Guest essay by Richard J. Petschauer
A skeptic that believes in global warming? How can that be? We have been told that climate skeptics, sometime incorrectly called “deniers”, still believe the earth is flat and disagree with 97% of scientists. Well, first of all, most of us have seen a globe and know what it represents. Second, do you know on what these scientists agree? If not, don’t feel bad. Those making these claims, mostly politicians, probably don’t know either. Actually, a rather poor survey was done looking at a summary of many technical papers. If any one of many climate related points were made, they were put in the 97% camp. This article would probably have qualified too.
But the real question, not covered in the survey: How fast will the earth warm if we do nothing to curtail the growth of man made carbon dioxide emissions? And how much can we reduce the warming if we cut world emissions by some factor? The impact and costs of doing nothing or something will not be covered here, but it is obvious they would depend on how fast warming will occur. This we will discuss.
So what are the skeptics skeptical about? It is the amount and rate of the man made warming estimated by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the claims of some spokespeople, many in government, who go much beyond what the IPCC says, like “the planet is having a fever” or “things are getting worse than expected”. But data shows global temperatures have increased much less than models predicted. In fact, unknown to many, accurate satellite data shows very little if any warming in the last 18 years.
Where there is general agreement
There are many areas where most skeptics and the “alarmists”, as they are called, agree. First is the idea of “climate sensitivity”, a useful benchmark for making estimates. It is the final average global temperature rise that would be caused by a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, assuming there are no natural changes. Second, most agree on well established methods to estimate how greenhouse gases absorb and emit heat, and that doubling of CO2 will reduce the heat leaving the planet by a little more than 3.5 watts per square meter. This compares to both estimates and satellite measurements of the total now leaving of about 235 watts per square meter. If the value of 3.5 watts out of 235 seems low, it is because CO2 only absorbs the infrared wavelengths that involve about 20% of the heat leaving the surface, and in this region its action is partially saturated and the second doubling will reduce heat loss by about another 3.5, not 7 watts. A 1% change in energy from the sun or a 7% change in cloud cover would cause about the same change as doubling CO2. Third, there is general agreement on how much the average surface will warm to make up for this heat loss: about 1 C (1.8 F). But here is the rub: this estimate is before the atmosphere and the surface, including oceans, react to this temperature change.
Where there is not agreement
How the climate reacts to the initial warming is the main area where most skeptics have problems with the IPCC and others. These reactions are called “feedbacks”. Positive ones amplify any temperature change (warming or cooling from any cause, not just from CO2). Negative ones diminish a change. There are general agreements on the equations used to define the feedback strengths and how they are combined into one net temperature change multiplier that can be either greater or less than one. The major disagreements are the magnitudes of the feedback values and for clouds, even if it is positive or negative. The final IPCC warming estimates for doubling CO2 range from 1.5 to 4.5 C. The skeptics have no common voice, but their values range from about 0.5 to 1.2 C, a significant reduction. IPCC also uses a 1% annual growth of the CO2 content in the atmosphere, while data shows only about 0.55%. This increases CO2 doubling time from about 70 years to 140.
Two different approaches
One primary complaint is the IPCC and most government funding research have abandoned improving the simple energy balance model and the feedback concept and gone to complex climate models that try to estimate many conditions across the globe and layers in the atmosphere over many years and then a temperature change. Small errors can propagate into unknown large ones. There are over 100 of these models written by different teams and their results differ by a range to 3 to 1. And nearly all overestimate warming compared to observed data. This is settled science? No! And it is bad engineering practice, which some scientists apparently don’t understand, to try to solve such a complex problem without breaking it down into smaller steps that each can be verified and corrected. What is causing the errors in the climate models that cause them to overestimate global warming? How will any proposed correction be tested without waiting about 10 to 30 years?
Corrections to the complex computer models
We believe the complex computer models overestimation of warming is mostly based on a combinations of three factors: overestimating positive water vapor feedback, underestimating negative feedback from increased sea surface evaporation and treating cloud feedback as positive feedback while it is very likely negative. For water vapor (a major greenhouse gas) the climate models show it increases about 7% per degree C of warming. But extensive data over 30 years from 15,000 stations at many latitudes over land and sea show an increase of only about 5% at the surface, the atmosphere’s main water vapor source. (Dia, “Recent Climatology and Trends in Global Surface Humidity”, American Meteorological Society, August, 1997). Water vapor is also an absorber of incoming solar energy, reducing what reaches the surface. Reduced greenhouse action and increased solar absorption cut the computer models positive water vapor feedback in about half. Regarding the cooling effects of increased evaporation, mostly over the oceans, both data (Wentz, et al, “How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?, Science, 13 July, 2007) and basic physics indicate an increase of about 6% per degree C of warming, over double what the climate models average. Finally, the models estimate a value of positive feedback for clouds only because this amount is needed to boost the initial 1 C prefeedback warming up to the models final average estimate. It is more likely that more evaporation and water vapor will increase cloud content, a net cooling effect. Using simple energy balance models with proven greenhouse gas absorption/radiation tools, the result of these changes indicates a warming from double CO2 in a range of 0.6 to 0.9 C, much less than IPCC’s value of 1.5 to 4.5 C. Note the uncertainty range drops by a factor of 10, from of 3 degrees C to 0.3 C, because of the elimination of unreliable complex computer models and their net positive feedback.
A skeptics summary
About 1 C warming in the next 140 years does not seem to be a problem. (It will actually take longer because the ocean heat storage will delay the warming). Furthermore, both simple models and data show that most of the warming will be in winter nights in the colder latitudes. Less water vapor here reduces its competition with CO2. An example is in Minneapolis, Minnesota at 45 degrees latitude. About half of July record highs were set in the 1930s, with only 3 since 2000. However 80% of the record January lows were from 1875 to 1950. This winter warming is a benefit. And what makes people think the climate around 1900 represents the ideal? In 2014 we just saw a very cold winter, typical of that era. Finally, warmer temperatures increase evaporation and precipitation and since CO2 is a plant food, food crop production will increase, contrary to some other estimates. And any climate model that estimates a small, slowly increasing temperature will “disrupt” the climate should be looked at with great skepticism.
Digging deeper – does carbon dioxide really trap heat?
We have heard that carbon dioxide “traps” heat high in the atmosphere somewhat like a blanket that covers everything and is getting thicker as emissions increase, trapping more heat. Well, it’s not so simple and fortunately not that bad. Let us explain what happens.
The above figure is taken from an often cited paper, including by the IPCC, titled “Earth’s Annual Global Energy Budget” by Kiehl and Trenberth from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1997, with notations that we added. The top curve shows how the intensity of the average heat leaving the earth’s surface varies with infrared wavelength. The lower jagged curve is that leaving at the top of the atmosphere under average cloudy conditions. The area under a curve is its total heat in watts per square meter. Note the large downward notch leaving the atmosphere in the 12 to 18 microns range caused by CO2. It is such a strong absorber here that it cannot release its heat outward until the density of its molecules drops significantly at high altitudes where the temperature is about –60 F. Hence the low radiation rate. If the amount of CO2 increases, the escape altitude moves up causing both the temperature and heat loss to drop further. The area of the CO2 notch below the dashed line is about 22 watts per square meter and represents the impact of the total CO2 given the existing clouds and water vapor. Doubling CO2, taking over 100 years at the current growth rate, would move the notch downward and increase the area by about 3.5 watts per square meter, or 16%. When the heat loss drops, since the net heat from the sun remains at 235, the atmosphere gains heat and warms about 1 degree C until its emissions rise back to 235, restoring balance. A warmer atmosphere reduces the heat loss from the surface, and it also warms about 1 C. This is all that CO2 does. And very slowly. The feedback processes can increase or decrease this warming, as they do for any other temperature change.
Correction: The 140 years cited in two places as the time for CO2 doubling for the compound annual increase of 0.55 % of the last 20 years should be 126 years (1.0055 ^126.4 = 2.0003). The 140-year value is for 0.50 %, consistent with the last 35 years.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think that the simplest answer is often the correct answer without adding loads of complexity. I think that carbon dioxide has little effect on temperature for the simple reason, there is not enough of it. Think of it like this, a thick duvet and you are warm and cosy at night but a thin one and you are cold.The seas cause a lag in any temp rises or falls caused by varying solar radiation. Millions of years ago the earth was tropical even near the poles. There might have been much more atmosphere back then with much higher atmospheric pressure but the solar wind may have gradually eroded it away during periods of very high solar activity until a level of equilibrium has be reached such as today.
Paul: Maybe this is a bit of topic but the issue of shedding of our atmosphere is something that has intrigued me for years. It is said that Pterosaurs would have difficulty flying in our less dense atmosphere of today. The issue of flight in more dense air has been debated, but the fact of the atmosphere being more dense seems to be accepted. We know we are shedding atmosphere to space all the time. I often wonder what the atmosphere of Mars would have been like a few hundred thousand years ago … and what earth’s atmosphere will look like in a few hundred thousand years from now. How much atmosphere are we shedding each year? It is said the earth has lost up to 25% of its water: http://sciencenordic.com/earth-has-lost-quarter-its-water
Most articles on the loss of atmosphere are pretty light though I am sure there are detailed research papers somewhere, but a nice summary seems hard to find.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-planets-lose-their-atmospheres/
http://gizmodo.com/5882517/did-you-know-that-earth-is-getting-lighter-every-day
Clearly the loss is small in human terms.
Atmospheric loss isn’t relative to changing climate in the short term, but it seems to me the make up of our atmosphere is constantly changing and we have a rather myopic short term view of what is happening.
It would be interesting to revisit earth in a hundred thousand years or so to see what the top level beasts are up to … and how they adapted to whatever climate and tectonic changes took place.
The discussions here are interesting, but in the end, the earth really won’t care.
Enjoy the rest of the weekend, the snow is melting and it’s time to take a ride in the sun.
It is not only flight that is an issue, but so too how [blood] was pumped up to the brain that leads some to speculate that AP was higher in the past. See for example: Atmospheric Pressure at the Time of Dinosaurs
http://www.levenspiel.com/octave/OL_images/DinosaurW.pdf
if this issue wasn’t a cash cow or a political weapon the Hansen or the IPCC co2 hypothesis would have been thrown out over 20 years ago. They are completely invalid scientifically. This article reminds me of the parents that try to keep their kids in advanced classes in high school even when they are failing. They think that there is a misunderstanding about the kids work ethic or intelligence. Meanwhile the grades speak for themselves. This article in some ways is even worse than the Huff post climate pornography. It’s damage control for a complete scam.
I have become increasingly sceptical about the promotion of probably dubious science, the evading of proper “scientific method” and the political agendas that have invested so much into confirming the assertion of Catastrophic / Dangerous Man-made Global Warming from the emission of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
So, from being a credulous Believer I have become a Sceptic and thus would be branded as a “Denier”.
Thus with my views I am derided as a “denier”, but I do not deny the following:
I do not deny that climate changes: it can go either way warmer or colder.
I do not deny that the world got warmer in the latter half of the 20th century, just as it did in the earlier half of the 20th century at about the same rate and to about the same degree.
I do not deny that the world has gotten significantly warmer since the Little Ice Age and that this warming has produced a more congenial climate for man-kind and the biosphere.
I do not deny that the earlier Medieval and Roman warm periods of the Holocene were warmer than current temperatures.
I do not deny that according to Ice Core records the previous millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest millennium of the current benign Holocene epoch
I do not deny that the Holocene climate “optimum”, around 6000 BC, was more than 3°C warmer that the depths of the Little Ice Age.
I do do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas: it is one of several.
I do not deny that CO2 has a minor warming effect on world temperature, in comparison to the effect of water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere, and the influence of CO2 on temperature diminishes with increasing concentrations.
I do not deny that man is contributing to the increase of atmospheric levels of CO2.
I do not deny that Man-made CO2 output is inevitably going to continue to rise until the underdeveloped world, about 50% of the world’s population, has universal access to electricity and other life enhancing affordable energy sources.
I do not deny that Man-kind does pollute and does significant environmental damage to the planet.
I do not deny that variations in the output of the Sun at its full spectrum of visible and non-visible wavelengths has a significant but unappreciated influence on the World’s climate.
I do not deny that and the planetary mechanics of the Solar system has a major influence on the World’s climate.
From my examination of the Climate question I do deny the following:
I do deny that CO2 from any source is a dangerous pollutant: It is the foundation of photosynthesis – thus the basis for all life on earth.
I do deny that CO2 is currently at dangerous levels in the atmosphere: rather it is at low levels compared to the historic past of the planet
I do deny that Man-made CO2 can ever be the most significant control knob for world climate.
I do deny that any moderate warming within normal limits, (less than +2°C) is a global catastrophe.
I do deny that +2°C could ever be attained by Man-made CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, because of the radical diminution effects that apply to increasing concentrations of CO2 into the future.
I do deny that any additional warming is significantly enhanced by positive feed-backs that radically increase the effective warming that may be produced by higher CO2 concentrations.
I do deny that there are major worldwide negative and catastrophic risks caused by Man-made Warming / Climate Change.
Far from it; it appears you don’t understand what science is.
Isn’t this reply misplaced? It should be to MikeB April 26, 2015 at 4:23 am.
What’s with this garbage about ‘the earth is warming’ when it is colder today than during the Minoan Era nearly 4,000 years ago? Each warm cycle every 1,000 years is colder than the previous warm cycle.
Far from this being the warmest era ever, the brief warmup from the cold period of the 1970’s cycle is brief and already over as we decline yet again into another cold cycle that may last more than 100 years. Our present Interglacial is nearing an end and we are in dire danger of sliding into another Ice Age.
If increased CO2 were to prevent a return of mile thick glaciers covering most of Canada, northern USA and northern Europe, this would be wonderful but I seriously doubt it will have the slightest effect.
I don’t see where the figure of 20% of warming for CO2 absorption comes from. The IR band is about 100um while CO2 is opaque to IR at 2.7um, 4.3um, and 15um. I have no problem seeing how CO2 would generate warming due to incoming IR at those frequencies. Outgoing IR at those frequencies are emitted from material at about 32C for the 2.7 band and about -50C for the 4.3 band. Those frequencies just don’t seem to be enough to account for 20%.
That’s because you don’t understand thermal emissions, those temperatures you mention are not relevant, the 15 micron CO2 band is near the peak of the Earth’s IR emission.
Is that graph an actual experimentally measured extra-terrestrial earth LWIR spectrum, or is that something that is computed from a model.
I have some similar purported spectra in the chapter 3; “The Earth as Seen from Space.” of the Infra-Red Handbook published by ERIM.
Only these plots are based on a Wavelength X-axis, from 5 to 30 microns, and the Y-axis spectral “Radiance” so the units are: micro-watt per square cm per steradian per micron of wavelength increment.
The origin of those graphs, which it says are calculated, is from H. Rose, et al, “The Handbook of Albedo and Thermal Earthshine.”, also published by ERIM
Report No. 190201-1-T 1973.
The curves are calculated for three observed zenith angles; 0, 60, and 85 deg. and for North Latitudes, 10-20 deg., 30-40 deg., 50-60 deg., and 70-80 deg. all over land (North America), both sunlit, and not sunlit in both Winter and Summer.
They peak at from 9.0 microns for summer sunlit 50 deg. N lat.
Both the CO2 and the Ozone dips show a little spike very close to 15 microns for CO2 under all conditions and about 9.6 microns for O3 under all conditions.
The Ozone dips vary greatly with zenith angle, which I would attribute to the Ozone being in a thin high layer, through which the slant path length changes radically with zenith angle.
I assume there is some QM explanation for the little pips in the middle of the dips, which I notice your curve also has.
So does that mean your curve is also calculated from some model, rather than measured ??
In any case, the peak wavelength or wave number of the envelope BB curves, seems to match global average surface Temperature, rather than some high stratospheric Temperature, from where earth is supposedly really radiating; rather than the surface.
g
George, it’s an actual measured spectrum:
Caption from Petty: Fig. 6.6: Example of an actual infrared emission spectrum observed by the Nimbus 4 satellite over a point in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Dashed curves represent blackbody radiances at the indicated temperatures in Kelvin. (IRIS data courtesy of the Goddard EOS Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) and instrument team leader Dr. Rudolf A. Hanel.)
Both the CO2 and the Ozone dips show a little spike very close to 15 microns for CO2 under all conditions and about 9.6 microns for O3 under all conditions.
The Ozone dips vary greatly with zenith angle, which I would attribute to the Ozone being in a thin high layer, through which the slant path length changes radically with zenith angle.
I assume there is some QM explanation for the little pips in the middle of the dips, which I notice your curve also has.
Those ‘pips’ are a feature of the spectra, termed the Q-branch, this is a very strong absorbing part of the spectrum and absorbs into the stratosphere. Consequently those emitting molecules are at a higher temperature than the frequencies on either side.
In any case, the peak wavelength or wave number of the ENVELOPE BB curves, seems to match global average surface Temperature, rather than some high stratospheric Temperature, from where earth is supposedly really radiating; rather than the surface.
The regions around 900 and 1100-1200 cm^-1 are transparent and consequently those regions are direct emission to space, the emissions in the absorption bands are generally from the upper troposphere and therefore cooler (except for the strong absorbing Q-branchs etc.)
High resolution spectrum showing Q-branch:
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/CO2101copy.jpg
To be clear, if this is correct, it would be the molecules that are emitting on either side, that could be at a lower temperature, for any specific frequency the energy of the photon is a constant, you can have more photons, but the energy and therefore temperature are a constant of that wavelength.
If you are referring the 2O% in my article, this is about the amount of energy leaving the surface where most of the CO2 action is (from 12 to 18 microns). Many people thing it is absorbing heat over the entire range. I did not say that it is causing 20% of any warming. But it is reducing the heat leaving the planet and always was.
Interesting posts. There is no question about LWIR bands being absorbed and re-radiated by CO2 and CH4 etc, this is well established fact. The point in contention is the IPCC hypothesis that only the ~3% of 400ppm/v CO2 from humann emissions is *the* DRIVER of climate change, *and* that change will be catastrophic. So far, there is no evidence of that in the real world.
The fixation on CO2 is totally cynical. These geniuses figured out how to tax the very air we breathe. This turned out to be the biggest free money generator system for our rulers who are in a constant effort to figure out ways to profit on nothing.
These are the same people who figured out how to print money endlessly which is why the US dollar has lost 99% of its value it had 100 years ago.
Leo Smth.
“Namely that, as a feature of something I associate clearly with the Left side of the political and intellectual spectrum, a culture that enjoyed extreme success as a result of science and technology, that were all based on a worldview of a mixture of religion and rationality, has comes to be ashamed of its own success, and feel extreme guilt over it, to the point of accepting its imminent collapse with equanimity. Or even joy.”
Leo – I enjoyed reading your philosophical observations and agree on many points. Especially significant for me is the success enjoyed by the left to set the terms of the discussion on GW and other issues and finally to make us feel guilty for existing. The world has bought into their assumptions largely or none of their arguments would get past first base.
The thing a lot of people don’t seem to get is that yes, adding CO2 to the atmosphere the way man has should, IN THEORY have some warming effect. The trouble is, no one can point to said warming. Sure, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist but that’s a sraw man. If it can’t be measured, then its’ existence is theoretical only. Due to the quasi-chaotic nature of climate, most likely it will never be measured. It is of little, if any consequence.
Man made CO² causing warming is a political fiction.
Yeah, since circa early 1800s – CO² atmospheric concentrations have probably risen, CO² rises always are as a consequence of natural warming, for it is fairly accurately reckoned that: average world T’s have risen modestly since the ‘recent’ LIA.
What mankind adds to world atmospheric concentrations of CO² = so bloody what.
Scientific methodology usually proceeds as followed.
1) Something is observed, for which an explanation is sought.
2) Data are collected and analysed.
3) A model is proposed.
4) The model makes predictions – the model explains the observed data.
5) The model predicts something that has not yet been observed – an experiment is conducted to confirm that what has been predicted actually happens.
6) Confirmation validates the model.
The downfall of Climate Science is that it does not follow these steps in the exact order. It usually starts at step 3 and then goes to step 5 and ignores step 6 if confirmation is not forthcoming.it then goes back and changes the data in step 2 and tries again.
Thus in science, the model is chosen to fit the data.
In climate science the data is chosen to fit the model.
A scientist believes what she sees.
A climate scientist sees what she believes.
Don’t know if this is the best place for my questions, but considering the audience and participants the answers should be nearby.
Many moons in the past I spotted a footnote in the World Bank 4 C report that gave me pause. It’s about the chemical difference between carbon and carbon dioxide. As we chemists and combustion engineers know burning one pound of carbon produces 3.67 pounds of CO2, 44/12, pretty basic.
World Bank 4C report Chap 2, Fig 1
“Different conventions are used are used in the science and policy communities. When discussing CO2 emissions it is very common to refer to CO2 emissions by the weight of carbon—3.67 metric tons of CO2 contains 1 metric ton of carbon, whereas when CO2 equivalent emissions are discussed, the CO2 (not carbon) equivalent is almost universally used. In this case 350 billion metric tons of carbon is equivalent to 1285 billion metric tons of CO2.”
When someone says xxx.x Peta (E15) grams, Giga (E9) tonnes (1,000 g = kg & 1,000 kg = tonne) of Carbon, do they mean carbon carbon or carbon dioxide?
Attempting to resolve this I used data from IPCC AR5 Chapter 6.
“CO2 increased by 40% from 278 ppm about 1750 to 390.5 ppm in 2011.”
“Anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere were 555 ± 85 PgC (1 PgC = 1015 gC) between 1750 and 2011.”
“About half of the emissions remained in the atmosphere (240 ± 10 PgC) since 1750.”
(240/555=43%, World Bank 4C report says 45%)
………Atmospheric dry air = 5.14E18 kg (Wiki)
1750…………..278 ppm……..1.43E18 g
2011………….390.5 ppm…..2.01E18 g
Difference……112.5 ppm…..5.78E17 g
If C stands for carbon carbon than the 555 PgC must be multiplied by 3.67 to get CO2 and then by 45% for the amount left in the atmosphere or 9.17E17. That’s 159% of the amount added between 1750 and 2011 based on ppm.
When you eliminate the impossible what is left no matter how improbable…..
So in this case PgC carbon must mean carbon dioxide. Applying the 45% atmospheric component to the 555 PgC/y gives 250 PgC/y or about half, 43%, of the CO2 grams increase between 1750 and 2011.
I have frequently read/heard that man’s CO2 was responsible for 100% of the atmospheric CO2 ppm increase between 1750 and 2011. The analysis above says less than half. Should this 50/50, (man’s CO2)/(no man’s CO2), relationship hold steady what does that do to all of the GCMs and RCPs that might be based on 100% man’s CO2?
This AGW/CC ground has been plowed thoroughly and deeply (while flogging dead horses) and chances are several of you plowmen have covered this ground before, have the answer and related links at hand, and can simply paste them into your replies.
Thanks.
We’ve already experienced about half of the warming from the first “doubling” of “the precious air fertilizer” (CO2), over the last 70 years. The result is that the climate is, on average, ever so slightly milder than it was before, with no measurable effect on the rate of sea-level rise. The best projection is that the other half of the first doubling — expected over roughly the next eighty years — will have similarly benign consequences.
Beyond that, CO2 levels probably will not continue to rise, due to increasing scarcity and cost of fossil fuels, and due to the fact that CO2 uptake by the biosphere and oceans increases with CO2 levels, making it progressively more difficult to raise CO2 levels.
I have a masters degree mostly in numerical methods, what today is called modeling. Many of my coop terms in electrical engineering involved mathematics either statistical or modeling. Then I spend my whole career in the software area mostly compiler production. I wonder, with these godlike computer models, when the predictions do not agree with what occurs how one knows if the model physics is faulty or if one has a bug in the programming of the model? Other compiler development groups in our company and the one I worked in had a rule that every valid bug had to result in a test case that got run either daily, weekly or occasionally depending upon how long the test case needed to execute. We had thousands of test cases, in the hundred thousand range and still new releases even after all the testing we did still found bugs in the customers shop. The compiler groups needed lots of computer hardware to run their test cases including multiprocessor systems as you might imagine. I wonder if most of the climate modelers follow the same kind of best of breed software engineering practices. Somehow I doubt it and expect that the programmers think they are so skilled that they do not create new bugs in the codes as they evolve the code. DaveW
These models do not make predictions. They make projections. Unlike predictions, projections are not falsifiable.
Except to the AGW fans these projections are quite falsifiable? 🙂 By the way we were always taught to use numerical models for interpolation and neither for predictions or projections which ever BS word the fans of AGW want me to use. I was on an email group with a retired scientist from one of the US National Labs and he said that was how they used their models that apply to atomic weapons. Strange how when one gets to climate the normal rules don’t apply.
A projection is not falsifiable as it does not possess a truth-value. It does, however, exhibit error. Often, people with interests in global warming climatology appear to confuse the property of exhibiting error with the property of falsifiability thusly arriving at the erroneous conclusion that projections satisfy falsifiability.
Models make predictions about how the model will behave; otherwise the model is no good.
Models do not make predictions about how the real universe will behave, but modellers hope it isn’t too different from what the model predicts.
george e. smith (May 4 at 10:35 am):
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Models are of two types. Models of the first type make predictions of the outcomes of events. Models of the second type make projections; there are no events. In the absence of events, the counts of observed events called “frequencies” cannot be made. Thus, one cannot construct a histogram. There are no relative frequencies or their theoretical counterparts – the probabilities. Truth and falsity correspond to probablity values of 0 or 1 but there is no truth or falsity because the corresponding probabilities do not exist. Thus, a model of the second type is not falsifiable. Falsifiability is one of the characteristics of a model that is “scientific.” A longer argument than I wish to present in this post leads to the conclusion that a model of the second type conveys no information to a maker of public policy on climate change making control of the climate impossible. Models of the second type are, however, all that a maker of public policy currently has. Makers of policy think they have the ability to make policy when they do not have it.
This absurd situation is created by the fact that the word “model” is polysemic (has more than one meaning). When a polysemic word is used in making an argument and changes meaning in the midst of the argument this argument is an example of an “equivocation.” Upon superficial examination an equivocation looks like an argument having a true conclusion (a “syllogism”) but isn’t one. Consequently, one cannot draw a logically proper conclusion from an equivocation. To draw such a conclusion is the “equivocation fallacy.”
A number of polysemic words and word-pairs are in common use in making arguments about global warming and change meaning in the midst of these arguments. It is by drawing conclusions from the resulting equivocations that alarm-mongering climatologists arrive at their conclusions.
Further information on this topic is available in the peer-reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/post/7923/ . This article provides means by which one can disambiguate the language in which a global warming argument is made thus avoiding the possibility of drawing false or unproved conclusions from equivocations. When this is done, IPCC climatology is revealed to be a pseudoscience dressed up to look like a science through applications of the equivocation fallacy. If you like me favor a scientific approach to climatological research and argumentation you can help this cause by always making your arguments in a disambiguated language and by joining me in pointing out to our fellow bloggers the importance of always stating one’s argument in a disambiguated language.
“1 The cited (from Trenberth) number of 390 Wm^-2 is almost exactly the Stefan Boltzmann total emittance for a Black Body at 288 K, the purported average surface Temperature of the earth (+15 deg. C) OK let’s go with that number.”
Regarding Trenberth’s figures:
Since a blackbody has the theoretical maximum emissivity, and the earth’s actual emissivity is somewhat less, maybe 95 %, I’d guess the actual emissivity of the earth would be about or 380 watts. I suppose the 17watts of convection should also be adjusted by this 5% figure. In contrast , the 80 watts of latent heat of evaporation should be correct, based on the energy it takes to convert liquid water to vapor. The net effect is the percentage of latent heat in the system is greater than that estimated by Trenberth’s figures.
I also question that “well mixed” argument. I’ve read that as an allegation, but never seen actual figures. Since CO2 is a lot heavier than N2 or O2, the scale height should be significantly lower, only about 60 or 70% of the O2/N2 atmosphere. If the atmosphere was truly “well mixed”, that would mean that convection was playing a major role in removing heat from earth’s surface- and removing large volumes of warm “well mixed” O2-N2-CO2 to higher levels in the atmosphere.. How much would that 3.5 or 2.8 watts change if the atmosphere were NOT “well mixed” but CO2 kept its own, not well mixed, scale height?
Alan McIntire April 26, 2015 at 8:15 am
I also question that “well mixed” argument. I’ve read that as an allegation, but never seen actual figures.
There’s plenty of data out there, plus or minus 1% is well mixed, well mixed does not mean ‘perfectly mixed’.
Since CO2 is a lot heavier than N2 or O2, the scale height should be significantly lower, only about 60 or 70% of the O2/N2 atmosphere.
Not true, the troposphere is part of the homosphere where the molecular mass of the components does not effect their distribution, diffusion and turbulence rapidly mixes all components of the atmosphere. The hemisphere is about 70km thick.
The last sentence should be: “The homosphere is about 70km thick.” Spell checker error!
“Using simple energy balance models with proven greenhouse gas absorption/radiation tools, the result of these changes indicates a warming from double CO2 in a range of 0.6 to 0.9 C, much less than IPCC’s value of 1.5 to 4.5 C. Note the uncertainty range drops by a factor of 10, from of 3 degrees C to 0.3 C, because of the elimination of unreliable complex computer models and their net positive feedback.”
—————————–
That is funny.
It seems more like the real rate mentioned above in the way considered is no more than a factor of 5 not 10., as far as I can tell.
cheers
You write:
“So what are the skeptics skeptical about? It is the amount and rate of the man made warming ”
That is one of at least two things skeptics are skeptical about. I am also a skeptic who believes in warming, an economist with a doctorate in physics. While I agree with you that the IPCC probably overestimates the amount of warming to be expected, the main thing I am skeptical about is not the amount of warming but its effects.
Almost everyone in the discussion takes it for granted that warming is bad, probably very bad, but I do not see why. The current climate was not designed for us, nor we for it, and humans currently prosper across a range of climates much larger than the change projected due to AGW. Roughly speaking, if the IPCC is correct, warming by 2100 will have brought Minnesota to the temperature of Iowa.
The only reason I can see to expect warming to have negative effects is that both humans and other living creatures are currently optimized against their current environment, making a change in either direction presumptively bad. For a rapid change that would be a serious problem, but we are talking about warming measured in tenths of a degree per decade.
On the other hand, human populations are currently limited by cold, not heat—the equator is populated, the poles are not. Mortality is higher in winter than in summer. Due to the physics of AGW, we can expect more warming in cold times and places, when warming is on the whole good, than in hot times and places, when it is on the whole bad. Longer growing seasons and more CO2 can be expected to increase agricultural output. Putting all of this together, it seems to me at least as likely that warming of a few degrees C will, on net, make things better as that it will make things worse.
For a longer discussion of these points see:
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-is-wrong-with-global-warming.html
Interesting Post and comments.
Why must sceptics believe?
Surely this science based conjecture can be supported via science without introducing theology to the mix?
The Cult of Calamitous Climate deserves no respect, nor do those submersed in it deserve a easy exit.
Without the adjusted numbers they have nothing.
There is and has been no unusual warming in our time.
The minutia of an “estimated global average temperature” is blatant idiocy.
The result of averaging estimated numbers from imaginary grid points has an error range one could drive an ice age through.
The so called signal gleaned from massaging historical weather station data is of a magnitude smaller than the known measurement error range. This is idiocy at best but becomes open fraud if the user knows and persists.
When deluded persons get angry and start screaming vile names, it is not time to surrender to their delusion.
Belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a signal I can read. For me any who are so gullible as to buy such nonsense are self labelled as unfit for public office.
Any office.
Also, the signal power must be nil else there is a violation of relativity theory.
“Why must skeptics believe?” In some parts of the English speaking world “I believe” is shorthand for “I think it is probable that” and has nothing to do with religion. Having traveled in the USofA a fair amount I found the in some areas I believe always or usually has religious connotations. DaveW
I like the way you think.
Any true sceptic does not believe. They come to considered views/conclussions, the certainty of which varies with the strength or weakness of evidence.
I was amazed and disappointed when I read the title. I understand that some can hold a luke warm position since we all evaluate the strengths and weakness of competing evidence differently, but to assert that I believe in global warming is wholly unscientific, and certainly not something that a sceptic should simply believe in.
Further, I am surprised that no one has picked up on the global mantra. There is nothing global about the warming (even if one accepts the thermometer record at face value), still less about climate change, given that climate is a regional phenomena.
Personally, I do not accept that there is any evidence that holds muster supporting the contention of climate change. Climate is not stasis, but rather it varies within bounds; temperarure being only one of many facets. If you like, natural vbariation is simply climate. It is only once there is a shift beyond natural variation that one can argue that climate change is happening.
I would enquire, which region of the globe do warmist argue is changing its Koppen (or equivalent) classification? I do not see that there is any evidence that strongly supports that climate is changing even if one were to accept that there has been some slight warming of some areas of the globe and that winter seasons in some areas is slightly shorter. Changes of this nature have been seen before in the past few thousand years, so why is this climate change? Isn’t this exactly what climate does?
Keeping a close eye on regions that are key indicators of either warming or sliding into another Ice Age is very simple. For example, like the last three years, if it becomes very cold in the Hudson Bay region and ice forms earlier and earlier and melts later and later, this is a clear indication of global cooling because all Ice Ages show up first in Hudson Bay.
This is why I can say, with firm data, that we are now entering a global cooling cycle again, the second one in my lifespan.
Is CO2 protect Canada from the cold spring and southern Australia before the cold winter?
Ah, the old Medieval question of how many angels can dance on the point of a pin. Very complicated and utterly meaningless arguments.
I have just been reading about the Pleistocene Ice Age, which has been on the go for two and a half million years, with interglacials like our own Holocene every 100,000 years or so for much of the past million. The Pleistocene Ice Age ‘ended’ 10,000 years ago we are told. Why should the Pleistocene Ice Age have ended? Just because a minor gas has increased by 0.01% over the past 150 years? Dance on angels….
By definition, we are still in the Ice Ages. Significant parts of both pole regions are under a mile of ice.
So many of you people present with *impeccable* credentials and such _amazingly_ thorough and referenced source material, that’s an absolute wonder why anyone would dismiss your claims. If your (anonymous) opinions carry so much weight, and you’ve done so much “research,” why do you think nobody listens to you?
People whose opinions matter (beyond those who are science educators) don’t post in places like this and can very safely ignore you while not missing anything important. They’re too busy debating other people whose opinions matter. As if the IPCC works in a vacuum of the few people on the board who haven’t heard and considered your elementary objections.
Your models & methodologies have been _well_ considered and dismissed. Consensus has been reached. It is evolving and broad based and is beyond the conspiracies you see. You are not “skeptical” and have conflated that noble concept with “contrarian.” Your stubbornness and contempt do us all a disservice.
Please, consider that you might be wrong, and that indeed your arguments have been heard and have been shot down by people who are just plain smarter than you. Learn something from your failure and try again, but don’t be surprised if you continue to be wrong.
No. Allen, you are wrong, but will be unable to convince anyone reading your words if your argument is nothing more “listen to the politicians and Big Government and Big Finance because they claim they know better than you and are smarter than you are.”
My guess is that Allan’s argument is an application of the fallacy of argument by assertion: it is asserted that the conclusion is true, regardless of contradictions.
Likely correct. Add in the “higher education bias” of “I am a college superior who has been educated by college-educated people who were college-educated , therefore my thoughts and conclusions are much better and clearly more profound than you yokel fundamentalist deluded fools who I know I should look down upon …”
Anonymous Allen complains about posters not using their names. Rich.
Allan:
You reach the conclusion that “people whose opinions matter (beyond those who are science educators) don’t post in places like this” but fail to share with us the argument by which you prove this conclusion to be true. I’d like to see this argument, if there is one.
And so saith Allan the Great! We should all bow down! Thank you, you have changed my mind. If there were just more of the likes of you we would be saved! In the meantime were did I put my pitchfork and torch?
No warming for more than 18 years, anonymous Allan. How has this fact been shot down by people who are “smarter?”
Allan you realize that this website along with many others is free for the public to post? I have read countless threads on the science of global warming. I haven’t see any proof of the co2 hypothesis to date. Your empty rant is no different. Maybe you can share how you came to your highly educated scientific opinion using actual science?
@Allan. Well reasoned advice, that most on this forum will never follow; and its not because they aren’t smart, or are simply missing the point. Rather its that they refuse to accept the conclusions of science with respect to AGW, regardless.
You see conspiracy theories posted all over this forum, or accusations of incompetence levied at Climate Scientists. Even the fact that all the world’s scientific institutions conclude AGW is met with ridicule.
There’s a reason none of these individuals have published in peer-reviewed journals: their constitutional inability to follow the evidence because it leads where they don’t want to go.
The incompetents are not scientists but rather are pseudoscientists. Many bloggers are incapable of distinguishing between the two.
I agree. But just for fun.
Now, on the same beach on the same day, 4 hours after sunset.
The sunbather is still there. The clouds are still there, same as in the afternoon. One hour latter, the clouds are gone. What is the sunbather feeling? Cooler or warmer after the clouds are gone?
That person is no longer a sunbather. Perhaps he or she is a sunstroke victim; the cooler air, though not the ideal treatment, should do some good.
I live by the coast, less than 1 km from the sea.
In summer, warm balmy evenings/nights are cloud free, cooler evenings/nights are usually cloudy.
As a general rule, I would expect a cloud free summer night (mid July to late August) to be about 28 deg to 32 degC through to about 3 am, if the night is cloudy, I would expect it to be about 3 or so degrees cooler.
I have always considered this to be a function of humidy, but where I live it is cooler in Summer at night when the night is cloudy.
I suspect that the claim that clouds keep temperatures up due to back radiation is based upon a lack of research. I suspect that two factors are at play that are not fully accountered for.
First, when it is cloudy in the winter there is geneally more water vapour such that the low atmosphere as a whole contains more energy and therefore it takes longer to dissipate that energy (becuase there is simply more energy to give up). This means that nightime temperatures take longer to cool down, hence the reason why people perceive cloudy nights to be warmer.
Second, clouds inhibit convection. and this too slows down the rate of heat loss.
I suspect that these two factors are not fully accounted for and go a long way to explaining why cloudy winter nights appear warmer than cloudless nights..
richard verney commented
I can tell you that it is quite apparent in the temp readings with a IR thermometer, cloud bottoms can be +80F warmer than clear skies (8-14u) day or night.
In fact, it is my belief that it’s the back-radiation from clouds that accounts for almost all of Trenberth back-radiation forcing, more slight of hand by team AGW.
For example, last night I measured -55F overhead (8-14u), that’s about 137W/m^2, but it’s missing the 22w/m^2 Co2 forcing (14-16u), brings it up to ~159W/m^2 (-39F). And that doesn’t even bring up that the 22w/m^2 can’t be a constant, it’s just “reflected” heat from the surface, and there’s no way that forcing is the same in the arctic vs the tropics.
My experience with the cloud is in the desert.
During the day we have very few or no cloud. Temperature is very warm.
At night again there is no cloud. Bring some very warm clothing.
rd50 April 27, 2015 at 7:13 am
How about:
Deserts are cool at night since the air is dry, and hence there is little in the way of energy in the low atmosphere and hence it cools down quickly. Not much energy to give up.
Contrast same latitude with clear skies say over the ocean, night time temperatures remain high.
Why is a cloudy night only a few degrees warmer when backgroud space is 3K. Why is a desert not colder at night?
PS, I am not doubting that we can measure an IR signal on the underside of a cloud.
The increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere causes an increase in energy absorbed by the photosynthesis process in plants, and we have observed this in the so called “greening of the earth”. As far as I know this absorbed energy is not being accounted for in the calculations which seem to assume that all of the energy retained by CO2 goes into warming the surface. My contention is therefore that the amount of energy warming the surface for a doubling of CO2 would be 3.5W per square metre minus the amount absorbed by extra plant growth. I don’t see how this could be accurately quantified, as the only data I know of is about trees, which apparently are now growing from 20% to 70% faster, and no data at all about other plants, algae, etc.
You are correct in that as far as I know, energy absorbed in the by photsynthesis process is not accounted for the the present energy balance. On the other hand, energy released by decaying leaves and rotting wood is also ignored. Roots and wood that stay in the soil would be a net reduction in energy coming in, but only the changes in this because of increased rain, temperature and/or CO2 would be of interest. I doubt they add up enough to compensate for increased CO2 radiation to space loss.
The total photosynthetic efficiency of the Earth is about 1%, the data exists, see for example:
Pisciotta JM, Zou Y, Baskakov IV (2010). “Light-Dependent Electrogenic Activity of Cyanobacteria”. PLoS ONE 5 (5): e10821. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010821. PMC 2876029. PMID 20520829
David Oakley Hall; K. K. Rao; Institute of Biology (1999). Photosynthesis. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-64497-6.
Richard J. Petschauer.
Where do you think the climate scientists have gone wrong and you are correct? The IPCC is a review of a lot of global warming research.
They all base their research on the model of how Co2 drives surface temps. Which they assume is correct, that is preconceived bias, that’s not science. It’s the basis of GCM’S as well as surface temp reconstructions.
micro6500.
That is not true.
Is too.
How so?
harrytwinotter
You say
Do you believe that fallacy or are you deliberately asserting a falsehood?
The IPCC provides a biased selection of global warming research.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only exists to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions. The facts are as follows.
It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with its political summaries. And this is proper because all IPCC Reports are political documents although some are presented as so-called ‘Scientific Reports’.
Each IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,
This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.
This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.
Appendix A of the most recent IPCC Report (the AR5) states this where it says.
This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.
The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC.
These are stated at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that document says
This says the IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.
The IPCC achieves its “Role” by
1
amendment of its so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfill the IPCC’s political purpose
2
by politicians approving the SPM
3
then the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM.
All IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.
Richard
richardscourtney.
Really – facts eh. Sounds more like your opinion, not facts.
harrytwinotter
You say to me
Say what?!
I cited, linked to, and quoted verbatim the official IPCC “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC as stated by the IPCC on the IPCC’s own website.
Those are FACTS. They may be facts you don’t like, but they are facts.
Richard
richardscourtney.
I do not agree with your interpretation of the IPCC’s charter. You “shoot the messenger” types are an odd lot. At best you are mistaken, at worst you are delusional.
harrytwinotter says:
I do not agree with your interpretation of the IPCC’s charter.
And:
Really – facts eh. Sounds more like your opinion, not facts.
Richard posted the IPCC language, verbatim. But your response is that you don’t agree.
How does that work? Do you think your baseless assertions trump Richard’s posting of the IPCC’s charter language?
That’s about average for the way climate alarmists think. The problem you have is your lack of credibility. Just asserting that someone is wrong means nothing. In this case, you failed completely to show why.
dbstealey.
You could not be more ironic if you tried.
I thought I made that clear. They went wrong in using complex untested and unverified computer models instead of simple improved simple energy balance models and spectral radiation and absorption and emmission tools and well established feedback concepts. All CO2 can do is a small temporary chage in the planet’s heat halance. Plus, the summary for poiicy makers (about all that most people including other scientists read) is written by hand picked government workers who would be looking for a new job if man made warming was not a problem. The computer models are so complex that only the program writers understand them. And why so many versions? But for the workers, not a bad job. Your results can’t be verified for many years and you can always then later blame the “aerosols” or ocean heat storage for serious errors.
Otherwise, much of the reasearch they cite is good.
Actually, the results can’t be verified at all. While predictions can be verified, the models make projections and they are not verifiable.
Richard Petschauer.
I suspected you did not have evidence for what you say. You make a lot of claims – but anyone can do that.
“complex untested and unverified computer models” – not true. They have tested them and they have verified them. Perhaps you do not understand the computer models and how they are used.
“All CO2 can do is a small temporary chage in the planet’s heat halance” Wow, that is quite a claim. Got any scientific evidence to back that one up?
harrytwinotter commented
Well they were evaluated, they just didn’t do very well.
http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2002/mcgraw/
http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2001/mconk/
Or perhaps I do, for most of 15 years I was the simulation expert for 100-150 design engineers, including many at 3 and 4 letter gov agencies.
Sure, here’s the Rise/Fall daily temperature difference averaged by year for 65 million surface records (stations with greater than 360 days of samples per year)
YEAR RISING FALLING DIFFERENCE in F SAMPLE COUNT
1940 15.71097157 15.6830136 0.027957973 40450
1941 15.51280724 15.52291128 -0.010104032 37104
1942 17.19708086 17.18970456 0.007376309 50974
1943 18.49100199 18.49760266 -0.006600669 106368
1944 18.09759878 18.09670445 0.000894331 171413
1945 17.1321793 17.12947072 0.002708585 109356
1946 16.5656968 16.58263341 -0.016936611 75818
1947 17.02919548 17.01359006 0.015605421 104547
1948 18.61353831 18.62331222 -0.009773913 196738
1949 18.88868122 18.87702793 0.011653284 274738
1950 18.59500561 18.59388211 0.001123508 294791
1951 18.50607786 18.48544244 0.020635422 301060
1952 18.71132731 18.72543796 -0.014110651 366071
1953 18.42814736 18.43695155 -0.008804188 380160
1954 17.9957428 17.98496993 0.010772869 396199
1955 17.42433676 17.43215448 -0.007817724 361934
1956 17.72695923 17.71825583 0.0087034 355229
1957 17.5963675 17.62517297 -0.028805471 396449
1958 17.92289163 17.91920132 0.003690311 497221
1959 17.95581365 17.95448641 0.001327244 451085
1960 17.9869764 18.01315115 -0.026174748 508024
1961 18.03388368 18.03508739 -0.001203715 511500
1962 18.22151176 18.22907951 -0.007567744 514658
1963 18.34429315 18.33326835 0.011024797 507837
1964 18.15873062 18.15302857 0.005702056 485246
1965 17.3675503 17.35766173 0.009888569 335812
1966 17.50450441 17.52169516 -0.017190748 393037
1967 17.36575907 17.3679094 -0.002150335 397752
1968 17.55711991 17.5692133 -0.012093387 362322
1969 17.40666311 17.40243898 0.004224134 416322
1970 18.07845446 18.08878884 -0.010334386 486444
1971 17.41842199 17.41011975 0.008302247 176121
1972 17.24428991 17.23699402 0.007295899 172782
1973 18.29953951 18.30869743 -0.009157925 564178
1974 18.01006162 18.01329035 -0.003228731 805208
1975 18.61680029 18.63771804 -0.020917758 792671
1976 18.60309034 18.64140958 -0.038319245 1111465
1977 18.55697684 18.53033801 0.026638833 860841
1978 18.23385269 18.25044722 -0.016594529 1093975
1979 18.32688642 18.31058265 0.016303773 1028032
1980 18.25960534 18.27724383 -0.017638483 1129689
1981 18.31705388 18.3222249 -0.005171018 1099474
1982 17.62293309 17.63431024 -0.011377151 1055440
1983 17.42864046 17.4414735 -0.012833048 1166200
1984 17.37740432 17.38125902 -0.003854703 1220950
1985 17.48307532 17.48756305 -0.004487731 1185677
1986 17.58500848 17.58717123 -0.002162743 1254703
1987 17.4050167 17.40805318 -0.003036479 1235016
1988 17.77354186 17.78007015 -0.006528295 1365931
1989 17.55334589 17.5506176 0.002728288 1265629
1990 17.46665232 17.47565155 -0.008999233 1247673
1991 16.8231994 16.83149181 -0.008292409 1171457
1992 17.02449214 17.03832609 -0.01383395 1304978
1993 17.05782469 17.06297818 -0.005153482 1277117
1994 17.68736749 17.67993302 0.007434471 1298317
1995 17.33133396 17.33992032 -0.008586358 1293354
1996 16.91674692 16.9202606 -0.003513682 1318816
1997 17.21316377 17.20476681 0.008396956 1321324
1998 17.43171297 17.45367591 -0.021962934 1169739
1999 17.78586036 17.80618396 -0.020323599 1147533
2000 18.01024792 18.04020913 -0.029961211 1582673
2001 18.47831326 18.48061249 -0.002299226 1455055
2002 18.20320992 18.21497998 -0.011770051 1534148
2003 18.34413085 18.3384575 0.005673355 1562356
2004 18.25971399 18.26013423 -0.000420242 1769217
2005 17.95410103 17.95819944 -0.004098412 1928381
2006 18.31533458 18.3236668 -0.008332224 2058850
2007 18.26982812 18.28168462 -0.011856501 2070282
2008 18.23365477 18.24080168 -0.007146907 2324740
2009 17.87566685 17.88050967 -0.004842814 2401806
2010 17.88415593 17.88582125 -0.001665325 2506477
2011 18.00993136 18.012606 -0.002674635 2529280
2012 18.42713328 18.44643677 -0.019303489 2632177
2013 18.36008308 18.36336279 -0.00327971 2488421
All Yrs 17.80549016 17.80964193 -0.004151764 69864812
50 of the last 74 years are negative (cools more at night compared to the prior day’s warming.
30 of the last 34 years are negative
The over all average since 1940 is negative.
Whatever is happening to surface temps it is not because it didn’t cool enough “last night”, and that is the daily energy balance at the surface, where we live.
micro6500,
Oh I love it when someone appeals to their own authority – care to list your stuff in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? Otherwise your claims of modelling experience are worth exactly zero.
Pointing to a couple of studies done in 2001 and 2002 then not bothering to relate them to the IPCC AR5 2013 report – pathetic really.
I have yet to meet a “computer model skeptic” who knows what they are talking about. They do know a lot about hot air, I will grant them that.
micro6500,
You first,You seem to think you know they’re good.
And yet they show GCM’s (at least GISS/NASA’s Model E) have no fidelity.
What’s your expertise? At least I was a professional Simulation/Modeling expert, and was paid to do it for 15 years and have professional references on my expertise. You can dismiss it all you want, but I’d be surprised you have even that much experience with simulators.
Perhaps Mr. Petschauer would be willing to cast his view into the form of an argument so one can check whether the premises are true and the conclusion follows logically from the premises. It would be helpful also were he to provide citations to alleged facts e.g. observational findings.
in my “All CO2 can do is a small temporary change in the planet’s heat halance.” reply,
remove the word “temporary” This is only true for one time change such as doubling CO2 where the system restores balance in a number of years. But we have a constantly changing content, so we never quite reach balance.
Richard S. Courtney: Thank you for that nicely-documented summary of the IPCC’s political raison d’etre and modus operandi. The IPCC should be de-funded and shut down. Here in the USA we should hold Congressional and Presidential candidates’ feet to the fire and insist they pledge to do so.
/Mr Lynn
If we lived in a world where such immediate and obvious steps would be taken, then we wouldn’t be having these endless discussions about the true role of CO₂ as an agent of catastrophic climate change on planet Earth.
There are any number of important issues that deserve the attention of the world’s best minds, but unfortunately, many of these are banging heads over precise details of not only the number, but also the vibrational dispositions of the various fairies which dance on today’s pinheads. The presentations are riveting, the squiggles delightful, and yet they wriggle.
The raw data rotates so that low becomes high and high becomes low. You can’t make this stuff up, but they did.
So there you are. Even Swift would be amazed and could scarcely do better.