Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
UPDATE: See the correction to the number of models under the heading of REDUNDANCY: WHY ARE TAXPAYERS FUNDING 5 CLIMATE MODELS IN THE U.S.?
###
Date: April 14, 2015
Subject: Questions about Climate Model-Based Science
From: Bob Tisdale – Independent Climate Researcher
To: The Honorable Ted Cruz, James Inhofe and Marco Rubio
Dear Senators Cruz, Inhofe and Rubio:
I am writing you as chairs of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and of the Committee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard. I am an independent researcher who studies global warming and climate change, and I am probably best known for my articles at the science weblog WattsUpWithThat, where I would be considered an investigative reporter.
I have a few very basic questions for you about climate model-based science. They are:
- Why are taxpayers funding climate model-based research when those models are not simulating Earth’s climate?
- Why are taxpayers funding climate model-based research when each new generation of climate models provides the same basic answers?
- Redundancy: why are taxpayers funding 5 climate models in the U.S.?
- Why aren’t climate models providing the answers we need?
- Example: Why didn’t the consensus of regional climate models predict the timing, extent and duration of the Californian drought?
I have discussed and provided support for those concerns in the following.
Note: I began this letter a couple of months ago, back when it was announced that you would be chairs of those committees. Two of you are now running for President. Even with that in mind, I hope that you and your staffs will consider these questions.
WHY ARE TAXPAYERS FUNDING CLIMATE MODEL-BASED RESEARCH WHEN THOSE CLIMATE MODELS ARE NOT SIMULATING EARTH’S CLIMATE?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on climate models to attribute global warming and climate change to emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and to simulate how climate might change in the future based on estimates of future emissions. But climate models are not simulating Earth’s climate as it exists now, has existed in the past, or might exist in the future. The climate science community understands this well, but few persons outside of that close-knit group have the faintest idea that climate models are not simulating Earth’s climate.
Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) was very open about those simple facts more than 7 years ago, and there haven’t been leaps in climate modeling progress since then. Dr. Trenberth’s 2007 article Predictions of Climate at the Nature.com blog exposed many critical weaknesses in the climate models used by the IPCC for simulating past and future climate on Earth. Dr. Trenberth’s article was filled with extraordinary quotes, including:
…none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.
In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.
Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.
Those are powerful statements. If you were to read Dr. Trenberth’s blog post in its entirety, you’ll find those quotes were reinforced by much of the remaining text. Occasionally, Trenberth interjected what could be considered global warming dogma to temper the critical aspects.
One of Dr. Trenberth’s statements stands out as self-deception:
The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity.
Seven years later, with the slowdown in surface warming and the missing ocean heat, everyone knows the “current projection method” does not work. The climate science community has known all along that Earth’s climate is chaotic and non-linear. In fact, the IPCC stated in their 2001 Third Assessment Report, under the heading of Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles (my boldface):
In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
On that webpage, the IPCC then goes on to use this statement as their reasoning for large ensembles of models, illogically assuming that a collection of wrong models provides a right answer.
It was only a matter of time until their “current projection method” failed. And it didn’t take long. If the “current projection method” had worked, the climate-science community would presently not be scrambling to come up with excuses for the slow-down in global surface temperature warming and the missing heat in the oceans.
Let’s expand on what Dr. Trenberth had written in support of the bullet-point quotes above. He wrote:
None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.
Not surprisingly, naturally occurring and sunlight-fueled El Niño and La Niña processes and longer-term modes of natural variability like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are now being blamed for suppressing global surface warming. On the other hand, it is seldom discussed that:
- those modes of natural variability enhance global warming, too, and,
- the climate model projections of future climate are aligned with the naturally enhanced warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century.
Both of those factors suggest that climate model projections of future global warming may be two times too high.
Because climate models cannot simulate modes of natural variability that enhance or suppress global warming, reliance on those models as they exist today for the study of global warming and climate change would be similar to physicians having to rely on computer models of the human body that cannot simulate respiration, digestion, circulation, etc.
Simply put, climate models are virtual reality. They are no more real than the computer-generated imagery (CGI) of King Kong or dinosaurs or space aliens in movies.
Let’s rephrase what the climate scientists are in reality telling us with their climate models projections: (1) if emissions of manmade greenhouse gases increase as projected by the numerous future scenarios, and (2) if Earth’s climate responds to those increases in manmade greenhouse gases as simulated by the climate models, then (3) climate might change as simulated by the models, but (4) the climate science community understands very well that Earth’s climate does NOT respond to those increases in manmade greenhouse gases as simulated by the climate models.
Makes one wonder why they make the effort…other than to satisfy the wants of the political entities funding climate science.
Note: In a postscript to this letter, I’ve included a few examples of model-data comparisons from my past blog posts, which show how poorly climate models simulate surface temperatures, precipitation and sea ice.
WHY ARE TAXPAYERS FUNDING CLIMATE MODEL-BASED RESEARCH WHEN EACH NEW GENERATION OF CLIMATE MODELS PROVIDES THE SAME BASIC ANSWERS?
IPCC-related climate model-based research provides the same basic answers today as they did 2+ decades ago. From the IPCC’s first assessment report in 1990 to their fifth assessment report in 2013, there have been few changes in the climate model-based projections of global surface temperatures caused by assumed future increases in emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide). As additional examples, all five reports fundamentally also told us:
(1) Sea levels will continue to rise regardless of whether we cease or slow our emissions of greenhouse gases…and there are still wide ranges of uncertainties with best-case scenarios overlapping with worst-case ones.
(2) Glaciers and ice sheets will melt, providing their mass contribution to rising sea levels…but that is simply a continuation of the melting that has been occurring since the end of the last ice age, when temperatures rose to the point that ice on land melted. Glaciers and ice sheets will continue to melt until the temperatures drop and we head toward the next ice age. And that continued melting of glaciers and ice sheets will, of course, add to rising sea levels.
(3) Some regions of the globe will experience drought, others floods…but even the current “state-of-the-art” climate models cannot tell us where or when those floods or droughts will occur because they still cannot simulate the annual, decadal and multidecadal variations in coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that impact precipitation globally. I’ll expand on this in an upcoming section.
The United States has been investing billions of dollars in climate model-based science over the past 2 decades. Yet the reports keep telling us the same thing, over and over: temperatures will warm, sea levels will rise, etc. They’re not furnishing anything new of value and haven’t for some time.
REDUNDANCY: WHY ARE TAXPAYERS FUNDING 5 4 CLIMATE MODELS IN THE U.S.?
Of the twenty-six climate modeling groups around the globe that provided model outputs for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 5th Assessment Report, five four are in the U.S.:
- NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
- NASA Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO)
- National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) [See correction that follows.]
- NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL)
- National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NSF-DOE-NCAR) [See correction that follows.]
See the CMIP5 Climate Model Intercomparison Project webpage here.
None of the models are simulating climate as it exists. Does the U.S. need 5 4 climate models and support staff for models that are simulating climate on a virtual planet that bears little relation to the one we inhabit?
Correction: I was notified of the following by blogger Ken Gregory in a comment here.
There were only 4 U.S. climate modeling groups that submitted model outputs to the CMIP5 archive. The CCSM4 model from NCAR is a subset of the CESM1 from NSF-DOE-NCAR. The CCSM4 model is now frozen, and all future updates will be made to CESM1.
Thanks, Ken. [End Note]
WHY AREN’T CLIMATE MODELS PROVIDING THE ANSWERS WE NEED?
After multiple decades of climate modeling efforts, the climate science community has not produced models that are capable of providing the answers we need and deserve. There is a very simple reason for this: The focus of the climate science community.
Under the direction of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the political entities that fund climate science, the focus of climate research has been on human-induced global warming and climate change, not natural variability. Yet it is naturally occurring, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that determine when and where surface temperatures and precipitation will increase and where they won’t.
We always have to keep in mind that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political entity, not a scientific one. Their sole role is to assemble scientific papers that support a political agenda. Nothing more, nothing less.
The IPCC begins the opening paragraphs of its History webpage (my boldface):
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies. The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Thus, the IPCC was founded to write reports. Granted, they are very detailed reports, so burdensome that few persons read them in their entirety. Most people only read the Summaries for Policymakers…the language of which is agreed to by politicians during week-long meetings.
Also from that quote above, we can see that the language of the IPCC reports was intended to support an international climate-change treaty.
That treaty is known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It was signed in 1992, a year after the IPCC’s First Assessment Report. That timing is very odd, because the results of that first report were inconclusive, inasmuch as the climate science community could not differentiate between natural and anthropogenic contributions. This put the U.N. in a precarious position. They had a treaty in place to limit emissions of greenhouse gases but it was without scientific support. Thus, each subsequent politically motivated report had to increase the IPCC’s certainty that greenhouse gases were the primary factor driving global warming. Otherwise the UNFCCC was dead.
A few clarifications:
A copy of the UNFCCC is available here. Under the heading of Article 2 – Objective, the UNFCCC identifies its goal as limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases (my boldface):
The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Because the objective of the UNFCCC treaty was to limit the emissions of manmade greenhouse gases, and because the goal of the IPCC was to prepare reports that supported the treaty, it safe to say the IPCC’s sole role is simply to write scientific reports that support a politically motivated want to limit greenhouse gas emissions. I underlined the word want for a reason. Because climate models are still not simulating climate as it exists on the planet, the IPCC has never truly established there is a need to limit emissions.
Later in the opening paragraph of the IPCC’s History webpage, they state (my boldface and caps):
Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of HUMAN-INDUCED climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
The fact that the IPCC has focused all of their efforts on “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” is very important. The IPCC has never realistically tried to determine if natural factors could have caused most of the warming the Earth has experienced over the past century. For decades, they’ve worn blinders that blocked their views of everything other than the possible impacts of carbon dioxide. The role of the IPCC has always been to prepare reports that support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. As a result, that’s where all of the research money goes. The decision to only study human-induced global warming is a political choice, not a scientific one.
As a result of that political choice, there is little scientific research that attempts to determine how much of the warming we’ve experienced is attributable to natural factors. We know this is fact because the current generation of climate models—the most complex climate models to date—still cannot simulate naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes that can cause Earth’s surfaces (and the oceans to depth) to warm for multidecadal periods or stop that warming.
EXAMPLE: WHY DIDN’T THE CONSENSUS OF REGIONAL CLIMATE MODELS PREDICT TIMING, EXTENT AND DURATION OF THE CALIFORNIA DROUGHT?
Climate modelling groups have been heading in a new direction for a number of years: regional climate models. See the NASA webpage Regional Climate Models Evaluation System for an overview. They, of course, at that website they try to paint a rosy picture, without being very open about the uncertainties caused by naturally occurring chaotic factors.
We’ve become used to seeing wide ranges of uncertainties from global climate models. With shorter-term regional climate models, those uncertainties are even greater, because ocean-atmosphere processes, which are beyond the capabilities of climate models, have such wide ranges of influences on regional climate.
Regardless of whether they are regional climate models or global climate models, as mentioned earlier, climate models in general are still not capable of simulating coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that dictate annual, multiyear, decadal and multidecadal changes in global and regional temperature and precipitation. As noted above, Dr. Trenberth stated that climate models still do not include a few modes of natural variability: El Niño/La Niña, Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. There are many other modes of natural variability that are beyond the capabilities of climate models, and those factors also have strong impacts on regional short-term climate.
Now, let me clarify one point. I wrote above that climate models still do not include modes of natural variability like El Niño events. It’s not that they exclude a feature that they can simply select from a menu and add to the next model run. The models can’t simulate them properly. There are numerous peer-reviewed papers that document those failings.
Even the most basic interrelationship between the trade winds and the sea surface temperatures of the tropical Pacific (where El Niño events take place) are beyond the capabilities of climate models. (Discovered in the 1960s, that interrelationship is called Bjerknes Feedback. The 2012 study by Bellenger et al. ENSO representation in climate models: from CMIP3 to CMIP5 confirms that sad fact.)
Why didn’t a consensus of regional climate models tell us that California would show no surface warming for 2.5 decades (from 1986 to 2011) as do the data? Why didn’t they tell us that a ridge of high pressure would form a few years ago northwest of California over the eastern North Pacific…and continue to persist today? That an area of warm sea surface temperatures would also form in that part of the North Pacific…an area that grew so warm it was the dominant reason for the reportedly record-high global surface temperatures in 2014? That the ridge of high pressure (now known as the “ridiculously resilient ridge”) and elevated sea surface temperatures (now known as “the blob”) in the northeast North Pacific would cause the recent record-high surface temperatures in California, along with the lower-than-normal precipitation? That the “ridiculously resilient ridge” and “the blob” would cause near record low temperatures last winter in the Northeast?
(See Bond et al. (2015) Causes and Impacts of the 2014 Warm Anomaly in the NE Pacific and Hartmann (2015) Pacific sea surface temperature and the winter of 2014, and their press release ‘Warm blob’ in Pacific Ocean linked to weird weather across the U.S. Also see Johnstone and Mantua (2014) Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change, 1900–2012.)
There’s a very simple reason why regional climate models did not tell us all those things would happen. Climate models don’t predict weather, and the factors that are driving the drought and warm temperatures in California are weather events…persistent ones, but weather events nonetheless. On the other hand, weather models have limited value beyond a few days…a week at best.
Are there regional climate models that can reliably predict:
- How long the California drought will last?
- When the drought there might reappear?
- What parts of the country will be plagued by drought next?
No.
Will short-term regional climate models have any value in the future?
Not until they can predict chaotic coupled ocean-atmosphere processes in the Pacific and the North Atlantic and their interrelated, even more chaotic, sea level pressure-based phenomena known as the North Pacific Index and North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation, etc.
Let’s continue to use California as an example. Until the regional climate models can predict chaotic ocean-atmosphere processes years in advance in parts of the globe that are remote to California, those models could only tell us what might happen in California if El Niño events dominated for a period, or what might happen if La Niña events dominated, or might occur if there was a shift in the related Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or North Pacific Index, or Arctic Oscillation, etc…with all of those “might happens” having large ranges of uncertainties because of their compounding effects. The uncertainties are so large that they offer little value for future planning.
Then again, there can and will be, as we’ve recently seen, totally unexpected happenings like the “ridiculously resilient ridge” and “the blob” to destroy those forecasts.
Climate models are not close to being able to answer the questions we need answered, and it is unlikely they will have those capabilities until such time that they can forecast chaos…years and decades into the future. And the likelihood of that is nil.
CLOSING
Under the direction of the IPCC and the political agencies that fund it, climate science has only focused on supporting international treaties to limit emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Climate modeling has been constrained by that focus, leaving us with models that have no relationship to the world in which we live. It is time to change that focus to enable climate modeling groups to study the true contribution of natural variability to global warming and climate change without fear of losing their funding. If we are going to be able to adapt to climate change, regardless of whether it is manmade or natural, the climate science community needs a much better grasp of how climate on Earth actually works, not how it works in models.
I hope you and your staffs will be able to investigate those questions and others over your terms as chairs of climate science-related committees and subcommittees.
If you have any questions or if you need any further information, please have staff members leave a comment on any thread at my blog ClimateObservations.
Sincerely,
Bob Tisdale
PS: The following are a collection of blog posts that illustrate how poorly climate models simulate surface temperatures, precipitation, and sea ice.
- Satellite-Era Sea Surface Temperatures as anomalies
- Satellite-Era Sea Surface Temperatures in absolute form
- Global Surface Temperatures (Land+Ocean) Since 1880 as anomalies
- Global Surface Temperatures (Land+Ocean) Since 1880 in absolute form
- Global Precipitation
- Global Land Precipitation & Global Ocean Precipitation
- Sea Ice
We also discussed and illustrated climate models and the modes of natural variability called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation in the post Questions the Mainstream Media Should Be Asking the IPCC.
As I’ve noted numerous time in the past, climate models at present have no value other than to illustrate how poorly they perform.
No. Also the Federal Government in Washington is funding the Climate Modellers. Aka NASA and NOAA (CM2 Global Coupled Climate Models (CM2.X), Hansen and others) .
To cut those fundings ist a good thing. When science don´t work, we must cut down the donate by the states taxpayers and bring them to the level of other intransparent science like “cold fusion”. But so far, to untertake no mistake, “cold fusion” is working better than ” climate modelling” according to novel results.
The climate modellers can make an application in the future, if they trump up modells which are working really good.
Bob Tisdale:
Nice article. Thank you for writing it! However.
That article is an absolutely horrid letter to leading senator chairs!
All of that rather slow reading and obtuse detail guarantees that the senators will never read it.
At best they will designate some staff assistant to summarize.
At worst, some letter opener and forwarder will send it to someone who’ll grab one or two opinions and include them as part of a recent poll. Sorry, at that level they’re not collected as facts, but opinions.
Please consider writing a short succinct very direct letter.
Sadly, attachments will likely be discarded once the letter is opened; but still attach the details. Do include in the letter, as a footnote, links to the details online. That way anybody that might receive the letter as an assignment can quickly find and read the details.
+1
“btw, how is it ideology to accept AGW and think that Co2 emissions are a problem for future generations?”
This word, “Accept.” This is a word that, in this context, would be more appropriately used at a Revival Meeting as one staggers up to the front row and “Accepts Jesus.”
Science is not anything to be Accepted. Science is something to be understood, debated on its merits, studied, and never ever Accepted. The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three Scientists who discovered Dark Energy. Well, this week in 2015 their research has been blown up, those Type IA Supernovas turn out not to be identical after all and so cannot measure the speed of distant galaxies, bye-bye Dark Energy. So, Daniel, whenever someone tells you “The Science Is Settled,” put your hand over your wallet because you are being conned…
I would love to know exactly what is occurring today that would convince Flashman that the climate is changing rapidly and causing all sorts of problems. I’m 62 years old. I have been an outdoorsman for at least 54 of those years, which requires one to be aware of the weather/climate. In my world, the climate has not changed enough to be noticed. If I didn’t have the MSM and folks like Flashman telling me about how bad climate change is at the moment, I would never have noticed. Not a scientific post, just an observation about reality. Models are not reality. Again, what is it about the climate that has become so dire. Specifics please. And we all know the stats show that fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, pine beetles, malaria, etc., etc. have not gotten any worse.
The problem is the average CMIP5 model is programed for the future to warm 5 times the rate as in the past.
In the real world, temperatures go up and down. This is also true of HADCRUT4. In the world of climate models, temperatures only go up. Some variation in rates of warming, but always warming, nonetheless.
More here: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/temperatures-according-to-climate-models/
I looked at the work at your site on this issue. Interesting.
Hadcrut 4 vs. Series 32 comparison graph. Good relationship from 1930 to now but not so good from 1850 to 1929.
Any idea why?
Nice catch. Notice that the model is not able to project cooling, only warming, or perhaps flat. In the World Class TTA study, it appeared that (at least in Europe), Little Ice Age effects continued until 1900 or so. I think those earlier cooler records are not reproduced by the model.
Remember, this was the best of the 42 models; it did quite well, compared to most all of the others.
Thank you for your answer.
I don’t like going before 1958 since this is the beginning of reliable monthly/yearly CO2 atmospheric concentrations. Your answer reminds me of being skeptical about the yearly “annual global temperature” values of the past. So many elements have changed, capable of affecting these values.
It will be interesting to see if this particular model continues to tract 2010-2020. If so, it would be 90 years of good correlation between actual and model.
At least the Climatologists know that they need more physics [and Physicists] in their models:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/520140a-Climatologists-Need-Physicists.pdf
Thank you Dr Svalgaard.
I note this quote,
Even those who think that the climate doesn’t change except primarily by the hand of man… even they accept that the basic science isn’t ready for use in policy making.
The models do not work.
We don’t need the models to know what the past looks like.
“We don’t need the models to know what the past looks like.”
Correct. You ‘adjusted’ the historical data to suit your hypothetical and political needs!
Then declared the original, unadjusted data no longer exists. Oopsey!
“Climate scientists agree” that “climate change is primarily the result of human activity?”
This confirms the assessment of a meteorologist quoted in a 1976 NYTimes article about global cooling, who said said of climate scientists: “some of their stuff is right out of fantasy land.”
“Even those who think that the climate doesn’t change except primarily by the hand of man”
what exactly do you mean with “doesn’t change except primarily by the hand of man”
since 1950. or in general?
Mac the Knife,
Then why didn’t “I” adjust it and/or the models to obtain a far more convincing fit?
I know right? Pretty stupid of “me”.
Bob:
IMHO, the most interesting articles recently on WUWT were talks by Christopher Essex, Freeman Dyson and Murry Salby.
The first two insist that it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce Climate Models that have any predictive power beyond a few days.
Murry Salby suggests that “the magic molecule” (man-made) CO2 does not exist for more than 10 years in the atmosphere before it is re-absorbed and that the effects of man-made CO2 on climate are grossly exaggerated.
Dyson also brings up the the important point that CO2 increase has produced benefits that are both measurable and irrefutable. even while global temperature increase has stalled.
So my question is why are we spending all this money on climate change models if we know in advance that they can not be made to work?
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair
Bob, my regrets that disruption tactics were used to derail the discussion. Those who come here with their minds full of themselves have little room left to absorb what is going on. I hope that you get meaningful responses from all three candidates. It may be a truly cold day in “the formerly American sector of the UN Empire” (hell) by the time the admission is made that the consensus was based upon incomplete information.
Please feel free to pass along my limerick on sustainability:
If you like your energy sustainable,
You must first make the climate trainable.
When the wind blows just right,
And the sun shines all night,
I think that it might be attainable!
“Tom”
And please, bob, if you get their attention, ask for a REconsensus of the present scientific community on the anthropogenic causality of the observed data over the decades since they last opined om this issue.
Bob Tisdale: “I am an independent researcher [except for the biases I have established in my data presentations with the support of my undisclosed financial backers and current employer] who studies [without any basic understanding of the scientific principles behind] global warming and climate change [since I never have been formally trained on the subject of global atmospheric climate dynamics or even basic physics]…”
What are these politicians going to say when questioned? “I am not a scientist but according to this other non-scientist, Bob Tisdale who never discloses (for some unknown, hidden reason) his work experience and background on any of his published material and blog sites, we really think everyone else should believe what we say because…”
In other words, its just the blind leading the blind.
Why do you answer to that Daniel?
I enjoy reading WUWT but I’m tired being forced to skip nearly every second comment. I suppose he wants to destroy the discussion.
So – please – ignore him.
Emphatically second that!
“Daniel” who?
Trolls are handy to the extent that they allow those commenting many golden opportunities to trot out the realities presented by WUWT and other sites that can be used as mini refresher courses for those behind in the discussions (best done as precisely as possible to limit wasted verbiage). An example concerning climate modelers is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/24/are-climate-modelers-scientists/
Article provides examples of all of the following concerning climate modelers:
* They neither respect nor understand the distinction between accuracy and precision.
* They understand nothing of the meaning or method of propagated error.
* They think physical error bars mean the model itself is oscillating between the uncertainty
extremes. (I kid you not.)
* They don’t understand the meaning of physical error.
* They don’t understand the importance of a unique result.
Bottom line? Climate modelers are not scientists. Climate modeling is not a branch of physical science. Climate modelers are unequipped to evaluate the physical reliability of their own models.
BFL:
Not to the current crop of doofus’s bombing the threads with nonsense.
These sad versions of sock puppets use any rumor, suspicion, no matter how false or inconsequential to claim solid science as rebutted.
They then pretend, since they must know, that none of their CAGW research or researchers are rebutted or falsified. These sock puppets thread bomb supposed responses to honest science with claims for their falsified CAGW nonsense while ignoring the solid answers in previous threads that destroy their childish beliefs.
These sock puppets are here to try and cause as much havoc as possible. They are either unemployed anti-social has-beens or employed by big green PR machines and paid by the noise they make. Note, their insistent claim that skeptic sites and posters are funded by Koch Brothers yet are blind to the overwhelming proof that big green funding and funders far outweigh and outspend Koch. Such blindness is intentional.
Don’t try to engage the sock puppets. They are not in control of their lives or comments nor do they care for honest science.
+100 said the same thing on this and other threads, at times the mods should give him at most 2 answers and put him in the corner with a dunce hat ( or am I giving away my age then?)
Hi Bob,
why not add Sen. Rand Paul to the letter?
will be fun to watch the next hearings in the US senate, will the anti science senators read from the economist again when they have a real expert in front of them? or will he read from WUWT…. or the bible again?
Well, Daniel, you would be the poster child for anti-science.
how ironic that you say that on a thread about a letter to , among others, Jim Snowball Inhofe….. the whole world laughed at that anti science clown. Next time he might be quoting WUWT and we might laugh even more.
Daniel says:
…Jim Snowball Inhofe…
I think Inhofe is going to have the last laugh at your expense. The Senate majority now belongs to Inhofe’s party. That means what they say goes. And it will be a real pleasure listening to the high pitched squealing from folks like Danny Kuhn. ☺
Daniel, you are the poster child for anti-science because you BELIEVE in your “Authority” without question or evaluation. You are anti-science because you HATE questions and questioners. You are anti-science because you attack articles you haven’t read and certainly haven’t evaluated FOR YOURSELF. You are anti-science because you think ad hominem, strawmen and appeal to Authority are valid responses instead of facts and logic. You are anti-science because you haven’t presented any facts to back up your accusations.
Your postings are the antitheses of science. If you knew ANYTHING about science, you would be deeply embarrassed to post the things you have posted.
” You are anti-science because you HATE questions and questioners. ”
no.
i hate the same old long answered questions over and over again just because a fringe group does not like the answer.
:LOL! Name ONE “long answered” question. Name ONE that is CURRENTLY being asked that was actually answered “long ago” with real FACTS.
You need to back that old chestnut with some real data.
And don’t bother with computer model “answers” nor with strawman (imaginary) questions that no one actually asked.
No Daniel, you are a very good example of anti-science. You BELIEVE without question and attack without thought.
for exampel, what is the evidence for AGW. i being asked over and over again here, and nobody seems to be even aware of the measurements that have been presented by sthe scientific community that is regarded as a line of evidence.
i don0t mean you have to accept it, but when you guys are arguing agianst the science, you should atleast be familiar with those measurements and be able to point out why you do not accept it as evidence.
but nobody on WUWT is able to.
this shows who really is informed about the science…..
but i expect too much from WUWTers. while it is often said that most on WUWT accept AGW. but not the positive feedbacks proposed not the quantifications or projections.
but the comment section shows a pretty different picture.
And the raw, unmanipulated, verified FACTS that answer that question are … ?
Oops! Totally missing! You BELIEVE that the question has been “answered” by your Authority, but I noticed you didn’t actually present any source for your belief. Sorry, these pesky question will continue to be asked until actually answered – and not by your “Authority SAID so, so THERE!”
go argue in the scientific literature when you disagree with the answers.
It will be excruciating to watch. Since the politicians from both sides have no background in science, they wind up quoting talking points they don’t understand to experts who do. The expert responses are lost on the pols on boths sides. Just sad, but at the same time terrifying manner given the effect their decisions will have on the welfare of billions.
But as to your caterwauling about the validity of the models, it is my observation that in determining sensitivity, the experts charged with writing IPCC AR5 themselves concluded that the models were running hot, and substituted their expert opinion instead. Having been discredited by the very experts commissioned by the United Nations IPCC to evaluate them, I’m personally left with three options:
1) Accept your appeal to authority
2) Accept the authority of the IPCC’s own scientists
3) Determine for myself based on a comparison of the models to observations
As options 2) and 3) coincide, I see no reason to further consider your appeal to authority which is discredited by the very authority that you appeal to. If only the pols who attend senate hearings were as informed.
3) the scientific way or the WUWT way?
WUWT readers like Hoffer are skeptics who use the scientific method. By your comment it’s clear you can’t refute what he wrote, so you’re just running interference.
Models have their place. But whenever there is a discrepancy between model output and the real world, skeptics always accept the empirical evidence and real world observations. But many in the alarmist contingent are exactly the opposite.
oh cool, i am a sceptic too.
so how did Hoffer account for the real TSI and Volcanic aerosols for example?
anti science
good one danny
i’m anti tree
Daniel Please forgive this rather personal question , but something has been puzzling me :
Yesterday , at 6.25am , in response to a comment from Harry Passfield you replied :
““strip-clear forests for fuel”
we are actually working to prevent exactly that”.
What surprised me is the use of the pronoun : we
Not ;” I am working to prevent that” , or “They are working to prevent that”. but “We are — etc”
Would it be impolite to ask who the organisation is that you are associated with ?
I am assuming Greenpeace, not that that is a felony or even a misdemeaner , but it helps put comments into a pigeonhole I think that you would agree.
“Would it be impolite to ask who the organisation is that you are associated with ?”
humanity. i said we, as that is a very international effort and paid for by all of us. (most atleast) via tax money.
“I am assuming Greenpeace”
no, they would kick me for being pro nuclear and pro GMO.
I see we have a gaggle of trolls in this thread.
[img]http://a404.idata.over-blog.com/3/10/47/74/dont_feed_the_troll.jpg[/img]
IT truly is sad. Daniel and his clan cant even address one item Bob Tisdale has posted. Piles and piles of …. left every where. So tell me Daniel, what has the increase of 120ppm CO2 over the last 150 years done to the earths systems.. Be specific! show what is natural variation and what is man caused. Please post the math, methods, and data to support your claim.
Inquiring minds want to know…
you can find all the answers you are looking for in AR5,
Daniel Kuhn
I repeat my request to you that you desist from citing IPCC documents until you have read them.
You merely add to the demonstrations that you know nothing about the subjects on which you pontificate when you provide arm waving such as
No, the IPCC AR5 does NOT answer any of the points from Bill H when he writes
And in the unlikely case that there is anybody who doubts your total ignorance of what you claim, I challenge you to state where in the AR5 (i.e. Chapter and page number) it states
You cannot provide the required reference (i.e. Chapter and page number) because that information does NOT exist in the AR5.
Daniel, a difference between you and me is that when I say something is in an IPCC document I cite it, quote it and link to it, but you assert that there are things in IPCC documents that are NOT in those documents although you wish they were.
I yet again request that you slither back under your bridge because your infantile and untrue assertions are wasting far, far too much space on threads.
Richard
“Chapter and page number”
it is in many different chapters…..
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
Observations: Ocean
Observations: Cryosphere
are a good start.
maybe you should read it for once instead only making false claims about it’s content.
Daniel Kuhn
Your listing of chapter titles doesn’t wash.
You were asked in which chapter and on what page does the AR5
You claim the information is there. I know it is not because – unlike you – I have read the AR5.
Now you can
(a) continue to waste space on the thread by more armwaving about the information being somewhere in several AR5 chapters
or
(b) you can crawl back under your bridge.
I don’t mind which because your armwaving demonstrates to onlookers that you are blowing smoke, and you going away would benefit everybody.
Richard
this was the question.
” what has the increase of 120ppm CO2 over the last 150 years done to the earths systems.. Be specific! show what is natural variation and what is man caused. Please post the math, methods, and data to support your claim. ”
yet somehow , richard think this will be found in one chapter on a few pages?
really?
but as you only quoted the attribution and quantification part of the question this time, i would recoomend you read this :
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
when you disagree with the findings, you best publish your research in the scinetific literature and confront the experts with your findings, im sure they will be very impressed ^^
Daniel Kuhn:
Please continue the armwaving because it emphasises both that
(a) the IPCC AR5 does NOT provide a quantified estimate of “what is natural variation and what is man caused” effect of “the increase of 120ppm CO2 over the last 150 years done to the earths systems..”
and
(b) you provided a blatant lie when you claimed that you know the AR5 does include that information.
The partitioning of natural and anthropogenic effect of the 120ppm CO2 rise is a simple but fundamental parameter which could be stated in one sentence, and its derivation (math, methods, and data) would be stated in a single numbered Section.
It does not exist and your claim to know what is in the AR5 is yet again shown to be wrong. It escapes me as to why you don’t man-up and admit the obvious truth that you have not read the AR5.
Richard
“natural and anthropogenic effect ”
with effect, what do you mean? the warming? how much of the observed warming is anthropogenic?
[quote] Daniel Kuhn April 15, 2015 at 1:18 pm
“natural and anthropogenic effect ”
with effect, what do you mean? the warming? how much of the observed warming is anthropogenic? [/quote]
It appears you really are clueless or you are intentionally misleading. AR4 does not, nor does AR5, address or quantify the questions I have asked you. Yet you went straight to the appeal to authority mantra even though you dont have a clue what is in those reports. So in an effort to make it easier for you understand i will use Crayolas…
According to the IPCC all warming prior to 1950 was natural variation and all warming after 1950 was man caused. SO lets look at what warming has occurred and when it occurred. (Note: The icreduliity of the IPCC to imply that natural variation has stopped is one of my biggest gripes. If they have learned to control the climate why are we still funding this Cr*p?)
I believe that others have posted similar explanations. My apologies if I fail to give proper attribution.
Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/mean:6/from:1900/to:2000/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/mean:6/to:1950/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/trend:6/to:1950/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/to:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1951/to:2000/trend
The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade. (Trend was simplified to the IPCC’s determination of 50 year interval)
This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.
The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade. (Trend was simplified to the IPCC’s determination of 50 year interval)
Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..
http://i857.photobucket.com/albums/ab140/Billy_Bob_photos/DrJChristy-CO2notathermostat.jpg
Source;Midtroposheric Warming-Dr.J Christy
So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claimed runway rise, it was nothing of the sort. Even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural temperature rise. And the last 18 years 4 months there has been a zero trend, no rise, despite continued rise in CO2.
SO what does this exercise tell us about CO2 and its effects:
1) CO2 is not affecting our atmosphere as the IPCC has purported in AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4, or AR5. The models used to create these documents have all failed empirical review and falsification.
2) Climate sensitivity to CO2 has been grossly exaggerated. Empirical lab experiments show the warming that CO2 alone could be responsible for does not exist in our atmosphere. We are seeing about 20% of what could be caused by CO2 alone, with natural variation included.
3) Water vapor is not enhancing any warming by empirical evidence. In fact, we have seen an increase in the IR release from the top of the atmosphere indicating that the convection cycle is increasing, not slowing as the IPCC predicted. ( I personally believe that this is where Trenbreth’s heat has gone as the oceans haven’t significantly warmed.)
4) Water Vapor has not increased in our atmosphere. Again in direct conflict with IPCC predictions.
5) Tropical storm energy has decreased, again in direct conflict with the IPCC predictions.
Any way you slice it the IPCC predictions are severely lacking and CO2 attribution to causing anything is ZERO. And that is using the IPCC’s own goal posts.
Suggest that readers from Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas who agree with Bob Tisdale email and/or tweet your respective senator:
FL: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
OK: http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
TX: http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=email_senator
Tell them you are in agreement with the letter that was recently sent to them by Bob Tisdale.
Enough of such responses will almost certainly impel the senators to read and consider what Bob wrote.
Why is Rand Paul left out of this letter?
He is not chairman of a relevant committee or subcommittee.
He tries to soft-pedal it, but Dr. Paul is a CACA skeptic.
Here is a question for the Warmists.
Professor of agricultural engineering Gert Venter of the University of Pretoria found that introducing CO2 to agricultural greenhouses (done routinely to stimulate plant growth) coincides with a correlated drop in internal temperature. He has data from more than 30 hydroponic tunnels world-wide that show this correlation. The final question I ask is: If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, why doesn’t it cause hydroponic tunnels to warm up?
I am not a warmist, but
Heat + 6CO2 + 6H2O C6H12O6 + 6O2
So going right, temperature goes down; going left, temperature goes up.
Ooops! My double arrow did not show up above, but you can figure it out.
The idea that Heat +CO2+H2O will produce carbohydrates is nonsense. Please check a photosynthesis site.
The reverse certainly happens. However I will agree that “energy” would have been a better word than “heat”. And that energy of course is from the sun.
First thing I thought of were the “black smokers” and the curious organisms which use chemosynthesis in lieu of photosynthesis for powering their other metabolic processes:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast13apr_1/
Fascinating place this orb of ours.
Alberta Slim,
That’s an extremely good question. As davidmhoffer has pointed out elsewhere on this thread, so-called “greenhouse” gasses are constantly both emitting and absorbing “thermal” radiation, i.e., radiation in the infrared spectrum. On the scale of something the size of a hydroponics tunnel in a “standard” sea level atmosphere, an IR photon has only a very small probability of being absorbed by a CO2 molecule, yet every CO2 molecule within the volume will be emitting constantly. The net radiative effect is therefore negative (outward); thus marginally increasing the CO2 level will tend to have a cooling, not warming toward some new equilibrium temperature.
Here’s the fun part. For a sufficiently large hydroponics tunnel, it would be possible to increase the level of CO2 within the structure such that the internal atmosphere becomes so opaque to IR that photons emitted near the interior of the structure would have a very small probability of escaping directly to the outside environment. Once absorbed, some of those photons would be re-emitted back toward the center of the structure, while the remainder would be emitted outward. We can’t really ignore convective and conductive effects here — but for sake of illustration some sufficiently high concentration of CO2 would tend to warm the interior of the structure and cool the outer regions.
The Earth system is a sufficiently large structure to carry this off, and this is exactly what has been observed: the upper atmosphere has cooled and the lower atmosphere has warmed as CO2 concentration has risen, inclusive of convective, latent heat transfers and the ever elusive feedbacks. A hydroponic tunnel, being much smaller, would require a far higher concentration of CO2 for a warming effect near the interior to be noticed because of the relatively much smaller dimensions involved.
This may be a dumb question from a science tragic, but would the greenhouse panels (of Polycarbonate or Polypropylene) emit any gasses that might interact with the environment within the greenhouse?
A bit above my paygrade but WAG, no. Maybe enough to get you high when they’re new, but I disclaim any and all responsibility for deleterious results should anyone attempt to find out empirically.
Oh I don’t know …. to improve them maybe?
Shirley you jest.
Stop calling him “Surely”!
Well I can be a Jester, Victor, but Shirley not in this case.
If the science is settled, and the policy advice has been published based upon those models, then why should models need improving? Mr. Tisdale’s point is that continued funding of models which are producing very poor results is throwing good money after bad, and perhaps it is time for alternative avenues to be explored.
There’s a lot of science. I reckon most of it is far from settled.
I read Bob Tisdale’s point as being that the models are not fit for political policy decisions. I agree.
Here is another item to consider.
1. Comparing 200ppm to 400ppm CO2.
Roughly speaking, 200 extra parts per million CO2 has to absorb enough energy to raise the other 999800 parts per million of the atmosphere by 1°C, very roughly from15°C to 16°C which is approximately about a 5 watts per square meter change.
200 is 1/5000 of 1 million therefore 200 parts of CO2 has to absorb 5,000 times the energy to raise the temperature of the other 999800 parts.
To raise 1 square meter of atmosphere by 5 watts, CO2 would have to absorb 25000 watts?
You’re buying in to the warmist meme that GHG’s “absorb” or “trap” heat. This is not what happens. Each molecule absorbs and immediately re-emits photons over and over again. So the amount of heat “absorbed” by CO2 molecules is nearly irrelevant. That the photons are intercepted and re-emitted in a random direction is what matters.
Thus arises the Beer-Lambert law. I somewhat agree that “trapping” heat is not the best way of putting it but absorb is fine so long as the re-emitting is also discussed. My preferred short-form explanation of the overall effect is “reducing the net rate of heat loss”.
My preferred short-form explanation of the overall effect is “reducing the net rate of heat loss”.
That is also incorrect. The rate of heat loss before CO2 doubles is exactly identical to heat loss after CO2 doubles. What changes is the temperature profile from surface to TOA due to redistribution of the energy fluxes.
Yes, I am not a warmist. I was using a Warmist argument, or claim, and trying to show how ludicrous it is.
“The rate of heat loss before CO2 doubles is exactly identical to heat loss after CO2 doubles. What changes is the temperature profile from surface to TOA due to redistribution of the energy fluxes.”
does that mean one of the largest negative feedbacks is not real?
does that mean one of the largest negative feedbacks is not real?
Since I don’t know what you think the negative feedbacks are, let alone which one of them you are referring to, it is not possible to answer your question.
davidmhoffer,
The easy way to do this is to talk through the chain of events in a simplified version of the system. The hard way is for me to just pummel you with literature. I’ll start with the easy way first and see how it goes. Consider the planet as composed only of uniform rock, no liquid water, and an atmosphere of only nitrogen and CO2. Solar constant is constant, and the system is at equilibrium, by which I mean that net radiative flux at TOA is effectively zero. Assume present “Earthlike” parameters for global average absolute surface temperature.
Let “immediate” be something on the order of a year’s time. We magically double CO2 concentration immediately. What is the immediate effect of doing so?
Let “immediate” be something on the order of a year’s time. We magically double CO2 concentration immediately. What is the immediate effect of doing so?
Why a year? You want to simplify things, make it instantaneous. As for “immediate effect”, again, why complicate things? Let’s allow sufficient time for a new equilibrium state to be established and see what the difference is.
The MRL would occur at a higher altitude. Below this altitude, temperatures would be higher. Above this altitude, temperatures would be lower. The effective black body temperature of the earth would be exactly the same as it was before (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).
Your rather disingenuous display in the Climate Craziness thread has me wondering why I am bothering to respond to you at all. You’re short on science (though orders of magnitude better than most warmists who show up here) but slippery as h*ll when it comes to having an actual disussion.
davidmhoffer,
It explicitly addresses the effects of any diurnal and seasonal cycles.
The question I am asking is the mechanism by which the new equilibrium state is achieved, in stepwise fashion. You have just skipped that step.
Agree.
Agree.
Agree.
Ah, good point, thanks. I believe that’s also correct.
I’ll leave you to hold your own counsel on that one.
As a lefty in more than one way, I appreciate your compliment.
When in Rome, good sir. The question you’ve left dangling is what happens at TOA “instantaneously” when we magically double CO2 concentration?
Here’s a hint: ΔF = α ln(C/C₀) : α = 5.35 W/m²
ln(2) resolves to what value?
I’m, oh, two steps away from bringing out the big guns.
Brandon,
Why wait to roll out your alleged big guns?
This should be amusing.
Catherine,
I intend to regardless, the timing is contingent on David’s answer to the question he glossed over.
Brandon Gates seems of the opinion that because I discussed the equilibrium states (before and after CO2 doubling) that I have somehow “glossed” something over. He is technically correct. During the transient state while the entire system re-adjusts to the increase in CO2, there is indeed an energy flux imbalance at TOA. The transient state being, well, transient it is by definition, temporary. It doesn’t change where we start, or where we end up. Brandon Gates has already attested to this in point by point agreement with me above.
If the transient state is his “big gun” then I am mildly amused. If he has something else in mind, he should stop playing games and simply state his position. I await being amazed.
davidmhoffer,
And I agree with you here because that’s exactly what I was driving at. I was being a stickler (or PITA if you wish) about it because I wanted to make sure this didn’t happen:
http://i.imgur.com/EXmmL.jpg
Also very much why I explicitly agreed with you point by point — I do not like ambiguity in these sorts of discussions. Now I know that you and I agree on the basic physics from pertubation through the transient phase and then to a new equilibrium, which was not at all clear to me from previous discussions with you. I consider that a good thing, thank you for answering the question.
No, the big guns refer to people who do this for a living, whom I trust more than J. Random Guy on the Innert00bs. Didn’t want to have to break them out, that’s the aforementioned “hard way” of doing this. I like it much better to just talk things through. Someday you’ll figure out that I generally only give people crap when they’re giving it to me — as I see it, the main big deal between you and me seems to be on our somewhat mutually incompatible definitions of crap.
I did promise to roll out some references regardless, since I think that’s always best practice:
Knutti & Hegerl (2008): http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
The Horses Mouth (AR4) on defining radiative forcing: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.html
Daniel Jacob’s “Intro to Atmospheric Chemistry” I find indispensable, especially Chapter 7: http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html#pgfId=113237
K&H (2008) may be the most relevant for where we are right now. See Fig 1f: time to equilibrium on the order of millennia, b/c: the oceans.
David:
That still begs the question that a few molecules must transfer energy to a massive number of other molecules; some larger, some smaller. Whether those secondary molecules are atmospheric or surface molecules is moot.
The question is how do so few molecules raise the temperature of so many other molecules.
Jumping into mass calculations ignores the need for a specific actual process of physical transferring energy at individual molecules.
That water vapor swamps CO2, in concentrations or reality, means that water vapor should be considered first. Once all atmospheric aspects of water vapor IR absorption and emissions are fully understood and documented, then and only then should a trace gas like CO2, be considered for the same levels of investigations.
Totting up totals for trace gases based on assumed transience rates is sophistry.
ATheoK,
That there is a double-edged sword you’re swinging.
Radiation absorbed by a GHG can easily be transferred kinetically to a non-IR active species. Once there, the only way for that energy to get out of the atmosphere is to knock back into a GHG and get it to burp out photons.
LOTS of Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules are heated via direct contact with the surface. The only way for the atmosphere to ultimately shed heat it picks up that way is via a vanishingly small percentage of trace gasses.
“Since I don’t know what you think the negative feedbacks are, let alone which one of them you are referring to, it is not possible to answer your question.”
sad, but was to be expected.
Brandon Gates
I object to your calling those who like me have done this sort of thing “for a living”, “big guns”.
Your characterisation is pointless. Facts are what they are whomever states them.
Indeed, that is why you annoy with your habit of copying & posting screeds that you don’t understand. The truth of what is said has importance: who said it does not.
Richard
richardscourtney,
You annoy talking about copypasta in a subthread containing very little of it. On highly complex technical matters, I unapologetically defer to the opinions of domain experts as a guide toward determining truth. That doesn’t mean that I do it wholly uncritically, nor that I only ever consider arguments from experts. Note that my leading reply to davidmhoffer indicated that I preferred talking through it to just … how did i put it … pummelling him with literature. As for “big guns” I see that few are in touch with my sense of humour on that one, I shall retire it from usage.
Based on past experience with you, I expect little of this to be received gladly. Hope, however, springs eternal.
Brandon Gates
What do you think I may or may not “accept gladly”?
Is it that you are a disruptive troll who pretends knowledge he doesn’t have by copying and pasting screeds he doesn’t understand? If so, then I already knew it.
Richard
richardscourtney,
That would be an example of you not suffering my comments gladly. From my perspective, you are the one disrupting my attempts to counter disinformation with literature citations, which I use specifically when my own understanding is sufficiently lacking that I can’t explain the concept in question in my own words.
By my way of thinking, well-poisoning is not intellectually honest sceptical truth-seeking. Such IS, unfortunately, a common tactic on both sides of this fence, and yes, I’m not wholly above doing it myself.
The GHG effect of most air molecules is negligible. Water vapor & CO2 are the main GHGs. Nitrogen, oxygen & argon, the predominant air molecules, are not GHGs.
Water vapor is not evenly distributed, but averages about 30,000 parts per million in the atmosphere. CO2, as you know, is better mixed & averages about 400 ppm. The effect of CO2 is negligible compared to water vapor, except in the driest areas of the globe, such as the polar deserts.
I should have added 400 ppm in dry air.
I thought the results from the OCO probes were debunking that “evenly distributed’ meme and showing a very distinct plume and decay signature. I seem to remember quite a lot of variation in the graphics.
he effect of CO2 is negligible compared to water vapor, except in the driest areas of the globe, such as the polar deserts.
Water vapour is prevalent only at low altitudes. As you rise in altitude, temps drop, which forces water vapour out of the air. So, for the vast majority of the atmospheric air column, water vapour is negligible. On the other hand, this also means that downward LW from CO2 at altitude runs into a wall of water vapour close to earth surface, and GHG’s do their thing regardless of which direction the LW originates from, so some of that LW gets absorbed and redirected up before it can get to the surface. At this point in trying to understand the physics as a big picture thing, my head begins to hurt.
Owen,
CO2 is better distributed than water vapor, but I agree it’s not as well mixed as claimed by CACA advocates. Water vapor varies from over 40,000 ppm of dry air in the moist tropics to perhaps four ppm above the polar deserts in winter, when of course there is no reflected sunlight to absorb.
David,
True of course that cold air holds less water vapor. However GASTA is measured in the lower troposphere, ie at the surface for land stations or under water for SST (thus out of & beneath the troposphere), or in the mid-troposphere for satellites.
Surely atmospheric radiative heating & cooling effects occur in the upper troposphere & stratosphere, but, as you say, it’s headache inducing to try to imagine their extent. It was observed in the 1960s that CO2 concentration changes abruptly at the tropopause:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v221/n5185/abs/2211040a0.html
Davidmhoffer:
Yours is a point not often addressed, which bears repeating:
“On the other hand, this also means that downward LW from CO2 at altitude runs into a wall of water vapour close to earth surface, and GHG’s do their thing regardless of which direction the LW originates from, so some of that LW gets absorbed and redirected up before it can get to the surface.”
IR emissions high in the troposphere find a relatively clear path to space. Downwelling, they find the “blanket” where IR is absorbed, then it is radiated half up, half down. Upward is a clear path, downward, not so clear and antother iteration. Downwelling IR is reduced by half for each iteration.
How does the heat get high in the troposphere? The “blanket” has holes, in the form of convective currents, which carry warm air above the blanket, and where the aforementioned cycle releases energy into space. This does not lend itself to modeling. No headache here.
Brandon Gates;
I like it much better to just talk things through.
Then start doing so. Stop with the word games, quit with the cutesy questions trying to bait people into a mistake. If you disagree with something, state your disagreement, articulate the facts as you see them. Threatening to bring out the big guns, sneering down your nose while accusing others of glossing over facts, you come off as nothing more than a condescending jerk.
You want to discuss the science, then discuss the science.
You’re one of the few warmists who actually can. So do that instead of this crap you’ve been pulling.
It takes two, David. Now that I know better what you and I agree on I will make the effort. It would help a great deal if you stopped calling me “alarmist”. Condescending jerk is in-bounds, at the very least that label is accurate.
Well I misread “warmist” as “alarmist”. I’m not prickly about the former.
Now that I know better what you and I agree on I will make the effort.
I see. Now that I’ve passed your test you’ll make the effort to have a cogent discussion with me. How nice of you to allow me into your exalted plain of existence.
Feature of being a condescending jerk.
Hello, I’m new to this site and to the science of the global warming controversy. I’m trying to learn the facts behind the issues. But I have some questions about Mr. Tisdale’s article that I’ve listed below.
I hope my unschooled questions will not invite abuse; I’m just trying to learn I try to find what is valid about others’ perspectives when they differ from mine.
•Why are taxpayers funding climate model-based research when those models are not simulating Earth’s climate?
Is it possible that scientists are varying the parameters that define current state to determine how to improve their models? In other words, could the models’ initial states have been set at variance with current parameters to see how predictions would change as a result, i.e. how sensitive the different parameters are to small changes in value?
•Why are taxpayers funding climate model-based research when each new generation of climate models provides the same basic answers?
Is it possible that the direction of the trends is clear (seas rising, etc.) but that scientists are trying to improve the numeric accuracy of their models?
•Redundancy: why are taxpayers funding 5 climate models in the U.S.?
Can this not be a good thing? Research would no longer be necessary if the models had strong predictive validity. Can having different models allow simultaneous lines of research along different lines?
•Why aren’t climate models providing the answers we need? •Example: Why didn’t the consensus of regional climate models predict the timing, extent and duration of the Californian drought?
This question is a one for the climate scientists. But if predictive models are at variance with reality, does that mean we should stop trying to improve the models?
The models are fundamentally flawed. Tweaking them accomplishes nothing except to continue the entire charade, at everyone’s expense. The models are the mere pretense of science.
Bob Teasdale’s message is that the models are not useful for policy. He is correct.
The IPCC is a political body. No scientific organization would take the modeled mean of a group of wrong in one direction models, and use the knowingly wrong modeled mean to predict future climate affects, and base policy decisions on the wrong models. The IPCC has been forced by the observations to dampen their own CS estimates, but still the models run way to warm.
Also see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/24/are-climate-modelers-scientists/
So many issues and questions….. I really hope that at least you will raise awareness by that, if not obtaining a competent answer…. Unfortunately, this happens a lot: climate is the last thing politicians worry when they take actions regarding climate change. It’s both ironic and true and it seems this situation happens in most of the fields linked in any way to the climate.
Great work, Mr. Tisdale. I pray that the presidential candidates addressed will make use of your very valuable contributions to our understanding of the great flaws in the so-called science that Alarmists offer.
It took our “Dear Leaders'” State Dept. 3 months to report back on removing Cuba from the list of State Sponsored Terrorist nations.
The same State Dept. after FIVE YEARS, can’t finish it’s evaluation of the Keystone XL Pipeline…..
Is it just me?
Bob,
That’s an interesting letter. But it’s probably too long for the attention span and meager cognitive fortitude of the average U.S. Senator, regardless of party affiliation.
Excellent letter. This post is another good example of why to not feed the trolls.
US primaries and the general election are not far off.
Already mustering their forces.
Why else would Dudley..er..Daniel have shown up so soon?
– – – – –
Jim G1,
I agree with you that Bob Tisdale’s open letter is well done.
Regarding ‘trolls’: If the commenters, who you are referring to as trolls, can be reasonably found to be insincere in their comment history on other threads and insincere here in this comment thread then call them on the insincerity but I suggest drop the name calling them as trolls.
I think the commenters you are referring to have been insincere in the past and the present. Therefore I think they deserve very very little or no sincere interaction from other commenters.
John
Didn’t one of those trolls describe himself as a science teacher in another thread?
There are, indeed, better and more descriptive names but I prefer not to get snipped by the Mod. ” Insincere ” just does not do it for me.
Jim G1,
‘Inciteful’ has merit for interpreting their motive and detective work is necessary to show it.
John
John,
It’s a fairly new word, but does not necessarily require motive. Like porn, you know it when you see it.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite
I like to refer to them as “inciteful” posts. The perp gets a dopamine rush anticipating a reaction to them. Since they are incapable of eliciting a normal conversational response they incite vitriol. Any reaction, good or bad, satisfies the dopamine response.
Studies show that cell phones and twitter, and posting on discussion threads all elicit a similar dopamine response, hence the booming market.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-wise/201209/why-were-all-addicted-texts-twitter-and-google
Ahhhh….until my next fix….
If you ignore them, they usually go elsewhere after a few days.
Dave Worley on April 14, 2015 at 6:35 pm
– – – – – –
Dave Worley & Jim G1,
My comment to Jim G1 (John Whitman on April 15, 2015 at 7:07 am) was intended as a response to you.
Jim G1, sorry for my mistake in addressing my comment to you.
John
“where I would be considered an investigative reporter”
good to see Bobs finally admitted he’s not a scientist
Bevan, you must be new here, too. I’ve admitted numerous times I’m not a climate scientist. I’ve also stated that I wouldn’t want to be one, because politics dictates the focus of climate science, and that’s tragic.
Have a good day.
Bevan April 14, 2015 at 2:18 pm says:
“…good to see Bobs finally admitted he’s not a scientist…”
Are you a scientist, Bevan? If so, your comment is not one a real scientist would make. If not, it classifies you as a troll.
I think Rubio has responded very sensibly to media inquiries regarding climate change.
And Ted Cruz has responded about “climate change” very intelligently. (I don’t want to include the Giant Youtube picture that come with posting the link. It has been posted on WUWT and at Jo Nova’s several times. If you missed it – let me know.