesn’t work, you can always try tuning the evidence a-la-Tom Rand.
@Mosher:
ah yes.
Every program has a specification. The programmer writes code to embody the specification. By definition, coding and programming are to make the code do what the specification says.
Now the researcher who writes the specification might have more noble goals, or not… And in the case where the researcher is also the programmer and coder, well, they will only embody the beliefs of the builder…
So yes, programs only do what you tell them to do (modulo bugs…) and do not go beyond that..
Models can “inform our ignorance” when compared to reality, but are never an “experiment” and never “proof”. Sometimes useful toys for generating insight. Often a misleading simplification with horrid errors embodied…
Another epicycle?
Don’t we need reliable equations first before any code can written ?
That’s how it’s done by reputable scientists.
Actually, upon thinkng about it, and to amplify roachstaugustines point, the models do have an important use. The clearly and unambigiously illustrate the fact that climate science is not completely or satisfactorily understood.
They are indeed the perfect foil for the “science is settled” BS
The reality is climate models predicting what the climate will be will never work, even if we knew all the variables at a point and time there is no way to compute what will happen, There is simply too many possible outcomes from that beginning state, let alone what follows after that. I do not understand how anyone can think that would not be true, for example two dice have six sides and 36 possible outcomes, yet no computer can predict what those outcomes will be for each roll, and a computer cannot predict what each successive roll will be let alone what a roll, 1000 rolls in the future will be. You can predict the probability of each roll but not what the roll will be. The same for climate, yes if you understood all the variables you could predict the probability of the conditions in the future but you cannot predict the future climate, since the probabilities are not what the roll or the climate will be. That the way is is for dices and climate, and if you think computer model will tell you what the future is going to you are a fool. You can take you model and honestly say my model predicts that the Climate will be X with the probability of Y, yet even with a high probability of confidence you model has no predictive skill, it only a model and climate is it own model, it will run on it own time and will generate it own outcome regardless of what your model says, after all models are only guess, no better that a weegie board for predicting the future. No amount computing power, knowledge or number of models/runs will ever change that anyone who tells you differently is either a con man or extremely stupid.
And how exactly did they measure the pre-industrial ozone levels?
That’s a very good question. Several years ago I asked the University of Cambridge and the Max Planck institute how we knew the ozone levels prior to the use of instruments in the mid 1950’s as my query was how we knew whether or not the ozone hole had always been around but we just couldn’t measure it.
They confirmed that we couldn’t know if it had always existed as no measurements existed pre 1950’s. Perhaps something has changed. I will try to find out or perhaps someone here knows if some way has been devised to measure historic ozone levels?
Tonyb
Tonyb and Jer0me, I got curious and did a little Arts of Truth sleuthing this pm. Nowak’s U.C. NCC paper is of course paywalled. But NCC gives the abstract, (quoted in the PR pretty well unlike some examples illustrated in Blowing Smoke), thumbnails of the figures (IMO irrelevant) and the list of citations. Aha. The ozone estimate for 1850 comes from Cionni 2011 in Atm. Chem. Phys. Cionni fit a regression to actual ozone observations since 1979. Derived two terms. Solar 11 year cycle UV and ‘effective equivalent stratospheric chlorine (EESC). Then plugged in estimated 1850 solar cycle UV ( at least one can imagine how they might derive such a guess from the solar sunspot cycle) and estimated EESC to model 1850 stratospheric ozone. The problem is, there are natural atmospheric halogen contributors both organic (plant terpenes) and inorganic (salt, volcanic aerosols) as well as CFC’s. Their quantitative contribution to stratospheric ozone beyond CFC is nowhere to be found, at least not in my lit search this PM. So the 1850 EESC input to the ozone model is a SWAG (Stupid Wild Assed Guess).
More Models all the way Down. But another ‘official’ backdown ‘the science is settled’, thanks to ‘the pause that refreshes’ skepticism.
Regards
Tonyb;
The Japanese Imperial Navy and Army made very extensive preparations for the WW2 Pacific War. They assumed and operated on the principle that it would be a short sharp conflict with the USA which the soft, weak in resolve American public [ their judgement and assessment of the Americans ] would soon get sick of the fighting and of their military losses and withdraw American forces from the western Pacific leaving the IJN and IJA in control of the immense resources of that region.
They were very well prepared for the coming war having done very extensive mapping of the Pacific including having the best maps of the entire northern and western and north eastern coast lines of Australia. Far superior in fact to the Australian Governments maps as the Japanese had got the contract from the Australian Government to map those coast lines and just handed down the second rate stuff to an unsuspecting and naive Australian government.
[ http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/kyejapradcom.htm ]
Somewhere a long time ago I read a brief comment that the Japanese in their very extensive Pacific and Southern Ocean pre WW2 radio propagation and communication research in preparation for Pacific confrontation with the USA and the Dutch in Indonesia realised that there were quite frequent changes in way in which the long wave radio propagation signals which use the ionosphere for propagation, performed when transmitted and received from down near the Antarctic and in what is now called the Southern Ocean.
The Japanese radio research from these areas was probably fragmentary and orientated towards submarine communications within the main South Pacific / American / New Caledonia. [ which they intended to occupy ] / NZ transport routes.
But apparently the Japanese realised that something was changing on a regular basis in the Antarctic atmospheric environment which created those changes in their long wave radio communication systems.
All of that information would have been highly classified as well as being in Japanese. Plus it is highly likely that a lot of that information and data was deliberately destroyed the few days prior to the allied occupation of Japan when a mass destruction and burning of documents relating to Japanese activities and the Emperor’s role in WW2 was carried out to frustrate the allies in their research on japanese war time activities and crimes.
The only other possible source of information would be the logs of those few pre and post WW2 radio hams in Australia, NZ, South Africa and South America whose logs might have some information which if properly researched and analysed could possibly give indications of the state of the Antarctic ozone layer / hole which along with the invention and development of the Dobson spectrophotometer in the 1920’s and the setting up of the global network of ground-based, total-ozone observing stations which was established in 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2006/chapters/Q5.pdf
I have a chuckle here as this sort of research from all those sources is right down your alley Tonyb.
Information carefully and scrupulously recorded by those from the increasingly distant past which can tell us a great deal about phenomena that the present generation of scientist believe they are the inventors of.
A case of not even reinventing and modelling that wheel, always “modelling”, which the current generation of scientists seem to be totally fixated on doing but just digging around to find that damn wheel which will be there somewhere if they ever try to look in the right places.
Rud
If the paper was from 2011 that’s probably a year or so after I asked CU my original question but basically the data seems less than robust. I have directly asked the University for clarification so will see what they come up with
Tonyb
ROM
Thanks for that really fascinating snippet. The answer might lie out there for several decades prior to the first instrumentation reading in the mid 1950’s but that is a long way from knowing what happened preindustrial.
Lets see if I get any reply from the University Or whether this is another of those times when the certainty is unwarranted.
Tonyb
@TonyB and Rud
The interaction between ozone and Bromine (largely from the oceans prior to industrialization) is highlighted in Prof Lu’s papers (he of Univ of Waterloo fame). Actually, he mentions Cl, Br and I together. See Q.-B. Lu, Physics Reports 487 (2010) p141-167.
“Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change”
“The depletion of total ozone has a nearly quadratic dependence on the CR intensity Ii.” (his emphasis)
and, “These data strongly indicate that global temperature has been dominantly controlled by the level of CFCs, modulated by the CR-driven ozone depletion over the past century.
It is possible that Willis’ search for a solar-linked temperature change may end here. CFCs (or equivalent as defined) plus CR = polar temperature changes in the stratosphere and troposphere. CO2 plays no detectable part, at least not yet, since 1850. Willis, see his Fig 22. Temperature (HADCRUT3 combined) v.s. normalized equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC) 1970-2008. R=0.89 and P <0.0001. He predicts a 0.4 C drop in the next 50 years (from 2005). Also see the conclusions.
Anyway, my point is that Bromine is also involved and it comes from the ocean so it would have to be considered if one were to predict what was happening indirectly in the past with ozone.
I presume using the bones of baying blood hounds. There weren’t many balloons in the 19th Century.
I believe that the first balloon flight was in 1798.
Until the satellite era, all ozone readings were done by proxy.
Things like assuming that the sun’s output of UV is a constant and then measuring UV at the surface. Any changes MUST be the result of changes in ozone.
“Every climate model currently in use shows that warming is occurring and will continue to occur, but the difference is in how and when they predict warming will happen”.
But nowhere in the article does it discuss real data.
predictions are never real data.
BUT they are either right, or wrong.
That’s all that matters.
And computer climate models aren’t very good predictors.
Climate models of a mythical world cannot help us.
But, as you know, predictions should line up with real data that’s seen when the timeframe for the prediction has passed. Models executed against previous timeframes are also “predictions” that can be compared to real data immediately. Because we know how flawed the climate models’ predictions have been, it’s reasonable to take Neil’s position here: that a “study” is not trustworthy if it is, instead of an actual study of real observations and real experimentation, simply yet another computer simulation.
Wow Mosh today must be a high density day or are you learning at the feet of The Stokian genius.
“Warming is occurring” is not a prediction>
predictions are never real data…….
I predict that 2 + 2….will equal 4
Rule one of climate ‘science’ takes care of that , “when the models and reality differ in value its reality which is in error ”
climate ‘science’ perhaps the only area of science were an PHd can be yours for collecting enough coupons off cereal packets , or so it would seem
The models are incomplete yet they are used to formulate policy and churn out IPCC reports for action. Why act on failed results?
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
That graph would be hilarious if not so sad and costly in lives and treasure.
In the Bizarro World of CACA, the farther model-based predictions diverge from observations, the higher the degree of confidence in the results.
Yes, you are correct: it is a sad state of affairs.
As I understand it, the GCMs spin up in a virtual past and by the time they drive by the start date, they are pretty close to that value, say the global average surface temperature.
“Every climate model currently in use shows that warming is occurring and will continue to occur” is nonsense. Actual measurements show what is occurring.
What they discovered is a reduction in global surface warming of approximately 20% – equating to 1° Celsius – when compared with most models after 75 years. This difference is due to ozone changes in the lower stratosphere in the tropics, which are mainly caused by changes in the atmospheric circulation under climate change.
Wouldn’t a 20% reduction equating to 1C mean that they had expected a 5C rise?
I wonder how this meshes with Lovejoy’s natural variations in temperature?
Did I misunderstand, or is this another walk back of CO2 doing all the warming?
Good point. 1degC of 1.5 is a massive difference and 1 degC is more than the temp rise for the whokd 20th century.
It’s for a quadrupling of CO2. If you take sensitivity for a doubling to be 2.5 degrees then two doublings is 5 degrees.
Unfortunately for them it’s looking less and less likely that sensitivity is anywhere near 2.5 degrees.
Also, the GHE is logarithmic, such that each doubling has less effect.
For example, if doubling from 285 ppm to 570 yields a T increase at equilibrium of 1.2 degree C (ie no net feedback), as is perhaps possible on a homeostatic planet within the current interglacial mode, then the next doubling from 570 to 1140 ppm might yield only another 0.8 degree.
A two degrees on average warmer world with a near optimum amount of vital plant food in the air sounds close to ideal to me. However humanity is not likely to keep contributing enough CO2 to the atmosphere for its concentration ever to reach this optimum level. It would be hard to do so even on purpose.
The logarithmic response means that the effect of doubling is the same for each factor of two change.
Wrong again:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
milodonharlani indeed you are wrong again, you don’t appear to understand the log function.
Example: log base 2 of 8 is 3, double to 16 and log2(16) is 4, double again to 32 and log2(32) is 5, therefore there is a constant increment in the log function for each doubling.
See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm
Exactly. They expected a rise of 5 degrees C for a quadrupling of CO2, meaning they were using a sensitivity of 2.5 C per doubling. This is already below the IPCC best estimates of 3 for the last 30 years, suggesting that even the modelers are backpedalling. If the negative ozone feedback is added in, it reduces their effective sensitivity to 2. Now they are approaching the values of 1.6 or so found by Otto et al., (including Nic Lewis) and multiple other recent studies. There is even a brilliant recent study (Charlson second author, sorry forgot first author and which blog it showed up in) showing that AR5 is inconsistent in estimating sensitivity to lie between 1.5 and 4.5 using its own estimate of aerosol forcing, which would lead to a best estimate of ….1.6!
Might explain why AR5 backed off from the 2 C lower limit proposed in AR4, returning to their old lower limit of 1.5, a range which (coincidentally?) now includes their (real?) estimate of 1.6
Are the climate sensitivity soufflé collapses hissingly
I have officially blown my funny fuse. Nothing will be humorous to me from now on.
Wouldn’t a warmer (more energetic?) atmosphere just expand, sort of “fluff up”? Wouldn’t that cause the temperature to drop back? I’m sorry if that sounds silly, but I’m seriously wondering.
You mean like would happen in an open gravity constrained atmospheric system following Ideal Gas Law… silly human, that would never happen, it’s based on proven physics. Now, if you build a computer model that can have something produced by man that can be taxed or banned that causes the atmosphere to “struggle” to get back to equilibrium and the only thing stopping it is evil Capitalists… then you might be on to something.
If there was an average boundary of the atmosphere it would expand like a balloon. I think there is that average boundary. So it would radiate a bit more. A sphere is very efficient. Lessor amount of area, greater volume enclosed.
Just a coincidence that this claim on Ozone comes out of the blue to prop up proposed outrageous EPA regulation of OZONE which will destroy our industry and send more overseas?
Does “intelligent ” person trust any claims from failed computer models?
The same EPA that says that O3 can’t get into the stratosphere from the ground but that massive fluorocarbon molecules can… the EPA that wants to arbitrarily drop the ozone limits from 75 ppb to 65 ppb when the pine trees growing in my never disturbed, never cleared pristine forest acreage dump far more than the legal limit… that EPA? It’s gone so far beyond farce it’s almost sickening now.
Fortunately the EPA know what they’re talking about, unlike you. The ability of a gas to reach the stratosphere from the surface depends on it’s reactivity (and solubility) not it’s molar mass.
CFCs reach the stratosphere because they’re unreactive in the troposphere, whereas O3 is so reactive near the surface that it can’t survive the journey to the stratosphere. The same is true for Cl from sea salt, it ends up as HCl which is very soluble in water and gets washed out of the lower atmosphere.
The same EPA that says if your nuke facility makes a change so that someone, living 24/7 365 days a year right on your fenceline, receives an increased radiation dose equivalent to getting married (or otherwise having a regular, every-night bed partner), that change has to be formally approved, yes.
Way beyond farce. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
Phil.
The EPA is not a place for nice folks.
mellryn…..doesn’t the NRC regulate nukes? I don’t think the EPA does.
Yeah, this EPA … Another EPA Dirty Secret: Agency’s hushed-up human experiments debunk ozone health claims
http://junkscience.com/2014/11/28/another-epa-dirty-secret-agencys-hushed-up-human-experiments-debunk-ozone-health-claims/
@ David Socrates — oh, sure, the NRC regulates nukes but that doesn’t mean your nukes get to violate EPA limitations, which generally run an order of magnitude stricter than the NRC’s. Similarly, in shipping radioactives, federal, state and local laws don’t necessarily line up, so you’re best off finding what’s the most limiting law along your planned route and not exceeding that, because, “So? [Other Agency] says it’s OK” don’t cut it.
Highly interesting stuff. Not the models though, but the thought that ozone and the ozone holes or not at both polar regions might be involved in the regulation of the upwelling IR radiation. Something like the eyes irises opening and contracting when confronted with variable dosis of light. As we have been told by the IPCC the incoming sun energy is too stable to cause climate change. May be it is the out going radiation controlled by an ozone mechanism in the stratosphere which is important. Anyway as Feynman stated everything in science starts with a hunch.
Poles are important, but tropics are more important. See Lindzen’s adaptive IR iris hypothesis from 2001 comcerning tropical convection cells. Probable Mechanism behind Willis’ thermoregulation hypothesis. Inherently unmodelable in GCMs due to computational limitations (even before chaos theory constraints). See essay Models all the way Down in BlowingmSmoke for examples and references.
What changes the ozone? Answer is solar activity. Need I say more.
+1
Maybe, ozone is a “top down” greenhouse gas. It is transparent in the outgoing earth spectrum. Its effect harks from a cyclical dissociation/reassociation of a poor lonely Oxygen atom, which happens to be a social animal, between one or two other Oxygen atoms under the pressure of Oxygen’s natural resonance to UVB and UVC. I don’t want to get into morality here but Leif claims that UV flux is small. Don’t know if that’s separated into ABC but early TSI measurements didn’t even separate out the various components of the spectrum.
It seems they are hiding the reality that GCMs run hot and are not useful inside of an article showing a possible explanation. The ozone connection, if it really is important, means the models prior to now have been inadequate. But between the pro-consensus genuflection and the thinly veiled sales pitch for yet more funding, the possible actual science is well hidden.
“These models are the only tools we have in terms of predicting the future impacts of climate change, so it’s crucial that they are as accurate and as thorough as we can make them,” said the paper’s lead author Peer Nowack, a PhD student in the Centre for Atmospheric Science, part of Cambridge’s Department of Chemistry.” Perhaps they could borrow MIT’s Center for Global Change Science roulette wheel.
I assume they still have it.
Don’t bother reading after the first 4 paragraphs. They cannot identify and include every possible variable, but insist on believing the models, even though these have not produced any results which align with actual data. Furthermore, they claim that these model results “inform policy”. Surely that proves these idiots are getting involved in political considerations. An excellent example of “follow the money” in action. Who approves the funding for such worthless and damaging exercises?
Just for laughs, it occurred to me to question what amplification factor for CO2 was used in this wondrous news given the increasing evidence most current modelling from the usual (warmist) suspects is hugely overstated and most probably the reason for the disparity between theory of Global Warming and the reality of the last 20 or so years “pause”
Another improvement. Now we’ll model in the clouds AND the Ozone. Then we’ll mete out each of the remaining interacting forces to our models one-at-a-time so that we can get this govt. money as long as possible. Meanwhile we want to remind you how scary climate is when aroused by CO2 pollution.
“Climate change research is all about having the best data possible.”
And keeping it to yourself.
And keeping it to yourself. fair enough because otherwise people may want to see if ‘there is anything wrong with it ‘ and we cannot have that can we .
@mikelowe2013
“.. They cannot identify and include every possible variable, but insist on believing the models, even though these have not produced any results which align with actual data. Furthermore, they claim that these model results “inform policy”…”
Of course. The science is settled. From now on it’s simply a matter of apportioning the money…
“Changes in ozone are often either not included, or are included a very simplified manner, in current climate models. This is due to the complexity and the sheer computational power it takes to calculate these changes, an important deficiency in some studies.”
Nevertheless we KNOW that we saved the world with the Montreal Protocol.
“What they discovered is a reduction in global surface warming [to a quadrupling of CO2 in the atmosphere] of approximately 20% – equating to 1° Celsius – when compared with most models after 75 years.”
”Here we present evidence that the representation of stratospheric ozone in climate models can have a first-order impact on estimates of effective climate sensitivity. — Abstract
”The difference is primarily attributed to changes in long-wave radiative feedbacks associated with circulation-driven decreases in tropical lower stratospheric ozone and related stratospheric water vapour and cirrus cloud changes.” — Abstract
Year after year “climate science” keeps moseying its way toward the skeptic’s position. The oceans are huge heat sinks that make the effective heat capacity of the climate much greater than they originally acknowledged and there are more and stronger negative feedbacks than they originally realized. Eventually, they’re going to have to walk the “Effective Climate Sensitivity” to 2XCO2 down to the level skeptics have always maintained it should be (-1 to +1, and likely to be unnoticeably small) without publicly acknowledging the whole coming disaster “thing” was complete nonsense and the skeptics were right all along.
Ditto
Nomination for Excuse #53 : The Ozone hole ate my AGW
Perhaps the authors of this ozone study could take a look at Dr Brown’s opinion on models, computational requirements etc
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
However, the Earth’s inherent complexity, and the still limited computational power available, means that not every variable can be included in current models.
We told years ago the science was settled, so obviously they already considered every variable.
/snark
I note Nowack says
“These models are the only tools we have in terms of predicting the future impacts of climate change, so it’s crucial that they are as accurate and as thorough as we can make them,”
These complex models and the IPCC GCMs are inherently not fit for forecasting purposes.
The Western climate science establishment, most of its leading politicians and the eco-left chattering classes are suffering from a remarkable mass delusion – ie that the world is on a path to CAGW.
It is in fact more likely than not that the earth is entering a cooling period which may well last for several hundred years.
For estimates of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural 60 year and 1000 year quasi-periodicities in the temperature data and using the 10Be record and neutron count as the most useful proxy for solar “activity” see several posts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
I would suggest that a useful post to start would be:
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
Re ozone the preceding link recognizes the importance of ozone. it says:
” it is reasonable to suggest that the three main solar activity related climate drivers are:
a) the changing GCR flux – via the changes in cloud cover and natural aerosols (optical depth)
b) the changing EUV radiation – top down effects via the Ozone layer
c) the changing TSI – especially on millennial and centennial scales.
The effect on climate of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.”
Let’s just take a ludicrous leap of faith and assume these boys and girls actually got it right for once. What they’ve discovered would be one of many “negative feed-backs” to greenhouse forced warming (or for that matter, any warming). It’s the existence of those negative feed-backs and the evidence that the sum total of all such feed-backs is negative that AGW theorists have denied all these years. For their theory to produce truly worrisome consequences, the feedback to CO2 induced warming must be “positive”.
Their model said, the sensitivity value should be lowered by roughly 20%. What do we think of that? I just downloaded my 2014 tax preparers software. Accountants will call up the company and start complaining about it as they find mistakes that are usually related to tax law changes. Updates will be issued. I’d say the software learns over time. When we talk about tuning a model, we might be talking about what my software company does, and the GCMs now acknowledging this study, and then issuing updates. The predictive value of my software is probably nothing more than a math literate high school student is capable of. It’s good with what happened though and 1 variable changes. It unifies various subsystems or modules of the tax code together saving immense amounts of time. Even with bad data driving a scenario, if the bad data is close enough, marginal change answers can be good enough. I had a client today whose wages drifted up and I assumed his withholding did too. His unrelated small business had a plus $28k bottom line compared to the year before. I told him the likely tax due he’ll pay in April. This is to say we aren’t after perfection but an estimate. As I said the predictive value of the software is low, in this case it worked I think.
They found a way to tax carbon dioxide and now appear to be working on taxing ozone. Scam alert is off the scale. What next, that evil argon gas? It’s sounds a bit evil. A.r.g.g.h.o.n. I think we should tax that one. A.r.g.g.h.o.n.
Of course! Ozone is produced by power lines. So now we can tax ALL the power transmission companies for GHG emissions.
It is about ozone and this is how it works:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/how-the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/
Published by Stephen Wilde November 15, 2010
Your link talks about the sun but it only mentions ozone once, and it doesn’t explain how ozone works or how it affects temperature. I feel mislead.
Computer models play a crucial role in informing climate policy. ..
This is analogous to Caligula appointing his horse as councillor.
Consul, or so Suetonius claimed, possibly falsely. Not that I have anything good to say about Little Boot.
Which Climate – Where ???!
That’s that sorted then. the science is settled again.
“Should be included” indicates ozone is not. That does not speak well for the existing state of alarmism.
‘Many different processes have to be simplified in order to make them run effectively within the model’
and there is the door through which GIGO walks in helped along by those who ‘need ‘ the right results and once again we are reminded how poor the models are that support this self and loudly proclaimed ‘settled science ‘
Its hard to think of another area outside of religion, where the more inaccurate your claims prove to be the more sure your are right anyway
“Its hard to think of another area outside of religion, where the more inaccurate your claims prove to be the more sure your are right anyway”
How ’bout Government? Gruber comes to mind.
The paper’s lead author Peer Nowack, a PhD student in the Centre for Atmospheric Science, part of Cambridge’s Department of Chemistry appears to have severe Climate Model Kool-Aid Addiction (CMKAA).
Gotta lay off that stuff, Peer. It may be tasty now, but it’s going to kill your career eventually.
Major advances should be measurable.
How much has the uncertainty in climate sensitivity come down over the past decades?
Nature Climate Change – The Beano for real Menaces.
See this link for a simple multi layer greenhouse model.
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html
Under the standard model, ultraviolet radiation passes through the atmosphere on the way to the earth’s surface, which absorbs the ultira violet raditaion, and reradiates in the infrared. The infrared radiation is blocked by the atmosphere- which causes the greenhouse effect.
Ozone high in the atmosphere absorbs ultraviolet radiation directly from the sun, so it doesn’t get to earth’s surface to reradiate in the infrared. The fraction of ultraviolet radiation absorbed by ozone has no greenhouse multiplier effect, so the more ozone in the upper atmosphere, the smaller the effect of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
This was actually a good laugh with classic jokes like, ” scientists have to make informed choices in order to build models which are fit for purpose” and “the Met Office and the University of Reading, compared ozone at pre-industrial levels with how it evolves in response to a quadrupling of CO2.”
I seemed to have missed the physics behind increasing CO2 increasing O3 levels?
Shouldn’t the mechanics come before the model?
But I know better, they need another control knob since the aerosols don’t pass the smell test.
Computer models? Is it even worth propagating this trash?
I have read biofuels produce more ozone than gasoline, oh my.
“It’s worse than we thought, send more money.”
Is slowly morphing into
“It’s more complicated than we thought, send more money.”
But that is true. So for that reason, perhaps we should?
Understanding the weather is a worthwhile endeavour.
What utter crap! How can any computer models do predict even the sun rising in the East and setting in the West when they are based on such junk science in the first place!? As long as they persist with this back radiation nonsense we will remain in the dark ages.
This.
Because, no matter how the back radiation thing is “based on real physics” and even a “demonstrable thing”, the FACTS are that there is no net increase in temperature as a result. Warming, cooling, stability – NONE of these are increased or decreased or affected in any way by “back radiation”, so the “fact” of back radiation is meaningless.
I suspect butterfly wing-flaps are more important to climate than minor changes in CO2 levels.
As the late, great “Father of Climatology” Reid Bryson so sagely observed, “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide”.
But then he was a real climatologist who actually studied nature, not a “climate science” computer modeler with an agenda to promote.
hear, hear…………………
Nonsense,my hat makes the skeptics look bad. Stop it.
hear, hear…
Aha! So it’s really oxygen that’s responsible for climate change and not poor maligned carbon after all. Who’d a thunk it? Clearly we have to reduce these people’s oxygen now.
…weather = chaos = not predictable = confused = climate model scientist = $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$…
Lest we forget, GIGO into in to an abacus is the same as GIGO into a computer or a supercomputer.
Here’s the thing. The climate nerds just need to admit two things. 1). The climate is exceedingly complex and 2). The “science” at least with respect to modeling is in its infancy.
I would suggest a couple of successful hindcasts before I would claim to know anything. I’m sure ozone plays a role I’m sure many things play a role sorting out which does what and how much all interacting etc probably going to need decades or even longer if the politics remains front and center.
The CACA Team prefers “tuning” with a putative human component.
What a disaster for the Team if the control knob turns out to be the sun. Unfortunately only real climatology, not “climate science” can discover what the knobs are, ie collecting data, not constructing pie in the sky, hopelessly inadequate models.
“Computer models play a crucial role in informing climate policy. They are used to assess the effect that carbon emissions have had on the Earth’s climate to date….” To date? And what ‘effect’ would that be? Cooling? It’s bad enough that they put so much stock in models but to then ignore variances between reality and model projections and claim the opposite is true?
Just a suspicion, but I believe ozone is the key to centennial scale climate change. The more ozone that is produced by the UV spectral content of solar radiation, the warmer it gets.
That along with clouds, the CCNs of which are modulated by solar magnetic flux affecting GCRs.
Let’s benchmark our latest model against the models we already know to be wrong. Because using real observational data would be very difficult and inconvenient.
Sigh.
“compared ozone at pre-industrial levels with how it evolves in response to a quadrupling of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is a standard climate change experiment.”
Help me understand. Changing the parameters of models is an ‘experiment’? Really?
Lost me at the start of the second paragraph with the mords computer model. Computer model equals total BS.
Aren’t they funny – the way they regard computer originated results as factual!! And, as a scientist, you now will gain much scientific kudos (even prizes) if you can invent really clever computer programmes to foretell our climate in years to come. Ought they not withhold any praise (or prize) until the theories are proved to be correct?
Finally – Sneak Peek:
Better Call Saul: No Parking
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2014/12/finally-sneak-peek-better-call-saul-no.html
Has anyone looked inside the ozone hole for the missing heat?
I, for one, fully believe these model results truly represent the situation. I have complete faith in these simulations.
————
Okay, those are ridiculous statements, but that is exactly the point. There are many people who feel this way.
Why would we place any trust at all in these particular model results (or any of them for that matter).
There is this theory about how additional GHGs will make the Earth warmer. Then it is going to have positive feedbacks which effectively triples the initial response. People can model that or not model that or whatever.
But you have to believe in the theory first or put all your faith in model results reinforcing your initial belief system or use a strawman excuse that just because some of the model results are “useful”, then there something “good” about the bulk of the rest of them. It is not logical or something that can be proven, it is just a belief.
We are just wasting society’s resources supporting these projects. Just call it using wasting society’s resources to support someone’s personal belief systems. Because that is all it is.
Its time for actual proof and not more model results. Put the money into actually measuring the climate system properly. Satellites, replacing the people at the NCDC, truth commissions to sort out the non-factual claims.
$365 billion spent on climate research and green energy buys a lot of groceries and Ebola research. What a waste.
Here they do the experiments , and as it turns out AIR is the problem climate science neglects .
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=0hzDN81ei5cC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=atmospheric+heat+electrons+and+microwaves&source=bl&ots=cLRLKS7Wsq&sig=1yhQcbzhihVjII2TrivMfcVTIio&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8LhjVPSdJqXLmwXAg4CABw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=atmospheric%20heat%20electrons%20and%20microwaves&f=false
True enough. And mission-critical informed choices were not, and are not, good enough to render the models fit for purpose.
And a lot of people have known that from the outset.
“Climate change research is all about having the best data possible. ”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and yet nothing in this release discusses measured Data.
What is going to be worse is when they have computer models that come in for a landing on the observed temperature trace (let’s assume for a moment that they aren’t fiddling the record daily). These will be add on improvements to the FIXED CO2 sensitivity and these agents will be worse than CO2, for if they are not, the game is over. So we will finally have computer models that will follow the temperature record but be completely divorced from reality. They’ve tried this with aerosols to save the precious Holy Grail of all powerful CO2 without sufficient success. They won’t let this go (orders from Maurice Strong and his zealots – they want to shut down civilization building fossil fuels).
Ozone and other “parameters” will follow to moderate the warming but will be toxic to the Nevada snail darter or some such. Theoretically, with flight of fancy already a tradition in climate science, there are no barriers to infinite numbers of models that work but are totally a crock. Why must we believe that a model that does predict the climate (useful as this would be) is also a faithful indication of how it actually works. Look at the dozens of curve fitting exercises using different dosages of a variety of variables that essentially “work” for hind casting – diverse agencies like perturbations of the sun caused by planets, plus a potage of magnetism, ocean currents, and a hundred others. Imagine if climate scientists had discovered such a potion in 1910. We would, indeed think it a marvel and would be happily correcting solid data to fit the Model. Peopling truncate proxies that diverge and decline would be given no second thought. There would be courses on it. The MWP and the LIA would be long gone. Revised interpretations of ice cores would be de rigueur …. The pause would be corrected….
It was only a matter of time before the ozone “scientists” got on to the AGW funding band wagon.
I like the
“Consequently, scientists have to make informed choices in order to build models which are fit for purpose.”
In other words they use their own preference which translates to their model.
To quote Proff. James Lovelock of the Gaia hypothesis which he subsequently distanced himself from. Lovelock invented a number of instruments in the 1970’s for space research including ozone concentrations. Consequently he was heavily involved with the whole Ozone Hole affair in the late 1980’s;
Here he is quoted in his reaction to the Climate Gate e-mail debacle.
Taken from IceCap;although I have read this in other sources also;
‘”Ozone hole’ shenanigans were the warm-up act for ‘Global Warming’”
[ http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/ozone_hole_hoax_was_the_preview_for_global_warming/ ]
“James Lovelock’s reaction to first reading about the leaked CRU emails in late 2009 was one of a true scientist
. “I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn’t want to do anything else other than be a scientist. They’re not like that nowadays. They don’t give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: “Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work.” That’s no way to do science.
I have seen this happen before, of course.
We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.
Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.”
“Using a comprehensive atmosphere-ocean chemistry-climate model…”
So they didn’t actually do any empirical science. They built a model. Has it been tested? Silly question I guess.
I gather from this that the Earth’s climate is incredibly complex and in this complex system modellers have left out Ozone which plays a major role in the global warming predictions.
How inconvenient for this to come out just when the science was settled and we were 97% certain about the predictions.
However maybe we can rest assured that its only Ozone they have left out and the Sun, clouds and the Galaxy we float in has been fully accounted for. They must be relatively simple systems.
I recall reading years ago that in Victorian England the leisure class used to run around in the woods with butterfly nets trying to capture ozone. The modern debate about catastrophic manmade global warming shows similar intellectual rigor. 🙂
All this talk about the sensitivity of Earth temperature to atmospheric CO2 (“ECS”) contradicts the observation that CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales.
This reality (CO2 LAGS Temperature) suggests that the fractious mainstream debate between Global Warming Alarmists (aka “Warmists: ECS is very high and very scary”) and Climate Skeptics (aka “Deniers: ECS is low and just not so”) ASSUMES that the future (increasing CO2) causes the past (increasing Temperature), which I suggest is extremely improbable.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 can have many causes, including fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, temperature change, etc. but it has yet to be demonstrated in the real world that ECS exists at a magnitude large enough to be discernible, and in fact ECS may not exist at all in a practical sense on this planet.
Those who suggest the future can cause the past (aka CO2 significantly drives temperature) are up against some formidable opposition:
Henry of Ockham: “Plurality must never be posited without necessity.”
Aristotle: “We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus [all things being equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.”
Ptolemy: “We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible.”
Thomas Aquinas: “It is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many”.
Isaac Newton: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes.”
Bertrand Russell: “Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.”
Karl Popper: Our preference for simplicity may be justified by its falsifiability criterion: We prefer simpler theories to more complex ones “because their empirical content is greater; and because they are better testable.”
HenryWilliam of OckhamHmm.
rogerknights;
Thank you for the correction.
Wasn’t it Henry of Ockham who first stated the KISS Rule? 🙂
The temperature in the stratosphere changes due to chemical reactions under the influence of changes in solar activity.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2013.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_ALL_NH_2013.gif
Changes in the pattern of ozone in the stratosphere in winter depend on solar activity and Earth’s magnetic field.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=09&startyear=2013&starttime=00%3A00&endday=02&endmonth=12&endyear=2014&endtime=23%3A30&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/06/magnetic_field_changes/14582172-1-eng-GB/Magnetic_field_changes_large.jpg
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Swarm_reveals_Earth_s_changing_magnetism
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_toz_nh_f00.gif
This pattern of distribution of ozone causes a severe winters in North America.
Let us see pressure and ozone in the lower stratosphere (height 15 km).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f00.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_100_nh_f00.gif
They’re also missing Gravity, which makes them useless because they don’t model reality.
“Every climate model currently in use shows that warming is occurring….”
Completely unbelievable. These people are completely blinded and far beyond rational thought.
There has been no global warming in this century. By the admission of several top climate scientists, the zero warming has now lasted more than long enough to disprove the climate models. And yet it seems to make no difference, these morons continue to treat the output of these jumped up Playstations as if it were real empirical scientific data.
Chris
Current waving in the stratosphere in the north.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_ALL_NH_2014.gif
The temperature gradient over the polar circle causes movement of air from the Arctic over North America.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t30_nh_f00.gif
The mathematician Tom Lehrer once said “Life is like a sewer — what you get out of it depends on what you put into it.”
The simile also holds for models.
“What they discovered is a reduction in global surface warming of approximately 20% – equating to 1° Celsius – when compared with most models after 75 years”.
“when compared to most models” tells me nothing. Turned around it tells me that most models have a failure of 1 Celsius, when compared to a model that take ozone into consideration. This is perhaps less than you get when most models are compared to observation. (at least regressed statistically for 75 years)
Great stuff there ren.
Ozone over the Antarctic extreme cold and stratosphere are (like CO2) cooling gasses.
On WUWT are the upper temperature charts show the strato temps falling and becoming drier over the years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/atmosphere-page/
On we see Antarctic air has essentially a perceptible but linear fall in temperature over the decades. ~-0.014C/decade
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_southern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
It is also modelled and shown by “WUWT” previously how CO2 absorbs latent heat and radiates from ground level below 220K at the Antarctic. SkS provides this, clearly 😉
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/spectra.gif
However, the O3 radiative frequency is below the natural ground radiation.
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/SpectralCoolingRates_zps27867ef4.png
So yes, O3 does exhibit a “colour temperature” over all the Earth but it exists far below the lowest temperature to affect the atmosphere. Except where those pesky grey blobs are… not to worry, unless the UV drops off the Sun and O3 increases… oops!
Worry? Haha.
“These models are the only tools we have in terms of predicting the future impacts of climate change, so it’s crucial that they are as accurate and as thorough as we can make them,” said the paper’s lead author Peer Nowack, a PhD student in the Centre for Atmospheric Science, part of Cambridge’s Department of Chemistry.
“As accurate and as thorough as we can make them” just means “we never intend to get to the truth, because there is no truth, but we will get away from a previous paradigm.” They are expert practitioners having a structured scientific revolution.
Oh my how awkward, our variable star, the variable magnetic field, and the ionizing radiation are not invited.
“These models are the only tools we have in terms of predicting the future impacts of climate change…”
Almost every incorrect theory is based on an incorrect assumption that is never questioned. These models are far from the ‘only tools’ we have to predict future climates and impacts. In fact, they are probably the worst choice of the tools we have! Various forms of pattern recognition are proving to be far superior, but are still completely ignored by the AGW crowd.
I recall Bill Gray at a conference 25 years ago saying that he would jump off one of the Rocky Mountains if global temperatures did not begin a cooling trend in the first several decades of the 21st Century. While that trend has not yet materialized, the warming has certainly stopped and more scientists are expecting some cooling over the next 10 to 20 years. Bill’s forecast is still on track, and it was based on recognizing the historical trends in climate history. The computer models, which do not recognize any patterns from the past, have proven to be inaccurate 100% of the time.
Peer Nowack is probably not old enough to remember a time without computers. There is another way to look at the world Peer, and it has some advantages over your way.
It’s worse than that. CACA cultists have tried to get rid of the patterns derived from actual observations, the study of which is useful, in order to sell their GIGO computer-derived & cooked book “adjusted” snake oil. They provide the “science” their political masters desire.
The ozone layer in the lower stratosphere is -40 deg C. No IR radiation from this can warm the surface. It’s just impossible as the energy levels equivalent to these energies are filled at the surface and will be reflected back outward.
Not true, take for example the ocean surface, that will readily absorb any IR incident on it regardless of the temperature of the source. Check out this graph:
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/spectra.gif
Emission from O3 is present at both 325K and 220K how is the surface supposed to know what temperature the 1000 cm-1 light came from?
In the case of the Antarctic graph the O3 signal is hotter than the surface.
“What they discovered is a reduction in global surface warming of approximately 20%… This difference is due to ozone changes in the lower stratosphere in the tropics, which are mainly caused by changes in the atmospheric circulation under climate change.”
—
Why do they word things like that? It’s like they are deliberately trying to obscure what they mean. They say the reduction in warming is “due to ozone changes.” But they don’t say what those changes were. So, was it an increase in ozone that cooled surface temperatures, or a decrease? I don’t see where they say either way. If ozone is a greenhouse gas, I assume that it would cause warming. So was the cooling they discovered caused by a reduction in ozone?
See, if ozone really does affect surface temperatures, wouldn’t that give us a possible way to control global warming should it become necessary? But first we need to know what causes cooling, reducing ozone or increasing it. Is that actually spelled out in this piece and I just missed it?
Louis
If the ozone layer in the stratosphere gets warmer, it means that more energy is radiating out of the atmosphere. The “greenhouse” mechanism is due to a cooler stratosphere.
Can someone please give a detailed reference for this paper on ozone by Nowack? I cannot find it on the web page for the December issue of Nature Climate Change.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2451.html
The increase in temperature in the stratosphere has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. The temperature of the tropopause is essentially constant.
Waves in the stratosphere only affect circulation in the tropopause, through changes in pressure over the Arctic Circle.
Only convection and circulation has a significant impact on the temperature in the troposphere. Direct sunlight the Earth’s surface is the most important.
If it were otherwise the temperature in North America would have no so extreme values in winter and summer.
“What they discovered was a major weather event, known as a Sudden Stratospheric Warming. These events typically occur every other year and at random, they said. Consequently, the cosmic-ray data revealed in this latest study can be used to effectively identify these events.”
http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/30377_en.html