Guest Post by Werner Brozek, Professor Robert Brown from Duke University and Just The Facts
Image Credit: Josh
In order for climate science to be settled, there are many requirements. I will list four for now, although I am sure you can think of many more. Then I will expand on those.
1. We must know all variables that can affect climate.
2. We must know how all variables are changing over time.
3. We must know how each changing variable affects climate.
4. We must know about all non-linear changes that take place as a result of changes to variables.
As for the variables affecting climate, Just The Facts has done a superb job compiling many of them on WUWT’s Potential Climatic Variables Reference Page.
If you have an hour, there is lots of good reading here. For now, I will just give the main topics, but note that all main topics have an array of sub topics.
1. Earth’s Rotational Energy
2. Orbital Energy, Orbital Period, Orbital Spiral, Elliptical Orbits (Eccentricity), Tilt (Obliquity), Wobble (Axial precession) and Polar Motion
3. Gravitation
4. Solar Energy
5. Geothermal Energy
6. Outer Space/Cosmic/Galactic Effects
7. Earth’s Magnetic Field
8. Atmospheric Composition
9. Albedo
10. Biology
11. Chemical
12. Physics
13. Known Unknowns
14. Unknown Unknowns
If you know some more that should be added, please let us know.
The above covers my point 1 above. As for points 2 and 3, for all of the items listed above, we need to know if the changes, if any, are linear, exponential, logarithmic, sinusoidal, random or some other pattern. For example, depending on who you talk to and the interval you are considering, our emissions of carbon dioxide could be exponential, but the increase in the atmosphere could be linear, but the effect could be logarithmic. Then there are asteroids which could be totally random. As for point 4 above, the easiest example would be to consider a ball with air at 30 C and a relative humidity of 90%. When this is cooled, the gas molecules do not simply slow down indefinitely. At a certain point, the water molecules move so slowly that the hydrogen bonds cause molecules to stick together after collisions to cause liquid water or ice to form. Further cooling causes the various gases to condense to their liquid states and then to freeze to their solid state.
Further to this last point, Professor Brown offered a very interesting response to a question on a previous post. His comment is reproduced below and ends with his initials rgb:
rgbatduke
October 2, 2015 at 10:36 am
t’s not a law of nature, but outside of Le Chatelier’s principle, a more modern version (in case anyone is still reading this thread) is Prigogene’s Self-Organization of dissipative systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
Self-organization as a concept preceded Prigogene, but he quantified it and moved it from the realm of philosophy and psychology and cybernetics to the realm of physics and the behavior of nonlinear non-equilibrium systems.
To put it into a contextual nutshell, an open, non-equilibrium system (such as a gas being heated on one side and cooled on the other) will tend to self-organize into structures that increase the dissipation of the system, that is, facilitate energy transport through the system. The classic contextual example of this is the advent of convective rolls in a fluid in a symmetry breaking gravitational field. Convection moves heat from the hot side to the cold side much, much faster than conduction or radiation does, but initially the gas has no motion but microscopic motions of the molecules and (if we presume symmetry and smoothness in the heated surface and boundaries) experiences only balanced, if unstable, forces. However, those microscopic motions contain small volumes that are not symmetric, that move up or down. These small fluctuations nucleate convection, at first irregular and disorganized, that then “discovers” the favored modes of dissipation, adjacent counter rotating turbulent rolls that have a size characteristic of the geometry of the volume and the thermal imbalance.
The point is that open fluid dynamical differentially heated and cooled systems spontaneously develop these sorts of structures, and they have some degree of stability or at least persistence in time. They can persist a long time — see e.g. the great red spot on Jupiter. The reason that this is essentially a physical, or better yet a mathematical, principle is evident from the wikipedia page above — Prigogene won the Nobel Prize because he showed that this sort of behavior has a universal character and will arise in many, if not most open systems of sufficient complexity. There is a deep connection between this theory and chaos — essentially that an open chaotic system with “noise” is constantly being bounced around in its phase space, so that it wanders around through the broad stretches of uninteresting critical points until it enters the basin of attraction of an interesting one, a strange attractor. At that point the same noise drives it diffusively into a constantly shifting ensemble of comparatively tightly bound orbits. At that point the system is “stable” in that it has temporally persistent behavior with gross physical structures with their own “pseudoparticle” physics and sometimes even thermodynamics. This is one of the things I studied pretty extensively back when I did work in open quantum optical systems.
There is absolutely no question that our climate is precisely a self-organized system of this sort. We have long since named the observed, temporally persistent self-organized structures — ENSO, the Monsoon, the NAO, the PDO. We can also observe more transient structures that appear or disappear such as the “polar vortex” or “The Blob” (warm patch in the ocean off of the Pacific Northwest) or a “blocking high”. Lately, we had “Hurricane Joaquin”. Anybody can play — at this point you can visit various websites and watch a tiny patch of clouds organize into a thunderstorm, then a numbered “disturbance with the potential for tropical development”, then a tropical depression, and finally into a named storm with considerable if highly variable and transient structure.
All of these structures tend to dissipate a huge amount of energy that would otherwise have to escape to space much more slowly. They are born out of energy in flow, and “evolve” so that the ones that move energy most efficiently survive and grow.
Once again, one has to bemoan the lack of serious math that has been done on the climate. This in some sense is understandable, as the math is insanely difficult even when it is limited to toy systems — simple iterated maps, simple ODE or PDE systems with simple boundary conditions. However, there are some principles to guide us. One is that in the case of self-organization in chaotic systems, the dynamical map itself has a structure of critical points and attractors. Once the system “discovers” a favorable attractor and diffuses into an orbit, it actually becomes rather immune to simple changes in the driving. Once a set of turbulent rolls is established, as it were, there is a barrier to be overcome before one can make the number of rolls change or fundamentally change their character — moderate changes in the thermal gradient just make the existing rolls roll faster or slower to maintain heat transport. However, in a sufficiently complex system there are usually neighboring attractors with some sort of barrier in between them, but this barrier is there only in an average sense. In many, many cases, the orbits of the system in phase space have a fractal, folded character where orbits from neighboring attractors can interpenetrate and overlap. If there is noise, there is a probability of switching attractors when one nears a non-equilibrium critical regime, so that the system can suddenly and dramatically change its character. Next, the attractors themselves are not really fixed. As one alters (parametrically for example) the forcing of the system or the boundary conditions or the degree of noise or… one expects the critical points and attractors themselves to move, to appear and disappear, to get pushed together or moved apart, to have the barriers between them rise or fall. Finally (as if this isn’t enough) the climate is not in any usual sense an iterated map. It is usually treated as one from the point of view of solving PDEs (which is usually done via an iterated map where the output of one time step is the input into the next with a fixed dynamics). This makes the solution a Markov Process — one that “forgets” its past history and evolves locally in time and space as an iterated map (usually with a transition “rule” with some randomness in it).
But the climate is almost certainly not Markovian, certainly not in practical terms. What it does today depends on the state today, to be sure, but because there are vast reservoirs where past dynamical evolution is “hidden” in precisely Prigogene’s self-organized structures, structures whose temporal coherence and behavior can only be meaningfully understood on the basis of their own physical description and not microscopically, it is completely, utterly senseless to try to advance a Markovian solution and expect it to actually work!
Two examples, and then I must clean my house and do other work. One is clearly the named structures themselves in the climate. The multidecadal oscillations have spatiotemporal persistence and organization with major spectral components out as far as sixty or seventy years (and may well have longer periods still to be discovered — we have crappy data and not much of it that extends into the increasingly distant past). Current models treat things like ENSO and the PDO and so on more like noise, and we see people constantly “removing the influence of ENSO” from a temperature record to try to reductively discern some underlying ENSO-less trend. But they aren’t noise. They are major features of the dynamics! They move huge amounts of energy around, and are key components of the efficiency of the open system as it transports incident solar energy to infinity, keeping a reservoir of it trapped within along the way. It is practically speaking impossible to integrate the PDEs of the climate models and reproduce any of the multidecadal behavior. Even if multidecadal structures emerge, they have the wrong shape and the wrong spectrum because the chaotic models have a completely different critical structure and attractors as they are iterated maps at the wrong resolution and with parameters that almost certainly move them into completely distinct operational regimes and quite different quasiparticle structures. This is instantly evident if one looks at the actual dynamical futures produced by the climate models. They have the wrong spectrum on pretty much all scales, fluctuating far more wildly than the actual climate does, with the wrong short time autocorrelation and spectral behavior (let alone the longer multidecadal behavior that we observe).
The second is me. I’m precisely a self-organized chaotic system. Here’s a metaphor. Climate models are performing the moral equivalent of trying to predict my behavior by simulating the flow of neural activity in my brain on a coarse-grained basis that chops my cortex up into (say) centimeter square chunks one layer thick and coming up with some sort of crude Markovian model. Since the modelers have no idea what I’m actually thinking, and cannot possibly actually measure the state of my brain outside of some even more crudely averaged surface electrical activity, they just roll dice to generate an initial state “like” what they think my initial state might be, and then trust their dynamics to eventually “forget” that initial state and move the model brain into what they imagine is an “ensemble” of my possible brain states so that after a few years, my behavior will no longer depend on the ignored details (you know, things like memories of my childhood or what I’ve learned in school). They run their model forward twenty years and announce to the world that unless I undergo electroshock therapy right now their models prove that I’m almost certainly destined to become an axe murderer or exhibit some other “extreme” behavior. Only if I am kept in a dark room, not overstimulated, and am fed regular doses of drugs that essentially destroy the resolution of my real brain until it approximates that of their model can they be certain that I won’t either bring about World Peace in one extreme or cause a Nuclear War in the other.
The problem is that this whole idea is just silly! Human behavior cannot be predicted by a microscopic physical model of the neurons at the quantum chemistry level! Humans are open non-Markovian information systems. We are strongly regulated by our past experience, our memory, as well as our instantaneous input, all folded through a noisy, defect-ridden, and unbelievably complex multilayer neural network that is chemically modulated by a few dozen things (hormones, bioavailable energy, diurnal phase, temperature, circulatory state, oxygenation…)
As a good friend of mine who was a World’s Greatest Expert (literally!) on complex systems used to say: “More is different”. Emergent self-organized behavior results in a cascade of structures. Microscopic physics starts with quarks and leptons and interaction particles/rules. The quarks organize into nucleons. The nucleons organize into nuclei. The electrons bond to the nuclei to form atoms. The physics and behavior of the nuclei are not easily understood in terms of bare quark dynamics! The physics and behavior of the atoms are not easily understood in terms of the bare quark plus lepton dynamics! The atoms interact and form molecules, more molecules, increasingly complex molecules. The molecules have behavior that is not easily understood in terms of the “bare” behavior of the isolated atoms that make them up. Some classes of molecular chemistry produce liquids, solids, gases, plasmas. Again, the behavior of these things is increasingly disconnected from the behavior of the specific molecules that make them up — new classes of universal behavior emerge at all steps, so that all fluids are alike in certain ways independent of the particular molecules that make them up, even as they inherent certain parametric behavior from the base molecules. Some molecules in some fluids become organic biomolecules, and there is suddenly a huge disconnect both from simple chemistry and from the several layers of underlying physics.
If more is different, how much is enough? There is a whole lot of more in the coupled Earth-Ocean-Atmosphere-Solar system. There is a whole lot less, heavily oversimplified and with the deliberate omission of the ill-understood quasiparticle structures that we can see dominating the weather and the climate, in climate models.
Could they work? Sure. But one really shouldn’t expect them to work, one
should expect them to work no better than a simulated neural network “works” to simulate actual intelligence, which is to say, it can sometimes produce understandable behaviors “like” intelligence without ever properly resembling the intelligence of any intelligent thing and without the slightest ability to predict the behavior of an intelligent thing. The onus of proof is very much on the modelers that wish to assert that their models are useful for predicting long term climate, but this is a burden that so far they refuse to acknowledge, let alone accept! If they did, large numbers of climate models would have to be rejected because they do not work in the specific sense that they do not come particularly close to predicting the behavior of the actual climate from the instant they entered the regime where they were supposed to be predictive, instead of parametrically tuned and locked to match up well with a reference interval that just happened to be the one single stretch of 15-25 years where strong warming occurred in the last 85 years. There are so very, very many problems with this — training any model on a non-representative segment of the available data is obviously likely to lead to a poor model — but suffice it to say that so far, they aren’t working and nobody should be surprised.
rgb
In the sections below, as in previous posts, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on some data sets. At the moment, only the satellite data have flat periods of longer than a year. The second section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2015 so far compares with 2014 and the warmest years and months on record so far. For three of the data sets, 2014 also happens to be the warmest year. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.
Section 1
This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative on at least one calculation. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
1. For GISS, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
2. For Hadcrut4, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
3. For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
4. For UAH, the slope is flat since May 1997 or 18 years and 5 months. (goes to September using version 6.0)
5. For RSS, the slope is flat since February 1997 or 18 years and 8 months. (goes to September)
The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the upward sloping blue line at the top indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.
Note that the UAH5.6 from WFT needed a detrend to show the slope is zero for UAH6.0.
When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly.
The actual numbers are meaningless since the two slopes are essentially zero. No numbers are given for CO2. Some have asked that the log of the concentration of CO2 be plotted. However WFT does not give this option. The upward sloping CO2 line only shows that while CO2 has been going up over the last 18 years, the temperatures have been flat for varying periods on the two sets.
Section 2
For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer available on his website. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.
On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 11 and 22 years according to Nick’s criteria. Cl stands for the confidence limits at the 95% level.
The details for several sets are below.
For UAH6.0: Since December 1992: Cl from -0.009 to 1.688
This is 22 years and 10 months.
For RSS: Since March 1993: Cl from -0.014 to 1.597
This is 22 years and 7 months.
For Hadcrut4.4: Since January 2001: Cl from -0.048 to 1.334
This is 14 years and 9 months.
For Hadsst3: Since July 1995: Cl from -0.002 to 1.949
This is 20 years and 3 months.
For GISS: Since September 2004: Cl from -0.033 to 2.020
This is 11 years and 1 month.
Section 3
This section shows data about 2015 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the five data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadsst3, and GISS.
Down the column, are the following:
1. 14ra: This is the final ranking for 2014 on each data set.
2. 14a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2014.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that the satellite data sets have 1998 as the warmest year and the others have 2014 as the warmest year.
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first three letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0. Periods of under a year are not counted and are shown as “0”.
8. sig: This the first month for which warming is not statistically significant according to Nick’s criteria. The first three letters of the month are followed by the last two numbers of the year.
9. sy/m: This is the years and months for row 8. Depending on when the update was last done, the months may be off by one month.
10. Jan: This is the January 2015 anomaly for that particular data set.
11. Feb: This is the February 2015 anomaly for that particular data set, etc.
19. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months.
20. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have for 2015 without regards to error bars and assuming no changes. Think of it as an update 45 minutes into a game.
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.14ra | 5th | 6th | 1st | 1st | 1st |
| 2.14a | 0.188 | 0.255 | 0.564 | 0.479 | 0.75 |
| 3.year | 1998 | 1998 | 2014 | 2014 | 2014 |
| 4.ano | 0.482 | 0.55 | 0.564 | 0.479 | 0.75 |
| 5.mon | Apr98 | Apr98 | Jan07 | Aug14 | Jan07 |
| 6.ano | 0.742 | 0.857 | 0.832 | 0.644 | 0.97 |
| 7.y/m | 18/5 | 18/8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8.sig | Dec92 | Mar93 | Jan01 | Jul95 | Sep04 |
| 9.sy/m | 22/10 | 22/7 | 14/9 | 20/3 | 11/1 |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 10.Jan | 0.276 | 0.365 | 0.688 | 0.440 | 0.82 |
| 11.Feb | 0.174 | 0.326 | 0.660 | 0.406 | 0.88 |
| 12.Mar | 0.164 | 0.255 | 0.681 | 0.424 | 0.90 |
| 13.Apr | 0.086 | 0.172 | 0.656 | 0.557 | 0.74 |
| 14.May | 0.284 | 0.309 | 0.696 | 0.593 | 0.79 |
| 15.Jun | 0.332 | 0.391 | 0.730 | 0.575 | 0.77 |
| 16.Jul | 0.182 | 0.288 | 0.696 | 0.637 | 0.73 |
| 17.Aug | 0.275 | 0.389 | 0.740 | 0.665 | 0.81 |
| 18.Sep | 0.253 | 0.382 | 0.786 | 0.729 | 0.81 |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 19.ave | 0.225 | 0.320 | 0.702 | 0.558 | 0.81 |
| 20.rnk | 3rd | 4th | 1st | 1st | 1st |
If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:
For UAH, version 6.0beta3 was used. Note that WFT uses version 5.6. So to verify the length of the pause on version 6.0, you need to use Nick’s program.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0beta3.txt
For RSS, see: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
For Hadcrut4, see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
For Hadsst3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3-gl.dat
For GISS, see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
To see all points since January 2015 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below. Note that UAH version 5.6 is shown. WFT does not show version 6.0 yet. Also note that Hadcrut4.3 is shown and not Hadcrut4.4, which is why the last few months are missing for Hadcrut.
As you can see, all lines have been offset so they all start at the same place in January 2015. This makes it easy to compare January 2015 with the latest anomaly.
Appendix
In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
RSS
The slope is flat since February 1997 or 18 years, 8 months. (goes to September)
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since March 1993: Cl from -0.014 to 1.597.
The RSS average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.320. This ties it as 4th place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.255 and it was ranked 6th.
UAH6.0beta3
The slope is flat since May 1997 or 18 years and 5 months. (goes to September using version 6.0beta3)
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since December 1992: Cl from -0.009 to 1.688. (This is using version 6.0 according to Nick’s program.)
The UAH average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.225. This would rank it as 3rd place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.483. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.742. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.188 and it was ranked 5th.
Hadcrut4.4
The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For Hadcrut4: There is no statistically significant warming since January 2001: Cl from -0.048 to 1.334.
The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.702. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.832. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.564 and this set a new record.
Hadsst3
For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning. For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since July 1995: Cl from -0.002 to 1.949.
The Hadsst3 average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.558. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 2014 when it reached 0.644. This is prior to 2015. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.479 and this set a new record. The September 2015 anomaly of 0.729 also sets a new record.
GISS
The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since September 2004: Cl from -0.033 to 2.020.
The GISS average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.81. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.97. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.75 and it set a new record.
Conclusion
After reading this article, do you think climate science is settled? If not, do you think it will be settled in your lifetime?
“Water Vapour” on the big control knob on the climate apparatus should not be written horisontally but aligned vertically with the indocator arrow, for greater visual cue-effect.
4. Solar Energy
=========
the sun emits both energy and particles.
I see people disregarding the huge, huge effect our local star has on our existence. It looks rather small in our blue sky, a little round ball.
It is immense compared to our earth and utterly dwarfs Jupiter, the biggest ball circling this star. This star spits out immense amounts of this thing we call ‘energy’ in the form of various degrees of light, etc. This, in turn, heats up the various little tiny balls we call ‘planets’.
This vortex of energy is very old and it seems to me that the last two million years, it is not very consistent with energy output. Small changes in energy translates into cold climates for all those tiny balls of various materials that are trapped in orbit of this particular yellow star.
Someday, it will cease to exist, most likely will explode. Nothing is forever. I was raised by grandparents and parents who were astronomers and we learned how to view the universe from them. You have to be strong willed to be optimistic knowing all this information that is frankly, scary for us creatures trapped on this little rock in outer space.
Or particles with energy?
Bear in mind that while the sun produces virtually all the heat, it is only changes in the sun (not just TSI, of course) that are (or may be) relevant.
Well so it is settled from your list of four ” must haves ” for climate science to be settled.
It is clear that you cannot satisfy, any one of those four requirements, ergo climate science is not settled.
George
One should add the following to the list in the head posting:
Thermodynamics. The atmosphere where excitation/de-excitation collisions occur is bounded by two heat sinks, both substantial, one near-infinite. Global mean surface temperature has varied by no more than 3.5 degrees either side of the long-run median for 810,000 years – about the same tolerance as a home thermostat. We cannot much perturb that formidable thermostasis.
Quantum mechanics. Models use Lorentzian or Voigt equations to determine the line-shapes of the far wings of the principal absorption spectra of CO2, where most of the forcing occurs, but both equations, which were derived for proposes other than global warming research, assume for convenience that collisions are instantaneous. However, they occupy a few picoseconds, and that is enough to require a reduction of 40% in the current central estimate of the CO2 forcing, and hence of climate sensitivity to a CO2 doubling. This one is right up Professor Brown’s street.
Electronics. Two-thirds of climate sensitivity, according to the Party Line, comes from net-positive or amplifying temperature feedbacks, not one of which can be directly quantified by measurement. The Bode open-loop or system-gain equation that models the mutual amplification of feedbacks is, however, taken from electronics, where it works quite well, but is inapplicable in the climate, particularly where the IPCC’s strongly net-positive feedbacks are assumed. The equation mandates that, at a closed-loop gain >1, feedbacks should drive the output down rather than up. Sure enough, in an electronic circuit the output voltage reverses its sign at a loop gain >1, but in the climate the output temperature does not reverse its direction, not least because, unlike the output voltage in a circuit, the output temperature in the climate is the instrument of the climate system’s self-equilibration following the perturbation caused by a forcing. The Bode equation is thus incapable of modelling dynamical systems such as the climate, especially at high loop gains.
Cybernetics. The architecture of the general-circulation models exhibits a number of defects propagated throughout the models by intercomparison. Not the least of these, as Dr David Evans has pointed out in his fascinating series at Jo Nova’s site, is the models’ inbuilt but actually erroneous assumption that the feedbacks to a greenhouse-gas forcing will be identical to those from a solar or other exogenous forcing, when in reality most feedbacks to a solar forcing will not respond to endogenous perturbations such as greenhouse-gas forcings. Another such defect is the misuse of the Bode equation. Another is the failure to model synoptic variability.
Chaos. In the absence of highly-resolved data on initial conditions and of high understanding of the evolutionary processes of the climate object, reliable prediction for more than a week ahead is not available by any method.bso much for “settled science”.
Logic. The fundamental postulate of logic is that, since objective truth exists, a proposition and its converse cannot simultaneously obtain. Two important corollaries: first, any true proposition is consistent with every true proposition and inconsistent with every false proposition; secondly, if the converse of a proposition be demonstrated to be false, the original proposition is necessarily true. Most of the claims of the believers may be definitively disposed of either through demonstration by contradiction, which can often overcome the difficulties inherent in demonstrating that a hypothesis is true, or by applying the dozen fundamental fallacies first described by Aristotle in the Sophistical Refutations 2350 years ago.
Economics. It is surprisingly easy to demonstrate definitively that mitigation today is orders of magnitude costlier than adaptation the day after tomorrow, even if, per impossibile, the wild exaggerations of the IPCC are accepted as true ad argumentum.
Thank you very much! Since it may be missed with the new format at WUWT, I may make this part of my next post.
Werner
You list #8 Atmospheric Composition. What about the Atmosphere itself. It has mass, layers (strata), etc. and I did not see much about these mentioned, although it was skimmed. It would be good to have the Atmosphere by itself given a number in this list. Also, Under #8 Atmospheric Composition I did not see any references to strata, mass, temperature decrease with elevation, boiling points at various pressures, etc.
Perhaps I am off target here, but thought I’d throw in my 2 cents.
Thanks
On “Electronics” more recent information strongly indicates the net feedback is under 1.
Plus Lord Monckton, in an electronic feedback amplifier, the feedback (sample of the output) is fed back to the INPUT terminal not to some other node in the output.
Since TOA TSI is the input terminal, and an attenuated version of this is what gets stored in the big ocean heat storage depot, any feedbacks should address the changes in attenuation of TSI before it gets to the surface as solar spectrum radiant energy.
Losses in the atmosphere to Raleigh and Mie scattering plus absorption by atmospheric gases including GHGs, such as H2O and O3 (CO2 as well), convert Solar Spectrum beam energy to isotropic LWIR radiant energy or isotropic heat energy, which preferentially conducts or convects upwards; rather than downwards. (That messy second law thing).
So clouds is where the action is.
g
I think the use of the word “knobs” is a reference to both the controls on the machine and the “scientists” using them. In the UK, “What a knob” is a derogatory term, likening someone (usually male), to a part of the male anatomy!
Another good one Josh!!
“control knob” is a reference to the now famous paper by Andrew Lacis
I thought it was:
Richard Alley: “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”
Chaam and Werner. It might have been a Freudian slip on my part. If Josh could clarify this point, I am sure we will be grateful!
Can’t see it being settled for many years yet as the political juggernaut will take a lot of turning around. A new RSS/UAH high from an El Nino will just drive that further away, even if 18 months later the temperature crashes back down again as it did in 1999.
Eventually the politicos will have other fish to fry, and all this will be forgotten as we panic about the next threat to all humanity.
Beating RSS or UAH yearly record by for example 0.1 c every 15+ years only falsifies CAGW. For a temperature rate to be regarded matching the warmest agenda, yearly records need to be broken every few years (3-4) to be any where near close. If breaking yearly records by 0.1 c to 0.2 c every 3-4 years would result in century warming between 3 c and 6 c. Clearly this has not been happening at all, so the CAGW has already been falsified.
Good scientific arguments of no use when fighting political protectionism. Remember they actually change the data to suit their theories!
But even their changed data does not indicate catastrophe or even alarm, even using the Karl pausebuster metrics. And, anyway, certain data with known biases (TOBs, moves, equipment, what have you) requires changes or must be dropped, entirely.
With the data/metadata-rich USHCN, we can drop then and still maintain adequate coverage. But the GHCN, not so much. (That is the issue Mosh has to contend with. It’s where he went awry, I think, but it’s not his fault. We just happen to have a better dataset.)
My beef is not that these dudes do changes, but that the changes are wrong. We’ll be suggesting a few of our own, down the line, I think.
Well, yes. With a good climate model, you can jerk around with the control knobs to get the desired result.
Ahh, the known knowns and the unknown knowns. And then, we mustn’t overlook the unknown knowns and the known unknowns, not to mention the unknown unknowns. (h/t Donald Rumsfeld – who coulda been a climate scientist)
And the not-seen knowns, aka Pink Flamingos.
And the impossible unknowns, aka Black Swans.
THANK YOU for taking the time and expending the effort to write this. My background is physics & math – a long time ago now – but I have been using computer models for the last 25 years or so to quantify things that affect selected commodity markets. I have found that even among scientists, there is very little knowledge about using computer models to understand or make predictions in complex systems. There is very little understanding of the limitations of these models, even among scientists.
Again, I thank you for writing this. It is something that I look forward to reading several times.
Yeah, I’ve done two companies (sadly, both failed at this point) doing predictive modeling using e.g. advanced neural networks that I wrote using a bunch of tricks stolen from physics/stat mech. The nets actually worked phenomenally well, but it turns out that founding a business and succeeding is really difficult (something that is reflected in the 10% success rate). One difficulty is that in business, the people you are selling to almost never understand statistics beyond the one course they might have taken and gotten a C in 30 years earlier in college. To them predictive modeling is black magic, and they manage to both doubt that it will work and expect it to do the impossible if it does. It requires a superhuman sales force to be able to explain both the marginal advantages and the limitations.
I advise students who are going on to careers in science and medicine, and know pretty accurately what statistics course(s) (if any) they are likely to end up having taken even at an elite institution like Duke. Sadly, for the most part this is that very same one course, which isn’t even a course at the “serious math” level, it is “practical statistics” and goes over the usual stuff about sampling, the central limit theorem, the error function, and stuff like t. The real goal of the class is to teach students to be able to critically assess statistical claims in papers. As is covered in Statistics Done Wrong: A Woefully Complete Guide:
http://www.statisticsdonewrong.com/
this minimal training fails on both sides of the fence — it does serve to make e.g. physicians a lot more skeptical of marginal results presented in medical journals, but equally obviously, not skeptical enough. But the bigger failure is in the lack of adequate understanding of statistics on the research side. Even the gold standard, a double blind placebo controlled test of some hypothesis, is often plagued by the simplest of problems, such as the fact that the population being studied is itself far from a random selection from the actual population, the fact that the sample size is typically pitifully small OR it is huge but many things are being studied simultaneously (and without Bonferroni correction) in a huge multivariate data dredge that concludes things like “Green Jelly Beans cause Acne”:
https://xkcd.com/882/
Occasionally I see a paper in climate science that does decent statistics, in particular one that openly acknowledges the enormous errors that are more typically minimized and/or openly misrepresented, especially in any material intended for “public” consumption. To be blunt, climate science in general makes claims of “confidence” across the board that cannot possibly be justified using axiomatic statistics. The worst instances of this abuse of terminology with a precise meaning in actual statistics in a context where the reader is deliberately invited to believe that that is the sense being used are in (for example) the summary for policy makers (SPM) of the various ARs from the IPCC, where the abuses are so egregious they have inspired a number of climate scientists to withdraw altogether from the process.
It is, for example, amusing to examine the changes and differences in the temperature anomalies version to version and between two different products that are supposedly measuring the same thing. Consider this plot:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2010/to:2015/plot/gistemp/from:2010/to:2015
This is gistemp and hadcrut4, both global temperature anomalies with a supposedly common base, plotted side by side over just the last five years. As you can see, GISS considers the anomaly to be 0.2C higher than the CRU. If one downloads the HadCRUT4 data and tallies all sources of acknowledged error, the error year to year is claimed to be 0.1 C. This error cannot be a standard deviation, as it sums three or four distinct estimated contributions to a total error, so we have to assume that it is supposed to be a confidence interval, that it is 95% certain that the actual anomaly is within 0.1 C either way of the number they publish. However, let’s be generous and assume that it really is supposed to be a standard deviation or normal equivalent.
Either way it is amusing to note that a very simple way to interpret this graph is that it is 95% or better certain that GISStemp LOTI is wrong according to the CRU! If one plots BEST it is a lot more than 95% certain that BEST is wrong — the two differ by as much as a degree C. If one plots the BEST 95% confidence bound (which actually is available on WFT, amazingly) it is 99.99% certain that HadCRUT4 is badly, badly wrong, as is GISStemp LOTI. HadCRUT3 isn’t quite 95% certain to be wrong according to HadCRUT4, but it is close. One wonders what the error claims for HadCRUT3 were?
To paraphrase Wesley in The Princess Bride, “I do not think this `confidence interval’ means what you think it means…”
As I spend some tiny fraction of my tiny amount of free time (time when I’m not teaching, advising, or working on something else) on learning nonlinear dynamics and some of the “universal” properties of chaotic systems, it is becoming increasingly clear with working numerical examples that I’ve built on top of e.g. octave that the arithmetical average of the one-dimensional projection of a strange attractor is not a good predictor for the state of a chaotic system. Nor is the distribution of the projection of the specific timestep values anything vaguely resembling normal, not for most of the “interesting” systems that are still far less complex than any possible representation of the climate. Furthermore, in direct contradiction to the assertions of Nick Stokes that the climate models are probably as reliable as ordinary CFD codes 30 to 100 years out, the demonstration that chaos depends sensitively on things like integration stepsize and granularity is a textbook example in Sprott’s lovely book, one that I implemented (just for grins) in octave. To put it bluntly, even stable non-chaotic sets of ODEs can become chaotic if integrated with the right (wrong) stepsize, and changing the stepsize can “suddenly” shift the entire character of the solution to patterns that bear absolutely no resemblance to the “correct” solution obtained with a small and ideally adaptive stepsize. This is true for really boring sets of 2-3 coupled ODEs — forget about solutions to nonlinear coupled Navier-Stokes equations solved in an irregularly driven non-inertial reference frame with a highly complex surface structure on an integration granularity 30 orders of magnitude larger than the Kolmogorov scale for the problem.
I can only reiterate my conclusion quoted by Werner above. Could climate models work? Sure. They do work — for about a week out from a good initialization, where we call them weather models. But one really shouldn’t expect them to work out to 30+ years. We shouldn’t really expect them to work out to ten-plus years. Or five. Or even just one. After all, just one year out the climate depends strongly on things like just what is happening in a small patch of the Pacific Ocean where the named dissipation pattern called “ENSO” holds sway, and our ability to predict that one lousy year out just plain sucks. Will the current ENSO condition persist six more months? Maybe. Or maybe it will just blow apart. Or maybe it will get even stronger. Or perhaps it will remain about the same. We would be lucky to make a prediction that was right a bit over half of the time, given nothing but the conditions right now, and none of the decent predictions would be based on microdynamical simulations, they would be based on things like comparing what we see right now to what we’ve seen at similar points in ENSO episodes past, a completely different kind of modeling and prediction.
Then there is the enormously sketchy process of running a climate model (say) 200 times with small perturbations of initial conditions and parameters to get 200 enormously different possible future climate trajectories, some of which cool the planet, some of which warm the planet, all of them suffering from the stepsize problem indicated above and the fact that they cannot even resolve most of the short-time dissipative structures in the atmosphere or maintain detailed balance as they integrate. These trajectories are then averaged, and the average is claimed to be “the prediction” of the model, with the width of the distribution of trajectories used as an utterly (theoretically) unjustifiable estimate of its probable error. Then the ensemble of these average trajectories across all the different, but not independent, climate models is itself averaged, and its spread is used as an even less justifiable assertion of “confidence bounds”.
Nobody rational should expect this to work at all. The average of trajectories produced by a single climate model is going to be just as wrong as the climate model is wrong, and the usual order of science is to first propose a model, and then to test its predictive powers to see if the climate model is wrong. That is, any good model should be subjected to a hypothesis test as far as its ability to predict actual future climates is concerned, and to the extent that it does poorly, it should be at the very least viewed skeptically as a poor predictor.
But how, precisely, are we supposed to interpret the average of many average trajectories produced by many untested climate models, especially when that average is protected from rejection by actual comparison of its predictions to the real climate? The average of many broken models, especially broken models with an obvious bias relative to reality, is a broken model with an obvious bias relative to reality.
Or not, of course. There is a chance that the null hypothesis of the hypothesis test that isn’t being performed, “This is a perfect climate model” is correct, and that the climate we are experiencing in reality is merely unlikely given the inputs, and over time any given model will end up being correct as the system regresses to its true/more probable behavior. However, I repeat: the onus of proof is very much on the modelers that wish to assert that their models are useful for predicting long term climate, but this is a burden that so far they refuse to acknowledge, let alone accept.
I mean this literally. It’s almost a quote from Chapter 9 in AR5. They do, and present, these averages knowing that they haven’t been subjected to a hypothesis test, knowing that the multimodel mean most often presented as the claimed prediction of CMIP5 “warming” contains the results of many models that would be summarily rejected if they were subjected to a hypothesis test, and that aren’t remotely independent and identically distributed samples drawn from some sort of distribution of models.
Bad science, bad statistics. It makes me sad.
rgb
Thank you for this reply! However the base periods are actually different. GISS uses 1951 to 1980 and Hadcrut4 uses 1961 to 1990. So GISS would always read higher. Nevertheless, they can hugely vary month by month as the top graphic on this earlier post clearly shows:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/22/hadcrut4-is-from-venus-giss-is-from-mars-now-includes-november-data/
So as you say, something seems to be very wrong with their error bars.
Dr. David Evans at science speak blog has a new model and concludes the following:
New Science 18: Finally climate sensitivity calculated at just one tenth of official estimates. Hence we conclude that:
The ECS might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C, and most likely less than 0.5 °C.
The fraction of global warming caused by CO2, μ,is likely less than 20%.
The CO2 sensitivity, λC, is likely less than 0.15 °C W−1 m2.
Given a descending WVEL, it is difficult to construct a scenario consistent with the observed data in which the influence of CO2 is greater than this.
DEFINITION: The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is the surface warming ΔTS when the CO2 concentration doubles and the other drivers are unchanged. Note that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, so each doubling or fraction thereof has the same effect on surface warming.
And then there is the issue, why did the most recent Little Ice Age happen? Not to mention, the real nasty Ice Ages.
Dr. Brown,
Indeed – among the scientific and statistical mistakes you note above, there is also the mistake where massive computational systems are assumed to have skill.
I personally suspect this is a holdover from the hand calculator. Hand calculators are always right, therefore a really, really, really big hand calculator (i.e. a super computer) must be right even more!
Robert Brown writes: “To paraphrase Wesley in The Princess Bride…” I hate to be one to cast doubt on an otherwise brilliant criticism of climate modeling, but feel obligated to point out that you’ve in fact paraphrased Inigo Montoya with this attribution rather than Wesley.
You know, criticizing climate modelers, especially those participating in the “Grand Average of Nonsense” party the IPCC is promoting with their Three Letter Acronym-5 program is a lot like shooting ducks in a barrel. It’s not as if any one of the models has every been remotely close to predictive, still the IPCC seems to think tossing them all in a bag and shaking them up will magically cause truth to appear.
It reminds me very much of the folks who have no idea at all about whatever “system” they’re trying to model, so they go out and collect whatever raw data might be available cheap, toss it all in a bin and shove the lot of it through a stepwise regression with the hope they’ll get lucky. It’s really pitiful.
That aside, you comment on the test of a hypothesis rests in the performance of the models based on it isn’t lost on me, I’ve used it so many times even I’m getting tired of hearing it, but it just doesn’t work. You’d think something that patently obvious and so broadly accepted within scientific communities of every discipline would be cause enough to show these people the door, but it’s not. Year after year they receive research funds that could be spent on projects that may not have immediate social value, but that at least haven’t been proven to be complete junk beyond any shadow of doubt for nearly half a century!
Personally, I despair. I’m sorry to admit to people who ask that I was once a scientist who worked for NASA and NOAA. That my specialty was statistics and design of experiments. I used to be proud of what I did, but what these people have done has destroyed the reputation of thousands of legitimate scientists. I have no idea what to do about it other than tell people I’m retired and now I restore cars for fun. I just don’t discuss my past anymore.
emsnews
November 6, 2015 at 11:45 am
The Little Ice Age was the latest in a series of periodic, centennial-scale, cold spells, alternating with warmer cycles of similar intervals, characteristic of the Holocene and other interglacials.
The long-term trend for at least the past 3000 years, since the Minoan Warm Period, has been colder. That is, the peaks of warm periods are getting cooler and the depths of cool periods colder. The trend might date back to the end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum, c. 5000 years ago.
Peak heat of the Minoan Warm Period was higher than of the Roman WP, which was in turn toastier than the Medieval WP, which so far remains balmier than the current Modern WP. The intervening cold periods also appear to have been progressively chillier, ie the Greek Dark Ages CP less frosty than the Dark Ages, which in turn was probably less icy than the LIA.
They’re natural Bond cycles within interglacials, similar to but of less magnitude than D/O cycles within glacial phases. The onset of these real, big ice ages seems linked to earth’s orbital and rotational cycles.
“””””…..
Reader
November 6, 2015 at 10:34 am
Dr. David Evans at science speak blog has a new model and concludes the following: …..””””
When you say ECS is:
“”.. DEFINITION: The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is the surface warming ΔTS when the CO2 concentration doubles and the other drivers are unchanged. Note that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, so each doubling or fraction thereof has the same effect on surface warming. ..””
So this is true for CO2 going from 400 ppmm to 800 ppmm, or from 280 ppmm to 560 ppmm, or from 1 ppmm to 2 ppmm ; since that is exactly what logarithmic means.
So far since 1957/58 IGY, when Mauna Loa Data started up, we have gone from 315 ppmm to 400 ppmm or thereabouts, which is about 2^0.34, or about 1/3rd of a doubling.
So far the corresponding Temperature increase is not distinguishable from what a linear trend would imply.
I dare say a Taylor series can model the relationship from 315 to 400 ppm at least as well as the assumption of logarithmeticity, for which there is no foundation either in experiment (science) or theory (maths).
I dare say the experimental data can be fitted to the form:
y = exp(-1/x^2) just as well; and with x,y being CO2 and Temperature IN EITHER ORDER.
Just repeating that the relationship is logarithmic doesn’t make it so. A logarithm is a very specific mathematical function; not just some arbitrary non linearity.
g
This is very true! As a matter of fact, for the last 18 years and 9 months on RSS, the effect seems to be zero.
rgb
Thanks – and plus some hundreds.
I have always believed that – since my time as weather forecaster for Mrs Elam’s class in – probably – 1962, when Upstill Nancekevill, Dixon and me more-or-less said ‘Tomorrow will be the same as today’.
And we edged the Met Office (then).
Today – living in the bit of the UK south of London, I feel 24 hour forecasts are pretty good – better than ours were in ’62, for sure.
[Hah – school kids with a chalk board. Ha!]
48/72 hours – take with a pinch of salt.
Five days – well, b*’^^ing optimistic.
Weeks/months/beyond – I trust they’re entered for Nobel Prizes for Literature [Fiction]!
Did the Mann get one of these?
Only asking.
Honest.
Ten years ahead – sorry – don’t make me >0m1T.
Sixty Years – Yeah Right. F+’^I>g aye Right.
Can’t get a fortnight right better than one in three . . . . . . .
Auto
First, yes, it was Inigo Montoya. Second, Werner, if you look over the length and breadth of the two on WFT, you will find that over a substantial fraction of the two plots they are offset by less than 0.1 C. For example, for much of the first half of the 20th century, they are almost on top of one another with GISS rarely coming up with a patch 0.1 C or so higher. They almost precisely match in a substantial part of their overlapping reference periods. They only start to substantially split in the 1970 to 1990 range (which contains much of the latter 20th century warming). By the 21st century this split has grown to around 0.2 C, and is remarkably consistent. Let’s examine this in some detail:
We can start with very simple graph that shows the divergence over the last century:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1915/to:2015/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1915/to:2015/trend
The two graphs have a widening divergence in the temperatures they obtain. If the two measures were in mutual agreement, one would expect the linear trends to be in good agreement — the anomaly of the anomaly, as it were. They should, after all, be offset by only the difference in mean temperatures in their reference periods, which should be a constant offset if they are both measuring the correct anomalies from the same mean temperatures.
Obviously, they do not. There is a growing rift between the two and, as I noted, they are split by more than the 95% confidence that HadCRUT4, at least, claims even relative to an imagined split in means over their reference periods. There are, very likely, nonlinear terms in the models used to compute the anomalies that are growing and will continue to systematically diverge, simply because they very likely have different algorithms for infilling and kriging and so on, in spite of them very probably having substantial overlap in their input data.
In contrast, BEST and GISS do indeed have similar linear trends in the way expected, with a nearly constant offset. One presumes that this means that they use very similar methods to compute their anomalies (again, from data sets that very likely overlap substantially as well). The two of them look like they want to vote HadCRUT4 off of the island, 2 to 1:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1915/to:2005/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1915/to:2005/trend/plot/best/from:1915/to:2005/trend
Until, of course, one adds the trends of UAH and RSS:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2015/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2015/trend/plot/best/from:1979/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2015/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2015/trend
All of a sudden consistency emerges, with some surprises. GISS, HadCRUT4 and UAH suddenly show almost exactly the same linear trend across the satellite era, with a constant offset of around 0.5 C. RSS is substantially lower. BEST cannot honestly be compared, as it only runs to 2005ish.
One is then very, very tempted to make anomalies out of our anomalies, and project them backwards in time to see how well they agree on hindcasts of past data. Let’s use the reference period show and subtract around 0.5 C from GISS and 0.3 C from HadCRUT4 to try to get them to line up with UAH in 2015 (why not, good as any):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2015/offset:-0.32/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2015/offset:-0.465/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2015/trend
We check to see if these offsets do make the anomalies match over the last 36 most accurate years (within reason):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2015/offset:-0.32/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2015/offset:-0.465/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2015
and see that they do. NOW we can compare the anomalies as they project into the indefinite past. Obviously UAH does have a slightly slower linear trend over this “re-reference period” and it doesn’t GO any further back, so we’ll drop it, and go back to 1880 to see how the two remaining anomalies on a common base look:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:2015/offset:-0.32/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:2015/offset:-0.465
We now might be surprised to note that HadCRUT4 is well above GISS LOTI across most of its range. Back in the 19th century splits aren’t very important because they both have error bars back there that can forgive any difference, but there is a substantial difference across the entire stretch from 1920 to 1960:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1920/to:1960/offset:-0.32/plot/gistemp/from:1920/to:1960/offset:-0.465/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1920/to:1960/offset:-0.32/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1920/to:1960/offset:-0.465/trend
This reveals a robust and asymmetric split between HadCRUT4 and GISS LOTI that cannot be written off to any difference in offsets, as I renormalized the offsets to match them across what has to be presumed to be the most precise and accurately known part of their mutual ranges, a stretch of 36 years where in fact their linear trends are almost precisely the same so that the two anomalies differ only BY an offset of 0.145 C with more or less random deviations relative to one another.
We find that except for a short patch right in the middle of World War II, HadCRUT4 is consistently 0.1 to 0.2 C higher than GISStemp. This split cannot be repaired — if one matches it up across the interval from 1920 to 1960 (pushing GISStemp roughly 0.145 HIGHER than HadCRUT4 in the middle of WW II) then one splits it well outside of the 95% confidence interval in the present.
Unfortunately, while it is quite all right to have an occasional point higher or lower between them — as long as the “occasions” are randomly and reasonably symmetrically split — this is not an occasional point. It is a clearly resolved, asymmetric offset in matching linear trends. To make life even more interesting, the linear trends do (again) have a more or less matching slope, across the range 1920 to 1960 just like they do across 1979 through 2015 but with completely different offsets. The entire offset difference was accumulated from 1960 to 1979.
Just for grins, one last plot:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1920/offset:-0.365/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:1920/offset:-0.465/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1920/offset:-0.365/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:1920/offset:-0.465/trend
Now we have a second, extremely interesting problem. Note that the offset between the linear trends here has shrunk to around half of what it was across the bulk of the early 20th century with HadCRUT4 still warmer, but now only warmer by maybe 0.045 C. This is in a region where the acknowledged 95% confidence range is order of 0.2 to 0.3. When I subtract appropriate offsets to make the linear trends almost precisely match in the middle, we get excellent agreement between the two anomalies.
Too excellent. By far. All of the data is within the mutual 95% confidence interval! This is, believe it or not, a really, really bad thing if one is testing a null hypothesis such as “the statistics we are publishing with our data have some meaning”.
We now have a bit of a paradox. Sure, the two data sets that these anomalies are built from very likely have substantial overlap, so the two anomalies themselves cannot properly be viewed as random samples drawn from a box filled with independent and identically distributed but correctly computed anomalies. But their super-agreement across the range from 1880 to 1920 and 1920 to 1960 (with a different offset) and across the range from 1979 to 2015 (but with yet another offset) means serious trouble for the underlying methods. This is absolutely conclusive evidence, in my opinion, that “According to HadCRUT4, it is well over 99% certain GISStemp is an incorrect computation of the anomaly” and vice versa. Furthermore, the differences between the two can not be explained by the fact that they draw on partially independent data sources — if this were the case, the strong coincidences between the two across piecewise blocking of the data are too strong — obviously the independent data is not sufficient to generate a symmetric and believable distribution of mutual excursions with errors that are anywhere near as large as they have to be, given that both HadCRUT4 and GISStemp if anything underestimate probable errors in the 19th century.
Where is the problem? Well, as I noted, a lot of it happens right here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/to:1979/offset:-0.32/plot/gistemp/from:1960/to:1979/offset:-0.465/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/to:1979/offset:-0.32/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1960/to:1979/offset:-0.465/trend
The two anomalies match up almost perfectly from the right hand edge to the present. They do not match up well from 1920 to 1960, except for a brief stretch of four years or so in early World War II, but for most of this interval they maintain a fairly constant, and identical, slope to their (offset) linear trend! They match up better (too well!) — with again a very similar linear trend but yet another offset across the range from 1880 to 1920. But across the range from 1960 to 1979, Ouch! That’s gotta hurt. Across 20 years, HadCRUT4 cools Earth by around 0.08 C, while GISS warms it by around around 0.07C.
So what’s going on? This is a stretch in the modern era, after all. Thermometers are at this point pretty accurate. World History seems to agree with HadCRUT4, since in the early 70’s there was all sorts of sound and fury about possible ice ages and global cooling, not global warming. One would expect both anomalies to be drawing on very similar data sets with similar precision and with similar global coverage. Yet in this stretch of the modern era with modern instrumentation and (one has to believe) very similar coverage, the two major anomalies don’t even agree in the sign of the linear trend slope and more or less symmetrically split as one goes back to 1960 ,a split that actually goes all the way back to 1943, then splits again all the way back to 1920, then slowly “heals” as one goes back to 1880.
As I said, there is simply no chance that HadCRUT4 and GISS are both correct outside of the satellite era. Within the satellite era their agreement is very good, but they split badly over the 20 years preceding it in spite of the data overlap and quality of instrumentation. This split persists over pretty much the rest of the mutual range of the two anomalies except for a very short period of agreement in mid-WWII, where one might have been forgiven for a maximum disagreement given the chaotic nature of the world at war. One must conclude, based on either one, that it is 99% certain that the other one is incorrect.
Or, of course, that they are both incorrect. Further, one has to wonder about the nature of the errors that result in a split that is so clearly resolved once one puts them on an equal footing across the stretch where one can best believe that they are accurate. Clearly it is an error that is a smooth function of time, not an error that is in any sense due to accuracy of coverage of the (obviously strongly overlapping) data.
This result just makes me itch to get my hands on the data sets and code involved. For example, suppose that one feeds the same data into the two algorithms. What does one get then? Suppose one keeps only the set of sites that are present in 1880 when the two have mutually overlapping application (or better, from 1850 to the present) and runs the algorithm on them. How much do the results split from a) each other; and b) the result obtained from using all of the available sites in the present? One would expect the latter, in particular, to be a much better estimator of the probable method error in the remote past — if one uses only those sites to determine the current anomaly and it differs by (say) 0.5 C from what one gets using all sites, that would be a very interesting thing in and of itself.
Finally, there is the ongoing problem with using anomalies in the first place rather than computing global average temperatures. Somewhere in there, one has to perform a subtraction. The number you subtract is in some sense arbitrary, but any particular number you subtract comes with an error estimate of its own. And here is the rub:
The place where the two global anomalies develop their irreducible split is square inside the mutually overlapping part of their reference periods!
That is, the one place they most need to be in agreement, at least in the sense that they reproduce the same linear trends, that is, the same anomalies is the very place where they most greatly differ. Indeed, their agreement is suspiciously good — as far as linear trend is concerned – everywhere else, in particular in the most recent present where one has to presume that the anomaly is most accurately being computed and the most remote past where one expects to get very different linear trends but instead get almost identical ones!
I doubt that anybody is still reading this thread to see this — but they should.
Finally, to George E. Smith:
(along with more about how it is not obviously logarithmic). I’ve posted the figure where one can fit HadCRUT4 with a log function from 1850 to the present with rather excellent agreement, within an apparent oscillatory correction of around 0.1 C plus some noise many times in the past at this point, and I know you have seen it, so you are simply pretending you haven’t in your reply. Over the last 30 years, sure, it isn’t distinguishable from a linear trend given natural variability and probable climate sensitivity. Over the last 165 years, it fits pretty well with very reasonable numbers for both. Over the last 2000 years, it probably doesn’t fit too well. Or rather, (as the discussion above makes clear) we cannot say how well it does or does not fit, because one thing that is clear is that the two global anomaly computations examined in some detail in this very reply are mutually inconsistent in a way that makes them very dubious in their extension back into the early 20th and 19th centuries and utterly inexplicable across the overlapping part of their anomaly reference periods. One has to conclude that the error in the anomaly reference temperatures themselves is at least 0.2 C, and is quite probably several times that given only two samples. IMO the probable error scaling across the reference overlap into the past, allowing from data overlap, makes the probable mutual method error in the 19th and early 20th century closer to 0.5 to 0.6 C than 0.3 C, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were a full 1 C.
If it anywhere near this, then we literally have no idea how much the Earth has warmed from the mid-19th century to the present. It could be anywhere from 1.5 C to 0.2 C. In this case we have no idea what a “good fit” to the anomaly might look like, and the apparent logarithmic fit to CO2 concentration could end up being either an accident or being adequately well fit with a TCS as small as 0.5 C per doubling. And the sad thing is that there is no point in even trying to fit TCS across an interval outside of the satellite era where UAH, HadCRUT4 and GISS have linear trends in close agreement with each other, where all three produce a linear trend of roughly 0.5 C over 36 years, or around 0.14 C/decade. Across this interval, it is pointless to even try a log fit, and it is quite impossible to resolve the effects of natural things like ENSO from some underlying CO2-driven fraction of the trend since we don’t know how to compute or predict either one and the interval is far too short, and noisy, to have any hope of success if we did.
rgb
NOAA/USHCN hides its raw data, which looks like this:
http://40.media.tumblr.com/00cfc3dc0cdc552e62c2d2be2e31b025/tumblr_inline_nvhsnjKEiR1qij8k6_500.png
dbstealey, that’s not quite correct. That is my graph of USClimate Reference Network data, which while not hidden, is not used in public press releases. They prefer the old messed up network that requires adjustments to make their public pronouncements.
My misteak, then. I got that chart and the info from another site, which it seems was copied from here. I’ll check to see if they gave WUWT credit for the chart.
In checking, the chart (which I missed the first time around) was on a site (FLM) that got it from another blog: Poor Richard’s News, which in turn got it from the Powerline blog.
WUWT is getting widely read!
Perhaps I can do something about this.☺
Thank you very much!
Oceans…..they can’t just create heat…..at least not the amount claimed
….just move it around….
So where does the cold go…when the claim all this heat from an El Nino?
The nino takes warm water that has been stacked to some depth by mechanical action of wind and spreads it out over the ocean surface so it transfers enthalpy more efficiently to the atmosphere. That’s easy. More difficult is to explain why ninos are associated with a rise in global mean sea level.
That warm water stacked to depth before the nino and frittering away its time in an inefficient surface area to volume conduction to surrounding sea water is displacing colder water. The colder water returns when the warm water resumes its rightful place on the surface of the ocean.
Give or take a seemingly small effect of pressure at depth on thermal displacement (compared with the volume of the oceans) why should ninos cause GMSL to rise?
That warm water ………. is displacing colder water.
Exactly my question….neither warm or cold water is invented…..they are both there, just moved around.
…excellent point on GMSL too
The oceans don’t create heat they only transfer energy between the atmosphere and the liquid water. The energy created is from solar energy and the change in the trade winds decides whether this excess solar energy is distributed within the upper ocean or accumulated across the ocean surface. When it is distributed in the upper ocean caused by upwelling, it is this colder water from lower depths that reaches the ocean surface.
When across the ocean surface it quickly affects global atmospheric temperatures and is released to space eventually much quicker. When stored in upper ocean it remains and is not released to space or at least only very slowly to the atmosphere. It moves in the ocean current away from the Topics around the world eventually via the AMOC. Hence, it eventually is transferred between the Pacific ocean and the Atlantic ocean. One observed warmer ocean current part of the AMOC in the Arctic depths only lost 0.5 c over 7 years. That’s when the warmer ocean current was in it’s possible coldest place on the planet too.
Cold upwelling water in the Tropics is warmed by solar energy and moved too quickly via strong trade winds to warm at the surface. How much they move around determines how much they are actually warmed by solar energy. The more water in the Tropics is warmed it expands and this depends on the amount of cloud cover. The changes in the trades winds are the reason why they cause sea levels to rise.
I think if you just defund the scientists that are beeing funded to “prove” the political based UNFCCC scientifically. I think the problem then will just go away?
October Updates:
RSS: It has a 10 month average of 0.33, tying it for third with 2005. There is no way it will get above third place in 2015. As for 2016? Who knows? October 2015, with an anomaly of 0.440, was the second warmest October behind October 1998 which had an anomaly of 0.461. Its pause extends by one month to 18 years and 9 months from February 1997 to October 2015.
UAH6.0beta3: It had the warmest October ever in 2015. It ranks third at present and as with RSS, there is no way that it will finish higher than third.
Hadsst3: It also had its warmest October ever. It is guaranteed to set a new record this year.
Hadxxxx was guaranteed to set new records , right from the beginning of the year. 😉
Just like GISS..
A directive !
So far, GISS is “only” 0.06 above its 2014 record, but Hadcrut4 is 0.14 above its 2014 record! So if we assume an error bar of 0.10, then Hadcrut4 can even say they are 97% certain that 2015 is a new record.
I must have slightly different RSS numbers to you as well.
Here is what I get on a “Year to end of October” basis.
1998 0.609
2010 0.511
2005 0.349
2015 0.332
2002 0.331
2003 0.304
2007 0.287
2014 0.254
2001 0.235
2013 0.232
Looks like I’m going to have to check for any minor changes since whenever I last grabbed RSS.
I’ve just been adding the new value each month.
We are talking about two different things. I am comparing the present average of 0.33 after 10 months to the 12 month average of all other years. So while it may have been 0.609 to the end of October in 1998, it was 0.55 when counting all 12 months.
1 {1998, 0.550},
2 {2010, 0.472},
3 {2005, 0.33},
4 {2003, 0.32},
5 {2002, 0.315},
6 2014: 0.255
“I am comparing the present average of 0.33 after 10 months to the 12 month average of all other years”
hmmm. not sure that is a valid comparison.. but , ok. ! 🙂
In my opinion, there are different valid ways to present data. The reason I do it my way is that it is easiest for me and the last line of the table always gives the rank if the average anomaly given in the row above stays that way for the rest of the year.
Or this one
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Actually when you think about it they are all pretty similar looking.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201501-201509.gif
NCEP real time figures put 2015 at 0.23 Octobre 0.495.
Thanks to WeatherBell and Ryan Maue.
Slimon.. do you have a coherent comment to make ?
AndyG55
Do you have a coherent point to make, simple simon?
Assuming you can read graphs… yes I do. It’s getting warmer and all the land based datasets show it clearly. I could put a few more up if you want. Hell, even Roy’s UAH just recorded the hottest October ever. But you probably believe they are all manipulated to ensure the left wing evil plan of robbing money from the rich can go ahead. Dang clever fraud if they get away with it. Particularly with all the sharp eyed bloggers here watching.
Just look at the graph, it’s easier.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png
HadCRUT is a work of anti-science fiction, but even with its cooked to a crisp books, the slope and duration of the late 20th century warming still resembles those of the early 20th century warming, separated by the mid-century cooling interval, in the process of being air-brushed out of existence, as in photos of Soviet leaders.
The early 18th century warming, rebounding from the Maunder Minimum depths of the LIA, was even more pronounced than the two cycles of the 20th century.
Thus the null hypothesis can’t be rejected and there is no human GHG “footprint”.
Nice references. Did you draw that last one with your new crayon set? Why don’t you go to Dr.Curry’s blog for a lesson on the differences in all the pretty colored graphs, hmmm? Or better yet go home to your uneducated ilk at Hot Wopper.
Mark T November 6, 2015 at 7:01 pm
No, that is one of the UK Met Office’s Hadley Center and University of East Anglia’s (UEA) – Climatic Research Unit (CRU) surface Temperature [graph]. You can find it, along with a number of other temperature graphs, on the WUWT Global Temperature Reference Page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/global-temperature/
You can access the original of that graph here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Do you have a coherent point to make, simple simon?
Werner Brozek writes: “We are talking about two different things. I am comparing the present average of 0.33 after 10 months to the 12 month average of all other years. So while it may have been 0.609 to the end of October in 1998, it was 0.55 when counting all 12 months.”
Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t this demonstrate that the science is not settled?
I won’t even ask which RSS data set you’re using, though I would like to know that and also why you’ve chosen that set. I can say there seems to be some debate over which RSS data set is the corect one to use, and even more debate about whether the RSS data shoud be used at all.
I was recently confronted by an alarmist who cited quotes of a Dr. Carl Mears, a VP of RSS, who apparently believes the data provided by RSS is pure junk unsuitable for use as fish wrap. I was a little surprised by this until fining he was still working on his High School Diploma while I was doing medium altitude atmosphere research for NOAA in 1979.
He seems dedicated to the idea that ground based thermometer data is superior to satellite data, in the face of all the criticisms of GISS & etc. that justified RSS in the first place. He wasn’t an original member of the teams who flew the MSU/AMSU instruments, but seems to have made a career of undermining them since joining RSS in 1998. I don’t understand his motives or why RSS keep him on the pay role? Is his job to justify continued funding by trying to demonstrate the most expensive, most accurate atmospheric monitoring system ever invented in the history of the human race just isn’t good enough? What is this guy’s problem?
As for my method of comparing the year to date rank, there are different ways of looking at it and either way is OK in my opinion. After 12 months, they have to agree anyway so I do not see an issue here.
As far as I know, there is only one RSS data set and I give it in the report. Here it is again:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
As for Dr. Mears reaction, I believe he wants to believe in CAGW is is embarrassed that his own data set does not support that view. He should be respected for not trying to fudge things so RSS agrees with his view. But regardless what he thinks, UAH6.0beta3 agree with him so it seems as if both are right. They also agree very well with the old Hadcrut3 which is now obsolete.
“If you are still reading this” – ha ha. Made me laugh. I will still be reading this come Monday morning. I’m sure this will take several reads to start to understand. But hey the weather outside isn’t conducive to hiking or cycling where I live so thanks for a good weekend read.
☺ Keep in mind this is a reprint of a comment he made later on in an earlier post.
Well, RGB’s comment in this post is another worth re-reading and preserving. His point (which he wrote in boldface) that the climate models have never been demonstrated to have predictive value is a major point.
It’s not that complicated.
1. Mankind’s contribution to the earth’s CO2 balance is trivial.
2. CO2’s contribution to earth’s heat balance is trivial.
3. GCM’s don’t work.
WUWT is back!
•A cartoon that illustrates the failings of the climate models.
•A good discussion of the chaotic nature of the climate
•Some actual real world data.
•And a thought provoking question.
Best post for ages.
I’ve often made the point that the human brain can’t be modelled so why should the climate be more simple (so many different parts). But the control knob answer is always used… that CO2 will dominate all others.
There’s just no evidence for that though.
MCourtney – Agreed, and Seconded!
Dr. Brown – Reading your re-posted dissertation (that I sadly missed the first time – somehow) I am struck by your ability to provide a complex set of thoughts and processes in a manner that any student (such as most readers here really are) may begin to understand. I fell I am still in the classroom, with you up there providing the lecture! Thought-provoking, in-depth, and educational experience on this end. This is the type of discourse I crave as I come to WUWT again and again. It never ceases to amaze me that any thoughtful and intelligent person continues to believe that CO2 is the ‘control knob’, the be all and end all of all changes in our climate let alone transient weather patterns. Let’s not even mention the hijacking of climate science by do-gooders such as the UN, and the infiltration (resurrection?) of the socialist movements in the same.
Science Uber Alles!
MCR
I certainly identify with this comment. When I leave a post temporarily, I copy and paste the last URL and continue from there at a later time. So unless I am really interested in a topic, I will not go back through over 300 comments to see if there was a new reply to someone upthread. For what it is worth, I liked the old system better.
The old system was better.
I’ve taken to doing a CTRL+F on the recent dates to pick out the recent comments (e.g. November 5 for a 2nd November post).
That works well for many cases. For people not familiar with it, if I press ctrl and F, and type in “brozek”, I could get 20 cases and I could scroll through them one by one. However if I go for lunch and then want to see what came between 1:00 PM and 1:59 PM and if I punch in “november 6, 2015 at 1”, I could get 80 responses covering everything from november 6 from 10:00AM to 1:59 PM and only 7 might be from between 1 and 2.
To W. Brozek below.. I find it is easiest for me to just open each article in a new tab, so I usually have 10 tabs open at the same time with various other pages and just check back and forth as I get time !! Simple, but then, so am I !! LOL
To point 5, Geothermal Energy, please add: exchange of gases into/out solution for subsurface flows of water. The amount of water flow that is part of the hydrothermal vent system must be enormous and given their temperature the amount of gas exchange must be monumental. This hydrology seems to be unstudied.
Can you provide further detail, a reference to illustrate the point you are making, and an explanation of how it influences Earth’s climate?
Currently included on the Reference Page is:
Geothermal Heat also flows through Hydrothermal Vents;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent
which can be a factor in Hydrothermal Circulations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_circulation
Good one. This climate model water vapor control knob goes to 11.
https://youtu.be/KOO5S4vxi0o
” They are born out of energy in flow, and “evolve” so that the ones that move energy most efficiently survive and grow.”
Why? What selection “pressure” favors thermodynamic efficiency? What cares about efficiency?
Great post.
After reading this article, do you think climate science is settled? If not, do you think it will be settled in your lifetime?
There was a period after “Climategate” in 2009 maybe I should say era, where there was a lot of navel gazing and questioning in the media from climate change promoters asking why their message wasn’t getting out. In the last several months, or maybe a year or so, that seems to have disappeared. It’s as if word came down from on high to, “Stop that, get with the program.” and oh by the way start a scorched earth policy with regard to those who aren’t on board. So the whining has stopped, Exxon is being investigated, Philippe Verdier fired, Williy Soon villified, a letter with 20 signatures requesting a RICO investigation of probably even me, and so on.
So I was optimistic after 2009 that the whole thing would collapse of its own weight. Now I am much more pessimistic. The phrase “Too big to fail” seems to apply. The Climate Change Business Journal which seems to be a legitimate organization reports that Climate Change has a $1.5 Trillion dollar economic foot print. These people aren’t going to go quietly into the night ever.
An absolute explosion needs to occur. Climate scientists lying under oath, and the public knows it, might have an effect. I doubt that the actual climate not cooperating will do anything, it hasn’t so far. A real war courtesy of the Islamic Crazies, and “Climate Change” will be forgotten, but I’m not wishing for that.
I think we are headed for a long period of draconian environmentalism, a “You haven’t seen nuthin’ yet” sort of thing. Sorry to be so pessimistic.
So RBG, thanks for asking the question allowing me to vent a bit.
If another liberal gets into the White House in 2017, America is doomed !!!
Unfortunately, I think ONLY liberals are running for office, on both sides of the ticket.
The list of variables doesn’t have a specific bullet for The Moon … our nearest neighbor and clearly one of the more influential gravitational modulators. Tides… anyone? While one might dismiss tides as having influence over climate, if you look inward, aren’t the tidal influences at least as numerically significant as say “Earth’s ephemeris parameters” (ellipticity, precession, nutation, and so forth…)
You asked for extra bullets, so there you be. The Moon.
Let’s see another one. Aerosols … they’re a sufficiently ‘compact group’ that taken as a whole subject, they probably warrant a bullet. Hugely influential on the genesis of clouds (nucleation), and themselves having both provenance and persistence that is influenced heavily by insolation, temperature, local air pressure, and time … well, they’re important. All by themselves.
Unfortunately, (10) thru (13) cover “almost everything” if you want to take them at face value. Aerosols, The Moon, and most of the prior part of the list too. A little too big to be useful (if (1) thru (9) are there!)
GoatGuy
I really did not mean extra bullets, but things that affect climate that were not covered. And the moon and aerosols are certainly there, for example:
2. Orbital Energy, Orbital Period, Orbital Spiral, Elliptical Orbits (Eccentricity), Tilt (Obliquity), Wobble (Axial precession) and Polar Motion;
This Tidal Force is influenced by variations in Lunar Orbit;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
as seen in the Lunar Phases;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase
Lunar Precession;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_precession
Lunar Node;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_node
8. Atmospheric Composition
Aerosols;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol
that “act as cloud condensation nuclei, they alter albedo (both directly and indirectly via clouds) and hence Earth’s radiation budget, and they serve as catalysts of or sites for atmospheric chemistry reactions.”
“Aerosols play a critical role in the formation of clouds;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouds
Sorry old bean… I was just reading the bullet list from the top of this blog post. I didn’t have “the hour” or two to invest in the whole article. My apologies.
GoatGuy
I know this is a very heavy post, especially if you are a new reader and did not see that post the first time. I was actually wondering if I should have asked Just The Facts to reprint his post again a week before mine.
Werner Brozek and Robert Brown,
This column is a little dense. So it is going to take me a little longer than usual to read and understand it all. I do like your proposition of items 13 &14 as variables, and I think, since the computer models are so daft, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns may have more impact…. sun… water…
now I have to continue the reading….
Add Hurst Kolmogorov dynamics (aka climate persistence) where real systems show standard deviations about twice that found by assuming random stochastic processes.
Yup. Again, climate statistics is a lot more difficult than many of the papers addressing the subject allow for. This isn’t always true – there are some good papers out there. But there isn’t an elephant in this particular room — there is a herd of the damn things, all being ignored in order to maintain the assertions of high confidence that support the trillion dollar hysteria.
Climate science isn’t about science or statistics. It is about money. All about money.
rgb
Yes, good one, added under section 12. Physics:
Hurst-Kolmogorov Dynamics
http://www.academia.edu/1243075/Orbital_climate_theory_and_Hurst_Kolmogorov_dynamics
“also known as long-term persistence.” “Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics describes the scaling behaviour in natural processes. It can be perceived as the tendency of high or low values of natural events to group. Scaling behaviour can produce frequent and strong “trends”in a process, in contrast to white noise.” “The Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics, also known as long-term persistence,has been detected in paleo-climate reconstructions, dating back to 3,000ky.”
Dr B I love your work. Your clarity must come from many years of teaching and being challenged by students.
Many thanks
Call me a cynic, but I don’t believe climate science will be “settled” in my lifetime. Western citizens are too happy and distracted, fat and wealthy, and willfully ignorant to overcome the decades of green-brainwashing. People with no basis in the physical sciences have Faith that climate scientists are telling it straight, and these people represent the vast majority. “Climate change” has replaced original sin. Ignorant well-meaning citizens will continue to vote for politicians who push the green agenda because they Believe it is the moral thing to do. Most of these citizens are also totally ignorant of economics and they swallow every spoonful of green energy tripe.
Recently elected King Trudeau II changed the name of Canada’s ministry of environment to the ministry of environment and CLIMATE CHANGE. The public’s reaction? PRAISE! Ontario electricity prices have tripled in the last decade, now the Liberals can roll out green BS across the country! Huzzah!!!
If Obama isn’t able to destroy the U.S. economy, future Queen Hillary will continue his legacy.
Many commenters on this site believe the tide of public perception is turning in favour of reason and skepticism. I think that is wishful thinking which hasn’t been confirmed by observation.
AND.. The socialist/Marxists have been voted in in Alberta recently.
The ministers have ultra left wing Chiefs-of-staff.
All anti-oil and anti-pipeline anti everything re fossil fuels.
Oh I forgot; Not anti carbon tax or not anti CCS
While the Alberta premier is against Keystone, Trudeau is for it. And ironically, they may get it sooner than the conservatives because the new provincial NDP and the new federal liberals are so green.
I doubt “social license” would be the true basis for Obama’s Keystone decision. It’s about money and power. The U.S. has built 12,000 miles of new pipeline in the last 5 years while elevating Keystone to pariah status. Obama’s rejection of Keystone (today) is a political move, whereby he has license to add a feather to his climate cap for preventing further spread of the dirty evil tar-sands.
@Werner
P.S. Thank you for your article, and thank you for being so active in the comments! This is the sort of practical integrity that is so rarely seen (from non-skeptics).
You are welcome! If possible, I believe all writers should be available to answer all questions and be available to correct errors if they are pointed out.
Agreed, the hysteria is uncontested in the NZ media. The skeptical viewpoint isn’t even mentioned any more, except in readers’ comments.
@ NZ Willy
I observe the same thing in most Canadian press.
As far as (most) politicians are concerned, CAGW skeptics are a bigoted special interest group because they don’t tow the “progressive” line. Whether it be politicians becoming more pragmatic or the dim electorate gaining the power of objective thought, I will not be holding my breath for society to see “climate change” for what it is – an unsolved, highly politicized question. The question of climate change has become politicized to the point where objective falsifiable scientific data is irrelevant, because the scientifically illiterate democratic majority has already been greenly convinced, and they will continue to vote for their green champions until a real pragmatic leader/statesman emerges who is able to convince them otherwise. I doubt such a leader could gain or maintain popularity for very long, E.g. Aussie PM ousted. Public belief in CAGW is rampant. We need the next Martin Luther to help these lost “souls”. I hope such a champion will emerge.
Winston Churchill is credited with the quote that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”. History suggests this is true in politics and totally backwards for science. Consensus based science = backward thinking.
“While the Alberta premier is against Keystone, Trudeau is for it.”
Is that actually true, or just what Trudeau says because he needs to say such things to get elected? There is a huge difference. If he really wants it gone, but it’s not politically possible for him to do so, day one could be a call with Obama saying “I’d have no objections if you kill this thing once and for all.”
As far as I know, this is true. Even now, he expresses disappointment in Obama’s decision although Trudeau respects Obama’s right to make that decision. But as for the new Alberta premier, the day after the election she said she will work with Trudeau on pipelines so it does not look as if she wants to get in his way. But she will not go to Washington to push it, unlike the previous conservative premier.
If the science is settled? I am not even sure it is settled that it is a valid scientific theory! Which falsifiable predictions has been made? Which observations would falsify the theory?
Everything seems to be allowed by this theory: more rain and less rain, more wind and less wind, more ice and less ice and the oceans are rising anyhow. A theory which allows everything explains nothing. Rising temperature, non rising temperature, I guess they could even make an ad hoc excuse for falling temperatures:
“Ocean warming dominates the total energy change inventory, accounting for roughly 93% on average from 1971 to 2010. The upper ocean (0-700 m) accounts for about 64% of the total energy change inventory. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers) accounts for 3% of the total, and warming of the continents 3%. Warming of the atmosphere makes up the remaining 1%.”
(Ref: Contribution from Working group I; On the scientific basis; to the fifth assessment report by IPCC)
The heat capacity of the oceans is about 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. This means that an amount of energy, which would be sufficient to warm the atmosphere by 1 K, would only be sufficient to warm the oceans by 0.001 K.
This further means that any lack of warming of the atmosphere can be excused by claiming a minuscule change in the temperature of the oceans. A change so miniscule that it cannot be measured. If we add to it that there does not exists a reliable historical temperature record of the oceans, it becomes clear that the Global Warming theory put forward by United Nations isn´t falsifiable.
It is then time to turn to Karl Popper for a take on scientific theories. Karl Popper was the mastermind behind the modern scientific method – Popper´s empirical method. Quotes are from his book “The logic of Scientific Discovery”
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
(First 26 pages should do, easy reading, and soothing – from a master mind)
“But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of demarcation. In other words: I shall not require of a scientific system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.»
In short – if it isn´t falsifiable, if no testable and falsifiable predictions are made, it isn´t scientific.
The hypothesis of man-made GHG, catastrophic global warming does make predictions, which have repeatedly been shown false.
The air has not warmed more and before the surface, as the hypothesis requires.
No tropical tropospheric hot spot, as per models.
No global warming for the first 32 years after WWII, despite prediction of warming from rapidly rising CO2 levels.
No global warming since the ’90s, despite even more rapidly rising CO2 levels.
For starters.
Massive fail. Falsified. Big time.
PS:
Major parts of the globe cooling, such as Antarctica, despite supposedly well-mixed CO2.
I think the main problem is the failure by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to search for and acknowledge falsifying experiences:
Again some words from Karl Popper – The master mind behind the Modern Scientific method – The hypotetico – deductive method (Popper called it the empirical method):
“… it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible”
“the empirical method shall be characterized as a method that excludes precisely those ways of evading falsification which … are logically possible. According to my proposal, what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but … exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival.”
Has United Nations – IPCC added hypothesis – in ad hoc manners?
Oh yes:
Kevin Trenberth introduced the ad hoc hypothesis that the expected warming of the atmosphere went into the oceans:
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?…The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
– Kevin E. Trenberth
(Dr. Kevin Trenberth was a lead author of the IPCC’s 2nd, 3rd and 4th Assessment Reports.)
In his paper, Trenberth and collaborators argue that the ‘missing’ heat is sequestered in the ocean, below 700 m. His paper was called: “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content” (Geophysical research letters – first published 10 May 2013)
I think the phrase “scientists do not usually proceed in this way” is key to understand the misconduct by IPCC. United Nations did not create a scientific body – United Nations created a biased beast – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. On which United Nations enforced:
– a mission
– the unscientific principle of consensus
– an approval process and organization principle which, by it´s nature, diminish dissenting views.
Ref: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
We are not dealing with scientist – we are dealing with justificationists and inductivists.
Justificationists and inductivists will not look for falsifying experiences – and if a falsifying experience is presented to them they will start looking for ad hoc excuses.
We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
– Albert Einstein
Correction: The paper I refer to was not the original paper where the ad hoc excuse was introduced. But section 1. introduction gives a good overview of how the issue was approached:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf
“increasing greenhouse gases should have led to increasing warming. However, sea surface temperature increases stalled in the 2000s and this is also reflected in upper ocean heat content for the top 700 m in several analyses. Although the energy imbalance from 1993 to 2003 could be accounted for, it was not possible to explain the energy imbalance from 2004–2008. This led to the concept of “missing energy”.” (References and acronyms are removed for clarity)
Clearly – the falsifying experience lead to a search for excuses and ad hoc hypothesis.
So by United Nations theory, energy is supposed to be:
– be trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere – but fails to warm it
– pass the upper 700 meter of the oceans – without warming it
– hide in the deep oceans below 700 meters
( where we don´t have proper data and where it cannot be measured )
“Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
– Alice in Wonderland.
“More is different”
Also,
“Less is more” (Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe (1886-1969))
Therefore,
“Less is different” (more or less)
Werner, you say….
“The UAH average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.225. This would rank it as 3rd place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.483. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.742. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.188 and it was ranked 5th.”
I have 0.245 for UAH 2015 to date (end of October) 3rd place
On a “year to end of October” basis, which is the only comparison one should really make..
I get 1998 anomaly as 0.543, and 2014 as 0.180 in 7th place.
Just wondering why our values differ?
Here’s what I get on a “Year to end October” basis from UAH global
1998 0.543
2010 0.386
2015 0.245
2002 0.223
2005 0.214
2007 0.195
2014 0.180
2003 0.169
2013 0.150
2006 0.115
This was to the end of September.
I agree. (Hadcrut4 is very slow! That is why RSS is out of date.)
As for my other numbers, they are all 12 month averages:
UAH6.0beta3
1st 1998 0.482
2nd 2010 0.344
3rd 2002 0.213
4th 2005 0.200
5th 2014 0.188
6th 2003 0.184
7th 2007 0.162
8th 2013 0.140
9th 2006 0.115
10th 2001 0.115
11th 2009 0.102
Ok, our UAH V6b3 whole year numbers match reasonably well. 🙂
1998 0.483
2010 0.343
2002 0.213
2005 0.201
2014 0.187
2003 0.184
2007 0.161
2013 0.139
2001 0.116
2006 0.116
2009 0.100
And what a TINY sample this is! Which makes the entire thing rather silly.
I think a good example of Self-organization in chaos is the Hilsch vortex tube and I have always wondered if something similar was going on in the earths climate.
“The hilsch vortex tube, cools and heats air at the SAME time with no moving parts, and NO electricity. cool huh? it’s quite simple, and only a matter of getting the dimensions right! Not to mention the ability to produce EXTREME temperatures! all that’s needed is compressed air!”
http://www.instructables.com/id/The-Hilsch-vortex-tube/
I would add another one. we must be able to measure accurately that which are making judgement upon.
You simply cannot understand the nature of any change if you cannot measure that change in a manner that has scientific validity , you can only ‘guess it ‘
Science 101 , no matter how fancy your model or theory are , it gets down to your ability to see and know things .
Note that these influences …
“6. Outer Space/Cosmic/Galactic Effects”
… challenge the very notion of self-organizing weather or climate structures. In fact, a review of the anomalies associated with lightning …
1. The failure to identify a “seed” of sufficient power to cause it;
2. Its association with the solar wind;
3. The recent observations of a connection with space (sprites, etc);
4. And its still-unexplained emissions;
5. It’s association with the Van Allen radiation belts
… plainly suggest that these electrons might very well come from space, and are merely guided through the thunderclouds because the clouds offer the path of least resistance.
It’s something that everybody should be keeping in mind — as most of our theories for space originated at a time when it was thought that space was an empty vacuum. We learned that was not true in 1959 with the first rocket, of course. Space is a plasma; it’s not empty.
Then there is the issue of where our little star and its captive planets are in relation to that giant monster nearby which is mostly concealed by thick layers of cosmic dust: the Milky Way which is actually this devouring entity that is eating all the things trapped in its gravitational pool and our little star has been captured by this giant and for the last several billion years has been steadily drawn inwards, bit by bit.
Sometimes, we are surrounded by lots of cosmic debris and other times, clean sailing with nothing to disturb our solar system. Certainly, nothing is stationary.
From the way they got out of the embarrassing pause, there is no doubt in my mind what ‘control knobs’ are in climate science. The IPCC actually made it their job description.
PS, this rgb is an international treasure (I’m not American). Like his other contributions, I’m going to have to read this carefully and frequently. I’d hate to have to sit a 3 hr exam in one of his classes unless somehow I could get a week’s head start!
Since people are self-organized chaotic systems whose behavior cannot be predicted by measuring their physical parts we’ve developed soft sciences like psychology and sociology in which the parts studied are situations and behaviors which can be observed to conform to rules that exist at the level at which we exist. Since climate is also a self organized chaotic system why don’t we do the same for it? For instance meteorology is anchored at our level of existence by the need to make sufficiently accurate predictions or be discarded as worthless. Why not expand the scope of meteorology to include observations of past meteorological events and trends to inform the future. Call it paleo-meteorology or geo-meteorology or whatever. I know they already do that with correlating say sunspot activity and weather . . . and get laughed at for doing so. And true, psychology and sociology aren’t exactly great predictors of what people will do and so geo-meteorology probably wouldn’t be a great predictor of what climate will do either but It would still probably be better than what we’re currently doing and it wouldn’t have the undeserved patina of hard irrevocable deterministic science that’s being used to persuade people now.
This fixation on analyzing the minor fluctuations in the temperature of the atmosphere, whether at the surface boundary layer, or higher up where the satellites are recording temps seems completely misplaced to me. Thank you RGB for your cogent points about chaotic processes and energy/heat transfer.
The recent NOAA response to the Congressional inquiry made the point that the satellite data are irrelevant because humans live on the surface and that’s where we “live, work and grow our food…” Good grief. Could there be a more ignorant point of view? Maybe we should also simply drop out all the sea surface data, since most of us don’t live there–of course then the hiatus is preserved and we can’t have that.
Careful scientists are forced to conclude that this climate science arena is populated by poorly trained, second rate practitioners (good evidence supports this) with little appreciation for the scale of the problem that is “settled” in their view. The alternative, more disheartening notion is that there are decent scientists studying the climate who have been corrupted by the cause and the gravy train. Either way, it’s extremely damaging to the scientific enterprise.
I remain fascinated by this very thorny problem of energy absorption and release in the Earth’s climate system. As RGB points out, these periodic, quasi-predictable events such as the ENSO are ignored by modelers when they should instead be studied in detail to understand their development and dissipation. The heat content represented by an ENSO event is stunningly large. From where does it arise? It seems clear that this energy eventually finds its way off the planet. It seems that this would be a net cooling event with profound implications for the energy of the system.
Measuring total heat content of the planet and its variation seems to me to be the more appropriate goal. The vast heat sinks of the deep oceans and polar ice are where the action is. Arguing about the accuracy of averaging readings from a handful of thermometers measuring the air at airports near large cities or whether sparse buoys or water intakes are the better measure of sea surface temperatures are distractions from the real and very difficult problem of understanding the system.
There are lots of global/climate heat balances available as Bing images.
IPCC AR5 attributes 2 W/m^2 of unbalancing RF due to the increased CO2 concentration between 1750 and 2011. In the overall global heat balance 2 W (watt is power, not energy) is lost in the magnitude and uncertainty of: ToA, 340 +/- 10, fluctuating albedo of clouds, snow and ice, and the absorption and release of heat from evaporation and condensation of the ocean and water vapor cycle. (IPCC AR5 Ch 8, FAQ 8.1)
If you know some more that should be added, please let us know.
You could add land/ocean arrangements and mean land elevation.
Lunar possible influences.
The rogue extra terrestrial impact which must have happened from time to time.
Agree plate tectonics should be on the list. Arguably the effects of that process are subsumed under other factors listed, but IMO it’s so important in the formation of ice house and hot house periods that it merits its own bullet point or equivalent.
They are all already on the reference page;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/research-pages/potential-climatic-variables/
e.g. here’s what we have for “land/ocean arrangements and mean land elevation.”
Earth’s gravity is the primary driver of Plate Tectonics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
“It involves the shifting of about a dozen major plates and is what causes most earthquakes”;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake
Volcanoes;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
and Mountain Formation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_formation
which can create Mountain Jets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_jet
and influence the creation of Atmospheric Waves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_wave
“The Slab Pull;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_pull
force is a tectonic plate force due to subduction. Plate motion is partly driven by the weight of cold, dense plates sinking into the mantle at trenches. This force and the slab suction force account for most of the overall force acting on plate tectonics, and the Ridge Push;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridge_push
force accounts for 5 to 10% of the overall force.”
Isostasy also exists whereby a “state of gravitational equilibrium between the earth’s lithosphere and asthenosphere such that the tectonic plates “float” at an elevation which depends on their thickness and density.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy
Plate Tectonics drive “cycles of ocean basin growth and destruction, known as Wilson cycles;
http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/fichter/Wilson/Wilson.html
involving continental rifting;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rift
seafloor-spreading;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading
subduction;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction
and collision.”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_collision
“Climate change on ultra-long time scales (tens of millions of years) are more than likely connected to plate tectonics.”
“Through the course of a Wilson cycle continents collide and split apart, mountains are uplifted and eroded, and ocean basins open and close. The re-distribution and changing size and elevation of continental land masses may have caused climate change on long time scales”;
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
a process called the Supercontinent Cycle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle
which, “has shaped the geology and climate of the earth and provided a force for biological evolution.”
http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology/bio463/Nance%20et%20al%201988%20Supercontinent%20Cycle.pdf
“There are two types of global earth climates: icehouse and greenhouse. Icehouse is characterized by frequent continental glaciations and severe desert environments. Greenhouse is characterized by warm climates. Both reflect the supercontinent cycle. We are now in a little greenhouse phase of an ice house world.
Icehouse Climate:
Continents moving together
Sea level low due to lack of seafloor production
Climate cooler, arid
Associated with aragonite seas
Formation of supercontinents
Greenhouse Climate:
Continents dispersed
Sea level high
High level of sea floor spreading
Relatively large amounts of CO2 production at oceanic rifting zones
Climate warm and humid
Associated with calcite seas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle#Relation_to_climate
“In order for climate science to be settled, there are many requirements. I will list four for now, although I am sure you can think of many more. Then I will expand on those.
1. We must know all variables that can affect climate.
2. We must know how all variables are changing over time.
3. We must know how each changing variable affects climate.
4. We must know about all non-linear changes that take place as a result of changes to variables.
###############
Wrong.
1. Epistemically no science is ever “settled”. no science ever meets
your 1-4.
2. When people refer to climate “science” being settled they mean
the following
“no working scientists find your PARTICULAR objections interesting”
For example: if you say c02 is not a GHG… sorry that question is settled.
It has been settled for a long long time. That is NOBODY who does science
for a living will waste their time challenging it.
if you say increasing C02 will not warm the planet… sorry… nobody will waste their time listening to you.
if you say… humans are not responsible for the rise in c02… working scientists will just ignore you.. or have you removed from the faculty. tough love.
Not many on WUWT listen to you Steve,
1. We must know all variables that can affect climate.
2. We must know how all variables are changing over time.
3. We must know how each changing variable affects climate.
4. We must know about all non-linear changes that take place as a result of changes to variables
Exactly 100% correct and this is why the climate models can not replicate past climate, can not forecast the present climate and will fail even more miserably going forward as the climate cools rather then warms as called for by the models.
But increasing CO2 has already repeatedly been shown not to warm the planet. That hypothesis has been falsified, ergo so-called climate science is anti-science. That is settled.
Now it may be that more CO2 does warm the planet, but the effect is not measureable, is subject to negative feedback a or is swamped by more powerful factors. Or some combination thereof. But the observed, scientific fact is that rising CO2 does not necessarily warm the planet over decades of observation.
That the settled consensus ignores and tries to change this fact just shows how corrupt the endeavor is.
Consider the past 70 years. CO2 rose rapidly from 1945 to 1977, ie almost half the study period, yet earth cooled so dramatically that scientists were concerned that a new ice age was approaching. Callendar considered his 1938 CO2 hypothesis falsified by the frigid early ’60s. Rightly so.
Climate Lysenkoists have tried rewrite, i.e. “adjust”, the history of the first three post-war decades, but NCAR’s own temperature data series from the ’70s show how cold was that period.
Then from the late ’70s to some point in the ’90s, temperature recovered slightly, thus accidentally coinciding with rising CO2. The PDO flip of ’77 is implicated.
Since the ’90s, GASTA has been flat to down in satellite observations, despite continued monotonous rise in CO2 levels. Thus the supposedly settled science is falsified.
Just because you think more GHG should cause the world to warm doesn’t mean Mother Nature has to get on board your gravy train.
I agree with all three points with respect to CO2. However what is not settled by a long shot is how much the temperature will change with a doubling of CO2. Is it between 1.5 C and 4.5 C or could it be as low as 0.5 C?
I think it is more like .2c Werner. That assumes the climate does not control the GHG effect.
Most of the estimates are between 2 and 3 C; there is this nice summary of various results a few days old at Laden’s place: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/11/03/evidence-of-high-climate-sensitivity/
He makes the interesting point that higher values (in the fat tail) have not yet been eliminated as possible. If the value turns out to be over 4, we are screwed.
traffy sez:
If the value turns out to be over 4, we are screwed.
Based on what? Your irrational fear?
Global T has been much higher than +4ºC from here, without any adverse effects. In fact, the biosphere did exceptionally well when the planet was warmer.
really traf?
Quoting greg laden????
.. gees next you will be citing SkS or some other brain-dead site !!!
So funny ! 🙂
dbstealey November 7, 2015 at 2:51 am
More projection. Everyone else disagrees with you.
You’re out of step with reality.
James McGinn:
Myself and Feynman disagree with you.
Feynman:
“Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
McGinn,
You stated before that Prof Feynman is wrong, so it’s interesting that you would use him to try and support your weird beliefs (that water vapor does not exist in the atmosphere, among others).
You have the onus of supporting your beliefs with convincing evidence and experiments. But all you do is assert. You refuse to do real world experiments, and you provide no convincing evidence of your assertion that H2O does not exist as a gas in the atmosphere.
That is an astonishing claim, which requires exceptional evidence. But all you do is insist that it’s true. That isn’t nearly good enough.
Mainstream physics says that water vapor is a component of the atmosphere. You claim it isn’t. But you have no supporting experiments or evidence, and you try to turn the Scientific Method on its head by insisting that skeptics of your conjecture have the onus of proving you wrong.
That’s backward. You have the onus of supporting your ‘no water vapor’ conjecture, not skeptics. But so far, you have failed to produce any convincing evidence.
DB,
Well said. Every actual experiment shows James’ baseless assertion false.
Here’s one using GPS satellites:
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/texas_pwv/midterm/gabor/gpsspace.html
James, please state how do you explain dew. Where do you imagine it comes from if not out of the air as it cools during the night. Fairies?
Thanks.
dbstealey:
Mainstream physics says that water vapor is a component of the atmosphere.
James McGinn:
So do I.
dbstealey:
You claim it isn’t.
James McGinn:
Stop putting words in my mouth. Quote me directly.
dbstealey:
But you have no supporting experiments or evidence, and you try to turn the Scientific Method on its head by insisting that skeptics of your conjecture have the onus of proving you wrong.
James McGinn:
If you were to claim to have seen bigfoot I wouldn’t be able to disprove that either.
dbstealey:
That’s backward. You have the onus of supporting your ‘no water vapor’ conjecture, not skeptics. But so far, you have failed to produce any convincing evidence.
James McGinn:
It’s not possible for me to dispute the existence of what has never been detected. It’s not necessary either.
You sound like an AGW advocate telling us we have to disprove the greenhouse effect.
McGinn says:
If you were to claim to have seen bigfoot I wouldn’t be able to disprove that either.
And your claim, which is contradicted by everyone who understands physics, is that water vapor does not exist in the air.
The onus is on you to support that claim. But all we get are your constant and baseless assertions. They are not supported by any verifiable, real world experiments, and modern physics experiments thoroughly refute what you claim.
Once again for the slow learners here: the onus is on you to support your claim.
dbstealey November 8, 2015 at 1:59 pm
DB:
The one thing every Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory and Law has in common is their ability to make correct predictions, repeatedly. If they don’t, their conjecture (that’s all it is if they can’t make correct predictions) has been falsified.
JM:
We could say the same of the convection model of storm theory. How, for example, can it be said to predict/explain the jet streams? It doesn’t. It fails.
The energy of storms comes from the jet steams (not convection). My theory explains the jet streams explicitly. And from there it goes on to explain all the phenomena that has been mistakenly attributed to convection.
A river that has no banks is not a river, it is a flood:
http://t.co/kxqpWcbCeN
You’re hiding out from all the evidence posted supporting the fact that H2O(g) is found throughout the atmosphere, from the poles to the tropics.
So now you’re deflecting onto convection and jet streams.
Got it.
And hey, congrats on your tough election fight! What were the vote totals again?
Steven,
Correct, but if you say that humans are responsible for all the warming since 1950 or that natural contribution to global warming has been negligible, you will find that those matters are not settled at all, and they are crucial to understand how much warming we are producing. If let’s say we are producing just 30% of observed warming, we could just sit down, relax and enjoy the weather.
Javier:
Not content with getting a mugging for posting unsubstantiated assertions on two other threads, you now say
As I have repeatedly explained to you, there is no evidence that we are producing any of the observed warming.
I stress again, there is no evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW); none zilch, nada.
If were producing as much as “30% of observed warming” then it would be discernible.
Richard
Hahahah, good joke.
How? How do you distinguish man-made from natural warming? (talking about unsubstantiated assertions).
Javier says:
How do you distinguish man-made from natural warming?
Good question. MMGW has never been quantified, so no one knows the fraction of AGW out of natural warming.
But the fact that AGW has never been measured indicates that it is too tiny to worrry about.
Javier:
You ask me
Well, you would know one of the ways if you had payed attention to the information given to you in the thread where you were thrashed for making silly and unfounded assertions.
I there told you
If you had used that link to John Daly’s excellent summary then you would have known the method used by Santer which showed there was no discernible AGW although his method would have shown AGW if it existed.
You have made many unsubstantiated and demonstrably untrue assertions but have refused to consider evidence that reveals your errors. Your question I have answered here is but one example.
Richard
“As I have repeatedly explained to you, there is no evidence that we are producing any of the observed warming.”
Like Mosh said, is any working scientist listening to you?
traffy,
I keep asking for you or anyone else to produce a measurement quantifying your “observed” man-made global warming (also called ‘dangerous AGW’; DAGW for short).
But no one has ever produced an empirical, testable, verifiable measurement quantifying the percentage of DAGW, out of global warming from all causes including the natural rebound from the LIA. There isn’t any such measurement.
Therefore, DAGW is merely a conjecture; an opinion.
Get it? No one can point to a verified measurement and say, “There it is! That’s the fraction of AGW that we’ve been telling you about!”
So what have you got, besides some indirect (model-based) evidence, and lots of (mostly bought and paid for) opinions?
trafamadore
97% of government-paid scientists believe that their next government-paycheck, their next year’s budget, their next research paper publication, and their tenture application relies SOLELY on whether or not they “believe” in CAGW.
trafamadore:
All scientists accept what the available data indicates.
Anybody who does not accept what the available data indicates is not a scientist.
There is no evidence for man-made global warming; none, zilch, nada.
If you think you have found some evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) then publish it because your finding would be the first such evidence and would certainly result in you being awarded at least one Nobel Prize.
Richard
dbstealey:
I keep asking for you or anyone else to produce a measurement quantifying your “observed” man-made global warming (also called ‘dangerous AGW’; DAGW for short).
James McGinn:
I keep asking for a measurement quantifying the notion that moist air is lighter than dry air, in the context of meterology’s storm theory.
dbstealey:
But no one has ever produced an empirical, testable, verifiable measurement quantifying the percentage of DAGW, out of global warming from all causes including the natural rebound from the LIA. There isn’t any such measurement.
James McGinn:
But no one has ever produced an empirical, testable, verifiable measurement quantifying that dry air is heavier than moist air.
dbstealey:
Therefore, DAGW is merely a conjecture; an opinion.
James McGinn:
Therefore, meteorology’s notion that moist air is lighter than dry air is merely a conjecture; an opinion.
dbstealey:
Get it? No one can point to a verified measurement and say, “There it is! That’s the fraction of AGW that we’ve been telling you about!”
James McGinn:
Get it? No one can point to a verified measurement and say, “There it is! That’s the the reason we assume moist air convects up through dry air!
dbstealey:
So what have you got, besides some indirect (model-based) evidence, and lots of (mostly bought and paid for) opinions?
James McGinn:
So what have you got, besides some indirect (model-based) evidence, and lots of (mostly bought and paid for) opinions?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/03/el-nino-events-and-drought-linked/
dbstealey:
So, if I post an experiment that was published in a peer reviewed journal demonstrating direct evidence of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere, will you concede the argument?
James McGinn:
Sure. Knock yourself out. But make sure it controls for all other factors and make sure they are specifically testing for that. Don’t be fooled by that mass spectrometer stuffs. Some of that is worse that voodoo when applied to the H2O molecule.
The simplest experiment would directly measure the weight of moist to dry air. It easy to control the variables and its very simple. And doesn’t require actually looking at the molecules, which is very difficult, maybe impossible (Heisenberg).
When you fail will you retract your claim about “millions” of experiments?
Also, before you post, if you experiment does involve spectrography I suggest you go to Roger Tall Bloke’s site (it’s a bunch of kooky engineers) and look for an article entitled: Unsettled science: Uncertainty around the continuum absorption of water vapour. Read all the comments.
dbstealey:
Next: what if the heads of M.I.T.’s, and Harvard’s, and Stanford’s, and Berkeley’s Physics and Chemistry departments all told you unequivocally that gaseous H2O (steam) is a component of the atmosphere?
James McGinn:
Sure. I would accept this. I will make it easier on you. You only have to get one of the above and I will accept that. Or you could even get any recognized meteorologists, including Anthony Watts. I will accept that. But they have to be willing to stake their reputation on it. Fair enough?
When you are unable to get any of them to address the issue (and let me assure you, they won’t) will you make a retraction of your claim that there have been millions of experiments that confirm the existence of gaseous H2O (steam) is a component of the atmosphere?
Is that not reasonable?
James McGinn
James,
I haven’t followed the whole thread, but it appears that you doubt the existence of water vapor in earth’s atmosphere. Or is it steam, ie gaseous H2O at higher temperature? I can assure you that steam does in fact exist in air, although it tends to cool quickly. I’ve put it there myself and observed it around volcanic vents. I saw steam waterfalls around Mt. St. Helens in 1980.
Cooler water vapor indubitably exists in earth’s air. Its concentration ranges from more than 400 parts per 10,000 dry air molecules in the moist tropics to just a few ppm in dry, cold polar regions, ie comparable to CO2 levels.
Every means of measuring H2O in the air shows this to be the case.
https://books.google.com/books?id=pNg6f_4-_xsC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=detecting+water+vapor+atmosphere&source=bl&ots=EDKli-uh3B&sig=JIJeSO_dVxflHCjekTkkRJVTATo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCWoVChMInuWo05r9yAIVCfVjCh3ZmgyC#v=onepage&q=detecting%20water%20vapor%20atmosphere&f=false
Gloateus Maximus:
I haven’t followed the whole thread,
James McGinn:
That is apparent.
Gloateus Maximus:
but it appears that you doubt the existence of water vapor in earth’s atmosphere. Or is it steam, ie gaseous H2O at higher temperature?
James McGinn:
I deny the existence of steam at temperatures below the boiling/pressure point.
Gloateus Maximus:
I can assure you that steam does in fact exist in air, although it tends to cool quickly. I’ve put it there myself and observed it around volcanic vents. I saw steam waterfalls around Mt. St. Helens in 1980.
Cooler water vapor indubitably exists in earth’s air. Its concentration ranges from more than 400 parts per 10,000 dry air molecules in the moist tropics to just a few ppm in dry, cold polar regions, ie comparable to CO2 levels.
Every means of measuring H2O in the air shows this to be the case.
James McGinn:
I don’t deny any of this.
You really should read the threads (see link above) before you respond. Sorry to be so obstinate.
dbstealey:
Get it? No one can point to a verified measurement and say, “There it is! That’s the fraction of AGW that we’ve been telling you about!”
James McGinn:
Get it? No one can point to a verified measurement and say, “There it is! That’s the the reason we assume moist air convects up through dry air!
Facts are irrelevant to consensus sciences.
You know you will never receive resolution on this, right?
As do I.
Now do you get it?
James McGinn
McGinn, I get this much: you are the only one who denies that convection matters.
Due to the concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, and due to the fact that the molar mass of diatomic nitrogen is 28 and that of diatomic oxygen is 32, we get an average molar mass of 29. This covers 99% of all gases so let us ignore everything else for the moment. So 1000 air molecules have an average mass of 29. But if we have 4% water vapour, then 1000 “air” molecules consist of 960 with an average mass of 29 and 40 with an average mass of 18 for water vapour. Of course this assumes the most abundant isotopes of hydrogen (1) and oxygen (16). So equal numbers of molecules of moist air are lighter than equal numbers of molecules of dry air providing the water molecules in the moist air are in the gas phase and not the liquid phase.
As far as I know, even deserts and Antarctica have relative humidities of at least 5%, so all air has water in the gas phase. And if the temperature of the Antarctic air is -50 C, then the water vapour molecules are also at -50 C. However the word “steam” seems misplaced in this case. At least I associate “steam” with water molecules coming out of a hot kettle.
Werner Brozek: November 6, 2015 at 7:53 pm
James McGinn:
I keep asking for a measurement quantifying the notion that moist air is lighter than dry air, in the context of meterology’s storm theory.
Werner Brozek:
So equal numbers of molecules of moist air are lighter than equal numbers of molecules of dry air providing the water molecules in the moist air are in the gas phase and not the liquid phase.
James McGinn:
And in the liquid phase moist air is heavier, always. Right? And since water’s gaseous phase is strictly determined by temperatures over 212 F (100 C) and since temperature of the atmosphere is always lower, moist air is heavier (not lighter) than dry air. Thus meteorology’s notion of moist air convection is resoundingly refuted.
Do you disagree with any of this, Werner?
Werner Brozek: November 6, 2015 at 8:03 pm
James McGinn:
When you are unable to get any of them to address the issue (and let me assure you, they won’t) will you make a retraction of your claim that there have been millions of experiments that confirm the existence of gaseous H2O (steam) is a component of the atmosphere?
Werner Brozek:
As far as I know, even deserts and Antarctica have relative humidities of at least 5%, so all air has water in the gas phase.
James McGinn:
Steam (gaseous H2O) only occurs above 212 F (100 C). So there is no steam in earth’s atmosphere. Thus meteorology’s notion of moist air convection is resoundingly refuted.
Werner Brozek:
And if the temperature of the Antarctic air is -50 C, then the water vapour molecules are also at -50 C. However the word “steam” seems misplaced in this case. At least I associate “steam” with water molecules coming out of a hot kettle.
James McGinn:
It’s misplaced at any ambient temperature. Moist air is heavier than dry air. The convection model of meterology’s storm theory is resoundingly refuted.
If you respond to this I would appreciate it if you made a concerted effort to remain dispassionate.
dbstealey: November 6, 2015 at 7:27 pm
dbstealey:
I get this much: you are the only one who denies that convection matters.
James McGinn:
Consensus is for suckers.
More projection. Everyone else disagrees with you.
You’re out of step with reality.
Javier says:
If let’s say we are producing just 30% of observed warming…
“If”.
That is no more than baseless speculation.
Richard,
I see. So you don’t know how to distinguish man-made from natural warming or you would be able to explain it with simple words. That’s what I thought.
Things get complicated really fast. Liquid water is way denser than the individual unattached water molecules. That is why lakes and oceans are at the bottom and air on top. However if liquid or solid water is small enough, such as with fog or hail or snow, they can easily be suspended in air until the particles of rain or hail get too large to remain suspended and fall. That is why clouds are in the sky. Normal laws of buoyancy do not apply to fine mist for example, nor do they apply to chlorofluorocarbons which is why they can end up extremely high. So density is sort of a meaningless concept if particles like fog or even solid dust are fine enough.
But as for the 100 C, that is not correct. If the Antarctic is at -50 C, then the few individual gaseous water molecules are also extremely cold. But we must be careful here! Temperature is a macroscopic property and not a microscopic property. So individual molecules cannot have a temperature, but a group of molecules can. However the speeds of individual molecules at -50 C is way lower than at 100 C. So gaseous water molecules can indeed move extremely slowly when all other molecules around them are cold.
Werner Brozek:
And in the liquid phase moist air is heavier, always. Right? And since water’s gaseous phase is strictly determined by temperatures over 212 F (100 C) and since temperature of the atmosphere is always lower, moist air is heavier (not lighter) than dry air.
Things get complicated really fast. Liquid water is way denser than the individual unattached water molecules. That is why lakes and oceans are at the bottom and air on top.
James McGinn:
Wait, wait, wait! Stop here. What you said so far is true. But it is not comprehensive. Gravity is one of many forces that play a role in our atmosphere. There is also electromagnetic forces. These are instrumental in helping heavier objects/particles stay suspended in our atmosphere. And there are winds. And there is the collective effect of these two together. Many people want us to believe that gravity is the only force that plays a role and that, therefore, all movement in the atmosphere must be described in context of (or strictly as the ultimate result of) convection/buoyancy. And it just ain’t so.
In my estimation, convection/bouyancy plays a much smaller role than most everybody else is assuming.
Werner Brozek:
However if liquid or solid water is small enough, such as with fog or hail or snow, they can easily be suspended in air until the particles of rain or hail get too large to remain suspended and fall. That is why clouds are in the sky. Normal laws of buoyancy do not apply to fine mist for example, nor do they apply to chlorofluorocarbons which is why they can end up extremely high. So density is sort of a meaningless concept if particles like fog or even solid dust are fine enough.
James McGinn:
Well stated! (What I wrote above I wrote before reading this last paragraph.)
Werner Brozek:
But as for the 100 C, that is not correct.
James McGinn:
At 1 ATM it is correct. The boiling temperature/pressure of H2O is/are immutable laws.
Werner Brozek:
If the Antarctic is at -50 C, then the few individual gaseous water molecules are also extremely cold.
James McGinn:
What you are suggesting is impossible. I repeat, the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O is/are immutable laws.
Werner Brozek:
But we must be careful here! Temperature is a macroscopic property and not a microscopic property. So individual molecules cannot have a temperature, but a group of molecules can.
James McGinn:
Sorry to be a contrarian, but you are wrong, Kinetic energy is kinetic energy. It can be speed, vibration, or spin, but it is just kinetic energy. (BTW, spin is greatly overlooked.)
Werner Brozek:
However the speeds of individual molecules at -50 C is way lower than at 100 C. So gaseous water molecules can indeed move extremely slowly when all other molecules around them are cold.
James McGinn:
Except for situations that involve spin (which is beyond the scope of our discussion) there is exactly zero gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere. See what I stated above about it being an immutable law.
Your understanding is much better than that of most people I encounter.
This whole subject has been discussed at length at the links below, follow the discussion threads to the end if you are interested.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/missing-component-found-in-the-evaporation-process-making-water-vapors-role-even-more-uncertain-in-climate-models/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/03/el-nino-events-and-drought-linked/
James,
It appears that you don’t understand evaporation, but confuse it with boiling. I refer you to Boyle’s Law, regarding temperature and pressure.
When liquid water is in contact with dry air, it is not in equilibrium; water molecules evaporate off the surface until the amount of water in the air creates enough vapor pressure to achieve equilibrium. When water is heated to a temperature of 100 degrees C, the vapor pressure equals that of sea-level air pressure.
An H2O molecule is less massive than other molecules in the air, ie N2, O2, Ar, CO2, O3, etc.
I hope this helps.
PS:
Cooler air holds less water vapor than warmer air.
Consider the dew.
I am sure you have sweated and then that sweat evaporated and your skin was dry again. Your body temperature is 37 C and not 100 C. However water molecules even evaporate when only at 1 C, although very little evaporation takes place then.
It is basic thermodynamics that if a very hot solid or liquid or gas is immersed into a cold environment, the hot object and the cold object will reach a common temperature after a while. H = mct and the total heat before equals the total heat after in a closed system.
The laws of thermodynamics are immutable laws. A boiling temperature is not a law.
See:
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Phases_of_Matter/Gases/Kinetic_Theory_of_Gases/Kinetic_Theory_of_Gases
“Thermal Energy
Keep in mind that the temperature of a gas is actually a measure of its average kinetic energy, and kinetic energy of a particle is related to its velocity according to the following equation:
KE=12mv2
where KE represents kinetic energy of a particle, m equals mass, and v2 is the square of its velocity. As velocity increases so does kinetic energy. Of course the inverse is also true, that as kinetic energy increases so does velocity. You can see from this relationship how a molecule with a higher temperature will be moving faster. The temperature of the system is the average kinetic energy of its particles. Thermal energy is the total kinetic energy of all the particles in a system. Temperature, thermal energy, and the speed of a molecule are all directly related. “
So kinetic energy only depends on speed.
Also see:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/gretchen.legler/public.www/antarcticawebsite/sci5.htm
“Antarctica is also incredibly dry-in fact it is the driest place on the planet. The average humidity is around 5-9 percent”
If the relative humidity is above 0 percent, then there are some H2O(g) in the air. It is as simple as that.
Gloateus Maximus November 7, 2015 at 10:34 am
Gloateus Maximus:
It appears that you don’t understand evaporation, but confuse it with boiling.
James McGinn:
I understand them perfectly. You appear incapable of distinguishing between them.
Gloateus Maximus:
I refer you to Boyle’s Law, regarding temperature and pressure.
When liquid water is in contact with dry air, it is not in equilibrium; water molecules evaporate off the surface until the amount of water in the air creates enough vapor pressure to achieve equilibrium. When water is heated to a temperature of 100 degrees C, the vapor pressure equals that of sea-level air pressure.
An H2O molecule is less massive than other molecules in the air, ie N2, O2, Ar, CO2, O3, etc.
James McGinn:
You appear to not have a point.
Gloateus Maximus:
I hope this helps.
James McGinn:
If you can’t even figure out what your point is that should be a clue that there is something you don’t understand.
Werner Brozek:
If the Antarctic is at -50 C, then the FEW INDIVIDUAL GASEOUS WATER MOLECULES are also extremely cold. (Emphasis mine.)
James McGinn:
What you are suggesting is impossible. The boiling temperature/pressure of H2O is/are immutable laws.
Werner Brozek:
I am sure you have sweated and then that sweat evaporated and your skin was dry again.
James McGinn:
I don’t understand how this anecdotal evidence of evaporation (which is also a thermodynamic process–false distinction) addresses my point that the existence of gaseous water in the atmosphere is impossible given that it requires temperatures over 100 C to maintain steam (gaseous H2O) and our atmosphere is never that hot.
If you are not yet aware, allow me to hereby assert to you (and anybody reading this) that nobody has yet produced any empirical evidence for the existence of gaseous H2O (Steam) in earths atmosphere (at ambient temperatures). There is widespread belief in such, but it is just that, belief. It is not verifiable science.
Werner Brozek:
A boiling temperature is not a law.
James McGinn:
It hardly matters what semantics we use. My point is that a belief in “cold steam” is but a belief unless it has been tested/verified empirically, regardless of whether it is or is not a law.
Thanks for the response. If you are inclined to continue to insist on the existence of what has never been detected empirically I can only suggest that you view the more comprehensive discussion that has already taken place at the links previously provided.
Kindest Regards,
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Werner B,
So that “self-taught” person has moved up from:
THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.
To this:
If the Antarctic is at -50 C, then the FEW INDIVIDUAL GASEOUS WATER MOLECULES are also extremely cold.
An improvement, I suppose.
Still nonsense. Water vapor is found everywhere in the atmosphere.
Werner B,
Apologies for my mistake! I thought the newbie was saying there are a few molecules of H2O in the air. My bad.
But you had set him straight:
(Even if) “…the relative humidity is above 0 percent, then there are some H2O(g) in the air. It is as simple as that.”
Water vapor is a component of the atmosphere. Just because some self-‘educated’ person says, “Is not!” means nothing.
He just fails to understand the basics.
WB:
So kinetic energy only depends on speed.
JM:
Vibration may be negligible, but I don’t think we should dismiss spin, but I don’t want to belabor the point.
WB:
If the relative humidity is above 0 percent, then there are some H2O(g) in the air. It is as simple as that.
JM:
Okay, but why assume it is gaseous? How do you know it is not, actually, H2O(L) (Or ice or superchilled H2O)? Do you see my point?
(Don’t just assume what the consensus assumes. The consensus hardly ever knows why it believes what it believes.)
dbstealey November 7, 2015 at 4:48 pm
Werner B,
So that “self-taught” person has moved up from:
THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.
To this:
If the Antarctic is at -50 C, then the FEW INDIVIDUAL GASEOUS WATER MOLECULES are also extremely cold.
James McGinn:
Those are Werner’s words, not mine.
And I’m not completely “self-taught”. I’m just not an automaton.
Yes, Werner’s words. If you notice the time stamps, I was acknowledging that at the same time you posted. I guess when you find a ‘gotcha’ you use it. Because you certainly don’t have a physics or chemistry argument.
And I should have known that your mind is closed to any possibility that gaseous H2O exists in the air. If you admitted that, your entire belief system would fall apart,
Werner:
Good point about sweat evaporating. McGinn believes that all water in the air is in its liquid state. He explains that by saying water molecules “clump” when they’re evaporated. But that is so trivially easy to debunk that I won’t even waste time on it.
We need to get two definitions straight before going any further. They are the meaning of “relative humidity” and “water vapour”.
For “relative humidity”, it is:
“Relative humidity (abbreviated RH) is the ratio of the partial pressure of water vapor to the equilibrium vapor pressure of water at the same temperature.”
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity
For “water vapor” it is:
“water vapor
n.
Water in a gaseous state, especially when diffused as a vapor in the atmosphere and at a temperature below boiling point.”
See: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/water+vapor
So you cannot escape the fact that if the relative humidity is even 1%, you have H2O(g) mixed in with the other air molecules. If what you say is true, then everything that has ever been written about relative humidity is a bunch of garbage. As well, clouds can never form higher up where it is cooler so it can never rain nor snow nor hail.
I thought I was a pretty good high school physics and chemistry teacher before I retired. Am I losing my touch?
Am I losing my touch?
Not at all, Werner. But some folks are incapable of learning.
Werner Brozek: November 7, 2015 at 5:25 pm
JM:
Why assume it is gaseous? How do you know it is not, actually, H2O(L) (Or ice or superchilled H2O)? Do you see my point?
WB:
We need to get two definitions straight . . .
For “relative humidity”, it is: “Relative humidity (abbreviated RH) is . . .
For “water vapor” it is: “water vapor n. Water in a gaseous state, . . .
JM:
Definitions can be very seductive. They can lead your mind by the nose. Definitions can conceal false assumptions. If I define my bicycle as a Ferrari it isn’t going to go 100 miles an hour.
GB:
So you cannot escape the fact that if the relative humidity is even 1%, you have H2O(g) mixed in with the other air molecules.
JM:
Since gaseous H2O was just assumed in the definitions (not empirically determined) there is nothing to escape from. The first RH gives you no reason whatsoever to assume Gaseous H2O. The second WV simply assumes it to be gaseous. So, as it regards the issue at hand, these definitions are useless, possibly misleading. (And, as per my assertion, blatantly erroneous.)
GB:
If what you say is true, then everything that has ever been written about relative humidity is a bunch of garbage.
JM:
For the question at hand, yes, they are, “a bunch of garbage.” (However, if you are trying to predict when the moisture in moist air will collect into big enough drops to fall out of the sky, then they are very useful.)
GB:
As well, clouds can never form higher up where it is cooler so it can never rain nor snow nor hail.
JM:
This is a much more complicated issue/question. Actually, given your earlier comments I am kind of surprised you are saying this. It’s almost as if you are suggesting that the only process in the atmosphere that causes moisture to go up is convection. See my previous comments in this regard. (Also, don’t close your mind to the fact that there may be another process that you have not discovered yet that can explain how heavier moisture gets all the way up to the top of the troposphere–and sometimes even up into the lower stratosphere.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
dbstealey:
And I should have known that your mind is closed to any possibility that gaseous H2O exists in the air. If you admitted that, your entire belief system would fall apart,
James McGinn:
I admit that admitting it would be very painful, because it would essentially refute my whole hypothesis on tornadogenesis, which took me four years to develop. But if it could be demonstrated empirically I would have no choice but to accept that. So, it is no small matter for me.
So you still haven’t figured out why your belief that water only “clumps” is nonsense?
The explantion is trivial. But I guess I’m not surprised that you haven’t figured it out…
dbstealey:
DB: Good point about sweat evaporating.
JM: Well, I think Werner’s point was that evaporation is a thermodynamic process and, therefore, involved the creation of steam. The implication being that only the creation of steam can be thermodynamic. Or, at least, that is how I interpreted the following:
WB: I am sure you have sweated and then that sweat evaporated and your skin was dry again. Your body temperature is 37 C and not 100 C. However water molecules even evaporate when only at 1 C, although very little evaporation takes place then. It is basic thermodynamics . . .
JM: I countered along the lines that that simply isn’t the case, the evaporation of micro droplets would also be thermodynamic. (Hydrogen bonds are still being broken, but they are the weaker bonds associated with evaporation, as explained on my webpage entitled: Why Water is Wierd.) So Werner is making a false distinction.
DB: McGinn believes that all water in the air is in its liquid state. He explains that by saying water molecules “clump” when they’re evaporated.
JM: Right. DB is correct. I believe that all water in the air is in its liquid state (and ice at lower temps). But there is exactly zero steam (except at volcano vents and such).
DB: But that is so trivially easy to debunk that I won’t even waste time on it.
JM: You insult the intelligence of our readers: who, after reading this thread, is going to be dumb enough to not realize that if you could debunk it you wouldn’t do it in a heartbeat? Also, if you could debunk it you would destroy my whole hypothesis, and I would have to make all kinds of retractions, and the retraction you owe me would be forgiven. You need to think before you make these kinds of statements.
… if you could debunk it you wouldn’t do it in a heartbeat?
Naw, I like to watch a know-it-all who can’t figure out the simple answer. ☺
dbstealey November 7, 2015 at 6:57 pm
So you still haven’t figured out why your belief that water only “clumps” is nonsense?
The explantion is trivial. But I guess I’m not surprised that you haven’t figured it out…
James McGinn:
Okay, I’m calling your bluff. Present your “trivial” explanation. Go ahead. Make my day. LOL.
It’s not a bluff, you just can’t see it.
Here’s a clue, since you’re all out: where do you draw the line?
Going to bat for dbstealey, below is your direct quote. Do you agree?
So we will ignore spin as you suggest, not that it makes any difference anyway, you say “there is exactly zero gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere”. So dbstealey did not put words into your mouth.
THAT is your problem! You say “water vapor is a component of the atmosphere”, but unlike dbstealey, you do not use the standard definition of water vapor, but your own concept of water vapor is, whereas dbstealey knows the true definition of water vapor.
It greatly matters! If we do not agree that water vapor is H2O(g), then any further discussion is totally pointless.
Not at all. Water evaporates from lakes or oceans and H2O(g) can naturally diffuse up into the higher atmosphere, just like any gas can diffuse in any other gas. Of course convection can happen as well.
Werner Brozek:
However if liquid or solid water is small enough, such as with fog or hail or snow, they can easily be suspended in air until the particles of rain or hail get too large to remain suspended and fall. That is why clouds are in the sky. Normal laws of buoyancy do not apply to fine mist for example, nor do they apply to chlorofluorocarbons which is why they can end up extremely high. So density is sort of a meaningless concept if particles like fog or even solid dust are fine enough.
James McGinn:
I’m not trying be contrarian here, but is there really a law of convection. Or is this just something that people arrived at by a process of elimination before they had all the facts. Moreover, if there are the exceptions that you mention (you are very perceptive, by the way, [that is unusual]) might these actually be the exceptions that refute the law.
Something to think about. (Personally, I think convection is nonsense. It plays almost no role whatsoever in our atmosphere, in my opinion.)
I have never heard of clumps of water evaporating. Of course a strong wind on a lake can create this effect, but that is not evaporation. If you have a reference for clumps of water evaporating, please let me know. The site below just talks about individual molecules evaporating:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23574252
“In the observed minimum free energy process, the water molecule diffuses to the surface, and tends to rotate so that its dipole and one O-H bond are oriented outward as it crosses the Gibbs dividing surface.”
Werner Brozek
November 7, 2015 at 7:27 pm
IMO the moderators of this blog bend over backwards to allow raving lunatics to spew errant nonsense ad infinitum, but if those whose name dare not be mentioned for advocating a scientifically defensible position (to which I don’t subscribe) contrary to the consensus on radiative forcing and the GHE, then surely this totally unsupportable drivel should be banned.
Does every monomaniacal, uneducated ignoramus get his say here forever, or is there a limit? How divorced from objective reality are commenters allowed to remain for how long?
That water vapor, ie gaseous molecular H2O, is a vital component of earth’s atmosphere is a fact. All the evidence in the world supports this observation, with none against it. The hydrological cycle could not exist without it. The marvelous human cooling system wouldn’t work without evaporative cooling. Meteorology would be a nonsense without relative humidity.
James still refuses to state whence the loon imagine dew originates.
Time to shut James’ running off at, if not indeed foaming at, the mouth off for good, IMHO. The spigot of spew should be turned off. The self-appointed El Presidente has already gotten far more free publicity for his crazed site than the fool deserves.
Do you have a definition of convection that is different from everyone else? Have you never seen a campfire where the hot air rises right above the fire? And if hot air rises, other air has to take its place from the sides and wind is created. This happens on a global scale as well. Convection is what causes sea breezes and land breezes.
Werner Brozek November 7, 2015 at 7:27 pm
WB:
It greatly matters!
JM:
It’s simple. Don’t fret over this:
Gas (mono-molecular H2O): gaseous H2O, steam, H2O (g)
Everything thing else is liquid:
Liquid (multi-molecular H2O): evaporate, water vapor, vapor, moist air, condensate, H2O (L)
BTW, there is no standard. You have to be explicit and consisent. And you have to ignore the peanut gallery that refuses to be explicit and consistent.
Unfortunately, in the larger world there is no convention, there is no standard. All of these words are used interchangeably/ambiguously. (This is the source of much of the confusion.)
But I think what confuses people the most is the fact that H2O (L) (water vapor, vapor, moist air and evaporate) can and often are perfectly invisible. People tend to assume that only steam can be invisible, and it just ain’t so. The moist air (H2O(L)) that is in the room that you are in at this very moment is invisible.
BTW, gaseous H2O (H2O (g)) and steam are always invisible. People talk about seeing steam, what they are actually seeing is water vapor, vapor, moist air, condensate, or evaporate.
There are many ways to be confused on this subject. Unfortunately there are a lot of people that just refuse to be explicit and consistent (dbstealey).
WB:
Water evaporates from lakes or oceans and H2O(g) can naturally diffuse up into the higher atmosphere, just like any gas can diffuse in any other gas.
JM:
I agree. (Except with the assumption that it is a gas.) And the same is true of H2O (L) (water vapor, vapor, moist air, condensate, and evaporate). It too can diffuse and it too can be suspended. So, diffusion is not evidence that confirms the existence of H2O(g) since the same processes apply to H2O(L).
WB:
Of course convection can happen as well.
JM:
I mostly disagree. In my opinion convection is a very weak, slow, benign process. (It’s has never been measured or tested. And there is no quantitative analysis/assessment of it that does not involve a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions [convection is to meteorology what CO2 Forcing is to climatology]). Another problem with convection is that it is hard to come to any kind of agreement as to what it is or how to define it, thus it is hard to quantify. And what can’t be quantified can’t be tested. So, it persists mostly because it is so vague nobody can test it.
Wind happens also. And the strongest winds are located in the jet streams. And when a jet steam entrance is pointing downward (the most explicit example of which being tornadoes) it can cause updrafts. When the exit of a jet stream is pointed down it can cause downdrafts.
McGinn says:
You have to be explicit and consisent. And you have to ignore the peanut gallery that refuses to be explicit and consistent.
But McGinn refuses, or is unable to provide any verifiable, testable, real world experiments that show water vapor does not exist in the atmosphere. As other readers have shown in their links, numerous experiments over many decades explicitly demonstrate that water in its gas state exists everywhere in the air.
How does McGinn get around that inconvenient fact? He does it by refusing to admit the results of experiments done using the necessary instruments!
Once again McGinn violates the Scientific Method, by saying in effect that measuring the quantity of H2O(g) cannot be done by using instruments (mass spectroscopes and related instruments) to measure it! As usual, the onus is on McGinn to falsify the results of those instruments.
Next, McGinn says:
Quote me directly.
OK, I will. McGinn says:
It’s not possible for me to dispute the existence of what has never been detected.
But it is possible. And the onus is on you to show convincingly that H2O(g) does not exist in the air; the onus is not on those skeptical of your conjecture because skeptics have nothing to prove. You do. But your only support is via endless assertions: you have no other empirical, testable verification of your claims.
Next: you insult the intelligence of our readers:
Good science involves prevarication.
Translation: ‘Good science requires lying.’ I do not agree. I think that was asserted to cover up McGinn’s own prevarication.
Next, from McGinn:
I’m just a scientist who happened upon a notion…
Wrong, and wrong. When McGinn cannot support his strange beliefs (“water vapor (steam) does not exist in the atmosphere”, and: “Personally, I think convection is nonsense”), he typically asserts that everyone else is wrong:
Yourself, Phil, and Micro6500 failed to provide any empirical support for your opinions. …
…ignoring the posted links to experiments showing that water vapor does in fact exist in the air.
And followed by more of McGinn’s baseless assertions:
You lost the argument… Deal with it (You never had a chance.)… You believed something that isn’t true. Don’t waste time griping about it. …you lost the argument. & etc.
And after several of us supported Prof Richard Feynman, McGinn stated that Feynman was also wrong, then said:
…your hero, Feynman, knew nothing
I suspect that other readers here would disagree with McGinn.
McGinn is blind to the links posted by other readers. He said:
…you provided all the anecdotal observations, imaginary experiments (complete with claims of data that nobody can find) and consensus claims that are typical of pathological sciences. …it is incredibly strange how irrational people are when it comes to the atmosphere.
The talent I brought to the subject.
As I’ve pointed out repeatedly: McGinn is inflicted with psychological projection. He routinely takes the comments of other readers, and turns those comments back on them. That’s McGinn’s tactic, but all it shows is his projection.
And McGinn quotes the same Dr. Feynman…
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG…”
…but after McGinn was repeatedly asked for experiments verifying his conjecture that H2O(g) does not exist in the atmosphere, he never produced any verifiable, testable, empirical experiments to support that belief.
McGinn says:
The time has come for you to make some retractions, as we agreed. Get on with it.
And once again I ask: where did we ever agree to that?? It appears that McGinn just makes up things as he goes along.
Finally, Richard Courtney has asked McGinn this question repeatedly:
I yet again ask you, who elected you President of the strangely named Solving Tornadoes, and when?
I would also ask McGinn: when are the next nominations for President held? What are the requirements for nomination and election. And finally I ask McGinn: isn’t it true that you fabricated being ‘elected’ as President, and that there was never any official nomination/election process?
If I’m wrong I will apologize. Just provide verifiable evidence that the process was done; when, where, and where were nominations and the election results published?
Or is that just like everything else; completely fabricated nonsense?
There is no moist air in my room. The relative humidity is probably 30% so all water is the form of individual gas molecules of H2O(g). And H2O(g) is perfectly transparent. If the air outside is at 30% humidity, you can see for miles and the moon and stars are perfectly clearly visible. But when you have clouds or fog due to small liquid droplets, then the moon cannot be seen clearly.
H2O(l) always blocks light, but H2O(g) never blocks light. If I am in a wet sauna, then I can see the fog and I know there are clusters of H2O(l) suspended in the air. If there is no fog in my room, there is no H2O(l) in my room. Why should properties of H2O(l) change in my room versus everywhere else?
Werner Borzek:
Your claim that “H2O(g) never blocks light” is falsified by the evidence ( http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_vibrational_spectrum.html ).
Javier:
I have just now noticed your daft post that says to me in total
NO!
Your reply that I have quoted here demonstrates that you cannot read and don’t understand plain English. That’s what I already new.
For the benefit of you and anyone else who cannot read, the method considers the pattern of warming in the troposphere.
Model emulations of greenhouse gas (GHG) warming indicate between 2 and 3 times as much warming at altitude as at the surface. If there is not enhanced warming at altitude (and there is not) then any warming is not of the kind that climate models emulate for GHG warming.
Please desist from your childish behaviour: it is boorish.
Richard
Richard,
You are reaching the wrong conclusion from that experiment. There are many alternative explanations for a model not agreeing with real data being the most obvious that the model does not represent reality. We have had so much experience with models failing to reproduce reality that I am surprised that you can extract conclusions other than the model is not working.
It is only a hypothesis that there should be 2-3 times as much warming at altitude as at the surface, we don’t really know how much extra warming we should expect at altitude and if that depends on water vapor local concentrations or not. This could be really variable as local water vapor concentrations are very variable.
I agree that since GHG theory predicts more warming at altitude (the amount depends on suppositions), that speaks against GHGs being responsible for all the warming, but since we do not know based on theory how much warming should be produced as that depends on GHG transient sensitivity and after 25 years we have not been able to determine it, we have no idea of how much warming to expect at altitude and thus this test does not measure the fraction of natural vs. man-made warming. To pretend that it does is to take your hypothesis and suppositions to the category of facts.
You have not told me how to distinguish natural warming from man-made warming, you have just told me a hypothetic way of doing it that has failed.
Javier:
I drew no conclusions and I made no mention of any “experiment”. I reported the data analysis method used by Ben Santer to detect anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).
If you want to argue with that then take it up with Santer and not me. You also need to take it up with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because they say the same.
You make another of your daft and unsubstantiated assertions when you write
NO!
I have reported the ‘fingerprint’ of AGW is absent from the balloon data obtained since 1958. This absence demonstrates there is no discernible contribution of AGW to global warming since 1958.
You are claiming AGW exists but does not exhibit the ‘fingerprint’ Santer and the IPCC say it has: so take up your unsubstantiated claim with them, not me.
Furthermore, the AGW ‘fingerprint’ is a warming rate at altitude of between 2 and 3 times the warming rate at sea level. Hence, if there were faster warming at altitude then the difference between the two rates would indicate the range of possible percentages of the warming which is AGW.
As is your usual practice you demonstrate complete inability to accept any information which contradicts your superstitious belief in AGW.
Richard
Thank you! Would it be totally correct to say that H2O(g) is totally transparent to visible light? Granted, there might be an odd wavelength that is absorbed here and there, but not that anyone would notice without special equipment.
Werner Brozek November 7, 2015 at 10:41 pm
(BTW, I am really enjoying the clarity of your presentation–its refreshing.)
JM: People tend to assume that only steam can be invisible, and it just ain’t so. The moist air (H2O(L)) that is in the room that you are in at this very moment is invisible.
WB: There is no moist air in my room. The relative humidity is probably 30% . . .
JM: That *is* moist air.
WB: . . . so all water is the form of individual gas molecules of H2O(g). And H2O(g) is perfectly transparent.
JM: It’s not H2O(g), in my estimation. It’s H2O(L). (if it was H2O(g) it would be over 212 F. The reason it is transparent is because the microdroplets are smaller than the wavelength of a photon. (Which is the same reason H2O(g) is transpaent.)
WB: If the air outside is at 30% humidity, you can see for miles and the moon and stars are perfectly clearly visible. But when you have clouds or fog due to small liquid droplets, then the moon cannot be seen clearly. H2O(l) always blocks light, but H2O(g) never blocks light.
JM: H2O(l) does not always blocks light. Only if its diameter is larger than a photon will it block (refract) light. Thus the clarity of air is not evidence of H2O(g). That the clarity of air is evidence of H2O(g) is kind of a scientific version of an urban myth.
WB: If I am in a wet sauna, then I can see the fog and I know there are clusters of H2O(l) suspended in the air. If there is no fog in my room, there is no H2O(l) in my room. Why should properties of H2O(l) change in my room versus everywhere else?
JM: It’s simply a function of the diameter of the microdroplet. If it is larger than a photon it will refract light. High humidity allows drops to be bigger. When a lot of them are bigger than a photon they become visible as fog.
It is interesting to note that the argument that you presented was based on absence of evidence to the contrary. And the evidence you presented was anecdotal. What if I didn’t have knowledge of photons and droplet diameter, would you have thought you presented a slam dunk dispute of my assertion? A year ago I had the same discussion with somebody except that I didn’t yet have this explanation regarding photon length. Afterwards they seemed to think that they had proven their point. Actually they hadn’t proven anything. All they did was present me with some anecdotal evidence and they then went on to form a conclusion based on absence of evidence to the contrary. This is very common. Us humans tend to be most easily convinced into believing something that coincides with our existing beliefs. New discoveries have an uphill battle to be established in the human mind.
Terry Oldberg November 8, 2015 at 8:03 am
Werner Borzek:
Your claim that “H2O(g) never blocks light” is falsified by the evidence ( http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_vibrational_spectrum.html ).
Excellent website! Thank you for this. Wow. The more I learn about water the more confusing it appears. (In that regard, I have some contributions from my own website which I will soon post in this thread. It deals with the non-Newtonian aspect of H2O.)
Along those lines here is another contribution to the confusion:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/unsettled-science-uncertainty-around-the-continuum-absorption-of-water-vapour/
If you read the comments you will see that just about everybody has their own unique interpretation of the meaning of the information in this paper. I too am a contributor: Solving Tornadoes
Werner Brozek November 7, 2015 at 7:55 pm
(Personally, I think convection is nonsense. It plays almost no role whatsoever in our atmosphere, in my opinion.)
WB: Do you have a definition of convection that is different from everyone else? Have you never seen a campfire where the hot air rises right above the fire?
Hot air balloon, dirigibles, these are the examples everybody uses. But these are not definitions, these are descriptions. And you don’t see much discussion of the exceptions that you mentioned above.
On the site Quora I asked whether it had ever been tested and that caused somewhat of an uproar from the thought police:
https://www.quora.com/Has-the-buoyancy-that-supposedly-underlies-storms-ever-been-measured
WB: And if hot air rises, other air has to take its place from the sides and wind is created. This happens on a global scale as well. Convection is what causes sea breezes and land breezes.
Does it? How do we know?
Johannes:
However, there is no support for the claim that unsaturated moist air is heavier than dry air
Jim McGinn:
I believe there is support for the claim, albeit indirect. For more on this follow this link: http://wp.me/p4JijN-3X Start reading where it mentions, “history of the steam engine.” I argue that this is hard evidence that demonstrates H2Os tendency to clump up at ambient temperatures. In the context of Avogadro’s Law this would prove it must be heavier. Beyond that I also would mention that there is no dispute for the claim that unsaturated moist air is heavier than dry air.
Johannes:
. . . this effect is well accounted for in quantitative descriptions of convective storms.
Jim McGinn:
Not much of anything is well accounted for in “quantitative descriptions of convective storms,” in my estimation. It’s about as vague as vague can be. And most of the math is there to create the illusion of sophistication and conciseness when in reality none of it is measurable, testable.
Is convection just the refrigerator door upon which we attach the postcard of what we want storms to be?
http://t.co/cpQIoREmtp
McGinn asks:
So what have you got, besides some indirect (model-based) evidence, and lots of (mostly bought and paid for) opinions?says that hot air balloons don’t count when it comes to bouyancy. That’s because that example is very inconvenient.
Not true, hot air balloons are an empirical demonstration of bouyancy. Hot air balloons have very high water vapor content. That is part of the reason they are bouyant. Burning hydrocarbons produces a lot of H2O.
**********
So, when are the next nominations for President of your tornado organization, Mr President? Same month as last time?
Photons can interact with just electrons in an atom as can be seen with the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect. If wavelength was important, this should not happen.
Anyone who believes there is no water vapor in the air cannot accept the lapse rate, either.
Sooner or later people who comeup with new ‘theories’ will either be proven to be correct, or their ‘theory’ will get tangled up in many other aspects of physics. Like the lapse rate. That’s what I see happening with McGinn and Javier.
But McGinn can easily prove he’s right, in the one way that is not arguable: produce a series of consistent, accurate predictions based on his conjecture that there is “no water vapor (steam) in the atmosphere”.
The one thing every Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory and Law has in common is their ability to make correct predictions, repeatedly. If they don’t, their conjecture (that’s all it is if they can’t make correct predictions) has been falsified.
We read a lot of McGinn’s conjecture here. But he never posts a replicable, verifiable, empirical experiment he has done to support his beliefs. So, his conjecture remains a conjecture.
Werner Brozdek November 8, 2015 at 11:56 am
The reason it is transparent is because the microdroplets are smaller than the wavelength of a photon.
Photons can interact with just electrons in an atom as can be seen with the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect. If wavelength was important, this should not happen.
James McGinn:
Individual H2O molecules, H2O(g), also have electrons, so . . .
dbstealey:
dbstealey:
Not true, hot air balloons are an empirical demonstration of bouyancy.
James McGinn:
Yes, hot air balloons are an empirical demonstration of the bouyancy of . . . hot air balloons.
dbstealey:
Hot air balloons have very high water vapor content. That is part of the reason they are bouyant. Burning hydrocarbons produces a lot of H2O.
James McGinn:
I wonder why they don’t spray mist into the flames? Hmm.
(LIkewise, I wonder why nobody has built a car that runs off the power of evaporation? Hmm.)
Werner Brozek November 7, 2015 at 7:41 pm
the evaporation of micro droplets would also be thermodynamic
I have never heard of clumps of water evaporating. Of course a strong wind on a lake can create this effect, but that is not evaporation. If you have a reference for clumps of water evaporating, please let me know. The site below just talks about individual molecules evaporating:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23574252
JM: That seems to be the conventional assumption. Why, nobody knows. However, judging from some of the comments I’ve gotten on other threads recently this assumption might stem from a talk that Richard Feynman did over 60 years ago on evaporation. That is strange because if you see the talk (available on youtube and other site) you will see that he was bending over backward to express that his talk was not definitive and was only address the brownian motion implications of evaporation.
There is no accounting for what people think they see. The human imagination tends to fill in details, like children with fairy tails. And they are more attached to their created detals than they are to what was actually presented.
“In the observed minimum free energy process, the water molecule diffuses to the surface, and tends to rotate so that its dipole and one O-H bond are oriented outward as it crosses the Gibbs dividing surface.”
I took a different approach to theorizing H2O polarity, hydrogen bonding, and implications thereof. I decided that I would develop an understanding that explained all of the outlier phenomena, one of which is non-Newtonian fluids:
Solution to the molecular mechanism underlying non-Newtonian fluids?
http://t.co/Uftino7mHm
What is the molecular mechanism underlying non-Newtonian fluids?
http://t.co/o8ZWxviFEX
You lost me here. The oxygen end of water is always negative and the hydrogen end is always positive. This is because of the large electronegativity difference between oxygen and hydrogen. There are strong polar covalent bonds between each oxygen and hydrogen of each individual water molecule in a liquid. Furthermore, there are always attractions between the positive hydrogen end of one water molecule and the negative oxygen end of the adjacent water molecule. This is the hydrogen bond and it is never neutralized since you simply cannot reduce the partial charges to zero, regardless how wish to rearrange the water molecules relative to each other. So partially positive hydrogen atoms never “just kind of float”. They are always attracted to this or that oxygen atom nearby. And hydrogen bonds are broken when a liquid water molecule evaporates or when a solid water molecule sublimates.
When a solid water molecule sublimates, the hydrogen bond is broken, but the escaping molecule does not magically reach a temperature of 100 C. The most basic laws of thermodynamics would not allow that. However should it happen that a water molecule reaches 100 C due to the bell shaped distribution of energies, that escaped water molecule would rapidly lose its energy to the nearby gas molecules.
Werner Brozek November 8, 2015 at 4:01 pm
You lost me here. The oxygen end of water . . .
Werner, this thread is becoming too long so I started a new one at the end of this comment section. See my response there.
James McGinn November 7, 2015 at 6:40 pm
dbstealey:
And I should have known that your mind is closed to any possibility that gaseous H2O exists in the air. If you admitted that, your entire belief system would fall apart,
James McGinn:
I admit that admitting it would be very painful, because it would essentially refute my whole hypothesis on tornadogenesis, which took me four years to develop. But if it could be demonstrated empirically I would have no choice but to accept that. So, it is no small matter for me.
Consider it refuted, apart from your complete misunderstanding of the phase diagram which leads to this error there is a basic experiment which shows that you are wrong.
Take an evacuated vessel at 30ºC, ~2.2 L volume, add to it ~0.09 gm H2O, all the water will evaporate giving a pressure of ~5.5kPa. If your hypothesis of the water only being in clusters of ~10 molecules were correct the pressure would be at least ten times less.
A simple benchtop experiment to measure the vapor pressure of water is described here:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed059p337
See also:
http://www.fizica.unibuc.ro/Fizica/Studenti/Cursuri/doc/VFilip/IntThPh/Lucrari_practice/Vapour_pressure_of_water_at_high_temperature.pdf
Actually, I read Mr Mosher’s posts with interest. All positions are welcome on this site, I thought (other than those that violate the site’s rules, which Mosher obviously doesn’t.)
And he is right – there is no science that is “settled”. None. If you think there is, please tell us which one. Otherwise, admit that our knowledge is limited, and there is more to discover.
I hope that Steve will tell his comrade in arms Mann that the science isn’t settled:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/08/11/global-warming-is-settled-science-michael-mann-on-bill-maher/
Also the academic unions Mann says claim that catastrophic man-made global warming is “settled science”.
I too look for Steve’s comments because they tend to add some missing perspective and alternative thought. Even if I don’t agree, I still am stimulated to broaden my considerations.
As a stationary engr. who managed the facility for a dental research institution, I gained the meager scientific knowledge I possess by ‘osmosis’ (if you will) from the generosity of the staff I worked in support of. I am always willing to consider the writings of those who are educated and/or more experienced in my chosen topics of study.
Steven, you have to add the killer caveat to your key “settled science #2”: ceteris paribus. Certainly the almost 2 decade pause with continuing rise in CO2 (I’m sure you don’t seriously buy into the pause buster paper) must be because something else is going on that is at least a partial match for CO2 – i.e. CO2’s effect is not as large as advertized. The possibility also exists that a healthy feedback is negative, directly arising from the resistance to the ceteris paribus warming. This is not a trivial critique. The blatant broad daylight crime of the ‘pause buster’ by those whose theory is under question is strong evidence that it has been a worry. I would say enough of a worry to have made a number of warming proponent climate scientists psychologically ill.
Actually Steven, CO2 is just another conduit for atmospheric cooling and regulation.
It does not and can not “trap” heat in the atmosphere.
Your brain is stuck in a LIE !!!
And let’s not forget that the ONLY warming in the whole satellite era was the 0.26C step from the Large El Nino and associated events.. certainly nothing to do with CO2.
That means that there is absolutely no CO2 warming signature in the whole 37 years of reliable global temperature measurements.
Yet this is where CO2 has been rising the quickest.
This is something you cannot get around.
+1
For christs’ sake read the missive. My believe is that as an English teacher the science has past beyond your ability to understand. If that is the case it is best that you do not comment and prove it conclusively.
This is meant for Mosher !!
You should not teach English, so many mistakes in just 3 short sentences.
emsnews,
I was gonna say something similar, until he made it clear which side he was on.
I don’t generally critcize any skeptics. The alarmist contingent does that enough. After all, it’s their job.
I will agree with you on the first part, Steven. RGB makes the point himself IMO that complex systems have emergent phenomena that can potentialy be understood, modeled, predicted without knowing the details of the underlying physics. The layers, in large part, can speak for themselves. That is not to say that the climate can be successfully predicted long term, but rather, that the 1-4 may not be a very good guide to achieving that prediction. In fact, I see 1-4 as more of a brute force/doomed for failure approach. After that Steven, your post drifts political more than scientific.
Anyways, thank you RGB for the post. As usual it has sent my mind in many enjoyable directions, the least of which is climate.
In answer to Mr Mosher, very nearly all sceptics (apart from a tiny fringe most of whom seem to be paid by believing activist groups to discredit true sceptics) accept that the greenhouse effect has been experimentally demonstrated, that (all other things being equal) CO2 will cause some warming, and that Man has caused some fraction of the increase in CO2.
It is, however, legitimate to question the magnitude of our influence on climate, particularly in view of the empirical evidence that the world is not warming anything like as fast as the models had predicted. To accept the empirical evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but to deny the evidence that it is not warming the Earth as predicted is to be inconsistent.
Monckton of Brenchley:
You say
YES!
For the benefit of any newbies who don’t understand this matter I again post the following explanation.
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.
In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.
Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.
However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.
In the case of global climate in the Holocene, no recent climate behaviours are observed to be unprecedented so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.
Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature discernibly (but may be altering global temperature estimates) although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect on global temperature. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.
Richard
Richard,
The global melting of glaciers is 5000 years unprecedented in magnitude. The null hypothesis is falsified. Glaciers are specially sensitive to GHGs so they constitute a good place to test the null hypothesis.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Glacier%20fluctuations_zpslp2fbufk.png
http://kochj.brandonu.ca/pages_2006.pdf
Ötzi doesn’t lie.
Javier says:
The global melting of glaciers is 5000 years unprecedented in magnitude.
Javier, that is a baseless assertion, and flat wrong. It shows you are not familiar with the Holocene:
http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
Looking back 5000 years we see that the planet was much warmer than it is now, so ipso facto there were more retreating glaciers then.
Furthermore, the planet is still recovering from the LIA, so naturally there will be retreating glaciers. It’s all natural, and as Dr. Roy Spencer points out: the climate Null hypothesis has never been falsified.
“In answer to Mr Mosher, very nearly all sceptics (apart from a tiny fringe most of whom seem to be paid by believing activist groups to discredit true sceptics) accept that the greenhouse effect has been experimentally demonstrated, that (all other things being equal) CO2 will cause some warming, and that Man has caused some fraction of the increase in CO2.” ~ Monckton
So, the real skeptics who don’t think CO2 does what “Dr.” James E. Hansen says about CO2 warming the surface by 33 degrees are all paid by “big oil” or “big green” or “big socialism” or something else sinister? Wow. That is what the alarmists are always saying about all of us who don’t buy the “97%” consensus. Where may I send my invoice for services rendered?
Over time I have collected a lot of posts from all over the place that question the very idea that CO2 does what Hansen claimed. I grew up during the space race and remember the development of the “US standard atmosphere” in which thousands (or more I guess) of our best scientists worked to develop a theory of how the atmosphere worked to aid our space efforts and the developing aviation industry. I just can’t persuade myself they were all in the pay of some dark and sinister group seeking to discredit the luke-warmers.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=1976+US+Standard+Atmosphere
I will not link to those “evil” people who site policy says we can not mention. But the following two short posts give a different view from the normal luke-warm stuff that is now supposed to be the “skeptic’s consensus” according to Monckton.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/11/even-lukewarmer-position-on-global.html
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/why-atmospheric-mass-not-radiation-p2/
The Scottish Sceptic who posts here often once did a very nice post on the most evil group according to many here that he called “[self snipped banned word]: good physics – appalling PR.” I would link to that short post by that would send the whole post to the automated purgatory.
The take away from this post is that there are a lot of skeptics who don’t buy that the atmosphere operates like Hansen preaches. We are right and after this CO2 delusion is over (perhaps centuries from now) we will be proven correct. No one pays us Monckton.
dbstealey,
Precisely the point. The planet has been cooling on average for the last 5200 years so it is not normal that glaciers have retreated to a point last seen 5200 years ago. In these last 5000 years the glaciers have not retreated so much or Ötzi could not have been found. And Ötzi is not alone. We are uncovering things buried in ice 5200 years ago all over the planet’s glaciers.
Javier says:
And Ötzi is not alone. We are uncovering things buried in ice 5200 years ago all over the planet’s glaciers.
You really can’t see the point??
If things that were frozen are now thawing out, that can mean only one thing: at one time, they were warmer than now. Then they froze.
This is seen in villages in Greenland, which are now thawing out for the first time in a ≈thousand years; when they first froze over, it was as warm as now. Before that, it was warmer.
So rather than your argument supporting your belief, it debunks what you believe; it shows that the MWP was warmer than today — and before the MWP, there were even warmer periods. Did you not even look at the charts I posted?
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Sorry about your belief system. It just cannot withstand reality.
dbstealey November 7, 2015 at 3:17 am
climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
That’s a good Alley reconstruction, I’ve added it to the WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/paleoclimate/
This one below, that shows the GISP2 temperature and EPICA DomeC CO2 reconstruction, also helps people to see that we are not at the warmest point of this interglacial, and we are in fact on the down-slide into another glacial period or “ice age”:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
dbstealey,
You are the one not seeing the point because:
I am talking glaciers’ length and you are jumping to global temperatures and showing pictures of Greenland ice-core temperature proxies.
Now, the argument that there is AGW is incontrovertible. Let’s see it:
1. 5,200 yr BP glaciers advanced globally as a result of an abrupt cooling event and lots of organisms got buried in ice all over the world, between them:
– Ötzi, the ice-man from the Alps
– The Quelccaya plant (Peru). Thompson, L.G. et al. 2006. Abrupt tropical climate change: Past and present. PNAS 103, 10536–10543.
– A tree-trunk uncovered by Mark Meier in the South Cascade Glacier (Washington State; same citation).
So climate was warmer immediately before 5,200 yr BP than at any time afterwards until present.
2. Present warming has unburied those remains.
This demonstrates that glaciers are now shorter than during Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Minoan Warm Period. I am not saying climate is warmer, just that glaciers are shorter. Why?
You have put an ice-core delta 18-O temperature proxy. I will show you another one that has been taken from Huascarán Glacier in Peru, that agrees with the fact that glaciers are now shorter than in any period in the last 5,000 years.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Huascaran%20glacier_zpseki9rkkg.png
Global reconstructions of glacier length say the same: Glaciers are now shorter than in any period of the last 5000 years. You can face the evidence or ignore it, but you cannot say that the evidence doesn’t exist or that it doesn’t say what it says.
Javier,
You’re hanging your hat on a single, very unusual anomaly: the 5200 year cooling event. When you have to pick such an unusual event, your premise is very shaky. You say:
You are the one not seeing the point…
Oh, I see your point all right: you are a climate alarmist, trying to argue that the current natural global warming is unusual and unprecedented. It’s not, as I’ve shown in the posted charts.
Next, you say:
So climate was warmer immediately before 5,200 yr BP than at any time afterwards until present.
Yes, the planet was warmer many times both before and after that than it is now. Each warming episode was entirely natural, just like the current natural warming. There is nothing observed now that cannot be completely explained by natural variability.
Next, you assert:
The null hypothesis is falsified.
A baseless assertion, and 100% wrong. I’ve pointed out that a well known Climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, stated years ago that the climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. You assert otherwise, but who are you? You’re just someone who claims that:
Glaciers are specially sensitive to GHGs.
Nonsense. By ‘GHG’ everyone knows you mean CO2. That tiny trace gas has risen from 3 parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000 over more than a century. You claim that is causing glaciers to recede! That is ridiculous.
Next, you say that global warming…
…demonstrates that glaciers are now shorter than during Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Minoan Warm Period.
Well, DUH. Currently, the planet is still emerging from one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene. Naturally, glaciers have started retreating. And you ignore all the evidence showing that Greenland was much warmer than now during the MWP — and warmer still before that. Just like now, the planet’s temperature fluctuates naturally, and you have no convincing evidence showing that human CO2 emissions affect glaciers at all. That is just a baseless assertion on your part.
Your belief in the magical qualities of CO2 is silly. It must be your religion, because science does not support the belief that a small change in a tiny trace gas is making the planet’s 160,000 glaciers retreat. All you are doing is cherry-picking those that are retreating, and ignoring all advancing glaciers. That’s called confirmation bias, and you have it bad. If well-mixed CO2 caused glaciers to retreat, they would all be retreating. But they aren’t. Just like your Arctic ice scare, that isn’t happening.
Monckton of Brenchley:
You err in claiming that the models “predict.” Instead they “project.”
A prediction is a kind of proposition. That it is a proposition ties a model that makes predictions to logic. A projection is not a proposition. That it is not a proposition frees a model that makes projections from logic.
Predictions are falsifiable but projections are not. Predictions convey information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his/her policy decisions but projections do not. In making policy a policy maker needs information about the outcomes from his/her policy decisions hence he/she needs predictions. Climatologists have given him/her only projections. Thus there is not currently a logical basis for making policy. When “prediction” and “projection” are treated as synonyms it can sound as though this basis exists when it does not.
Javier
November 7, 2015 at 8:56 am
What makes you think that whatever warming has occurred since the end of the LIA is man-made?
It is not just remains from the Holocene Optimum 5000 years ago that have been uncovered, but also from intervening warm periods, such as the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. Passes in the Swiss Alps now opening up again for the first time since the Medieval WP have revealed items not just from Oetzi’s time, but from about 3000, 2000 and 1000 years ago.
The warmer and cooler cycles are naturally-occurring phases in all interglacials. There is no evidence of man-made global warming.
Terry Oldberg
November 7, 2015 at 8:56 am
Yet IPCC relies on model “projections” to recommend policy actions for political leaders.
Gloateus Maximus:
Yes, though projections do not support policy actions IPCC represents to political leaders that they do. It does so by drawing false or unproved conclusions from arguments.
dbstealey
November 7, 2015 at 9:23 am
The largest by far and most important mass of ice on the planet is growing, as are the glaciers which flow from it. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet contains most of the fresh water on earth. With the much smaller West AIS, Antarctica is covered by 90% of all the world’s ice and 70% of its surface fresh water.
Antarctica has not warmed, as the falsified hypothesis of AGW predicts it should, and both sea ice and land ice there is growing. Javier’s faith in AGW is thus shown false.
Mark,
Does the Maxwell mass/gravity/pressure model correctly predict the temperatures of the surface and atmospheres of Venus and Mars?
Mark,
I found this, claiming that the model works for Venus but not Mars, due to thinness of its atmosphere:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html
dbstealey,
Nope. I am hanging my hat on all evidence showing global glaciers not being so short since 5200 years ago… until present. This is undeniable.
You are as wrong on this as you are on everything else. I’ve been accused of being a right-wing science d*n**r in other fora for defending that most of the warming is natural, as if I could care less for petty US politics.
Science conclusively demonstrates that world glaciers are now shorter on average than at any time in the past 5000 years. You pick your favourite explanation for this anomaly. A lot of glacierologists think that this is because the planet is now warmer than in the past 5000 years. I don’t. I believe glacier dynamics have been affected by a small change in a tiny trace gas that science defends is capable of such localized warming.
Until you come up with a convincing explanation on why global glaciers average is now shorter than past 5000 years any discussion on Greenland temperatures or vikings is way beyond the point. We are not discussing that. We are discussing glacier length. An anomaly that only AGW can explain.
Javier,
Your statement is not only deniable, but easily shown false.
Many retreating glaciers have revealed remains much less than 5000 years old. Here are some 1000 year-old tree stumps recently exposed in Alaska:
http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
Glacial advance and retreat happening now is no different from in previous warming and cooling cycles of the Holocene.
As noted, the ice sheet that matters by far the most, the EAIS, is growing.
Sorry, but glaciology provides no support whatsoever for the repeatedly falsified hypothesis of man-made global warming.
Gloateus Maximus,
Nothing. Probably most of the warming since LIA is natural, but on top of that we are getting some AGW. It is simply not possible to be otherwise. Claims that is 100% natural or 100% man-made are ridiculous. Simply we have no way of quantifying natural and man-made fractions of warming. But we do have proof that AGW is occurring. Glacier length is in my opinion the strongest proof.
Gloateus Maximus,
That you find some glaciers retreating less than 5000 years does not demonstrate that current glacier retreat is not anomalous, as not all glaciers retreat at the same speed or at the same time. The finding of glaciers that have retreated 5000 years in different parts of the world and the global average showed in the figure from Koch and Clague 2006 are conclusive proof of anomalous glacier retreat.
Richardscourtney said “For the benefit of any newbies who don’t understand this matter I again post the following explanation.”
Thank you Lord Monckton and Dr. Courtney, from a newbie who is still trying to make sense of all this!
Javier
November 7, 2015 at 11:54 am
There is no proof of AGW. There is not even any evidence of it. If you can find some, there’s a Nobel Prize in it for you.
Glacier length shows only that the LIA is over. Glacier length now is well within normal limits. Not that glaciers are retreating everywhere. Quite the opposite. Local conditions affect their ebb and flow.
Glaciers in many areas are where they were during the Medieval Warm Period or are longer. All the montane glaciers on earth are not a pimple on the posterior of the EAIS, which is growing. Earth is getting icier, not less.
Thus, glaciers offer no evidence whatsoever of a “human footprint”. In any case, since AGW can’t be significant, even if it were happening and measurable, it’s not catastrophic nor likely to be, given earth’s geologic history.
Gloateus Maximus,
You will have then no problem in supporting that assertion on scientific literature. And I am not talking about some particular glaciers. I have already shown scientific evidence from Koch and Clague, 2006 of the opposite on global scale. Can you present scientific literature that supports your assertion and contradicts mine?
I thought that, following Arrhenius, most scientists (and others) agreed that CO2 prevented the planet from cooling, or reduced the rate at which it would cool, rather than CO2 itself caused the planet to warm.
I listen to Steve. I agree with him. CO2 is a GHG. Increasing CO2 will almost certainly warm the planet all things being equal (with a lot of room for disagreement on how much, and allowing for the possibility that in a multivariate system the planet could cool due to other factors by enough to cancel the warming and then some). Humans are almost certainly responsible for some if not all of the rise in CO2.
But that isn’t what I’m asserting, if not the entire top article. I’m asserting that climate models suck in the specific sense that they do not work to predict the climate, in the specific sense that we shouldn’t even expect them to be able to predict the climate. I’m asserting that computations of the temperature anomaly, which are themselves models, suck to the point where (as I pointed out above) it is 99.99% certain (according to HadCRUT4) that BEST is wrong, and vice versa, if one is to believe the contemporary error bars for either one, and yet we continue to use them as if they have some meaning. The top article is pointing out that they are (all three) diverging from tropospheric temperatures in ways that are almost impossible to comprehend if both are accurate, meaning that we can add another 99% certainty that at least 2/3 of the anomalies and/or all of them are wrong. I’m not talking about wrong in the remote past, either, I’m talking wrong over the last 30 years, where we have modern and consistent instrumentation at far better instrumental densities than we had in (say) 1850. The claims for error in the global anomaly records are a statistical travesty, but nobody seems to even notice the inconsistency or adjust the error bars so that they make some sort of sense because that would make it obvious that we have only the very crudest idea of how much or how little it has warmed, globally, over the last 165 years.
I’m asserting that there isn’t a shred of a mathematical basis for presenting the average over many chaotic trajectories as a predictor of a specific trajectory for a chaotic system, especially when one numerically integrates those chaotic trajectories with an absurdly enormous stepsize. There is no empirical basis for asserting that the Earth is not in radiative balance, when the ability of CERES to resolve the integrated intensity of both TOA incoming and outgoing radiation is an order of magnitude larger than the supposed imbalance (according to its own website). I’m asserting that there are a small mountain of things we don’t know about the climate system, as well as things that we can see happening that we cannot explain or quantitatively predict or understand (such as the multidecadal oscillations) that clearly have a major impact on both the local time development of the climate and its global trajectory. I’m asserting that all of this science is far from settled, is key to the assertions that we are en route to a climate catastrophe that empirically is far from being observed, and is being deliberately misrepresented to convince the public to spend its collective surplus wealth on preventing a catastrophe at the expense of dealing with serious global issues such as ending world poverty, bringing about world peace, bringing the benefits of a modern civilization to the 17th and 18th century misery that dominates the lives of the poorest 1/3 of the world’s population.
I’m even asserting that the settled science on the benefits of added CO2 — for example the fact that it is directly responsible for substantial increases in the growth rate of most temperate zone trees, that its impact on food crops makes it likely to be directly responsible for feeding roughly a billion people a day compared to the food that would have been grown with precisely the same cultivation at an atmospheric CO2 of 280 ppm, the increased productivity resulting from longer growing seasons, all of this is deliberately misrepresented or ignored when computing the relative projected net present value of the hypothetical future “catastrophe”. And note well that I’m not even talking about the benefits to the users of all of that carbon-based electricity — clean water, sewage systems, public health, air conditioning, refrigeration, lighted nights, and a strong industrial base with full employment.
I’m asserting that all of the panic is over a climate change that even according to the catastrophists is on the same order of magnitude as shifting every growing zone on the planet one half a number south — a few hundred miles. A climate change that over my entire lifetime has been about the difference in average temperatures observed at stations within a 30 minute drive of my house that all have the same climate, which is a climate change that is clearly in the noise of a normally functioning climate, even as atmospheric CO2 went from 300 to 400 ppm. I’m asserting that it is curious that NC’s official weather page, which showed no global warming at all over the last century (and said so), was recently taken down and when I asked why, I was told that it was “in error” and that they were going to put it back up after they fix it.
Anyone want to guess what the “fix” will look like? And of course, every change will have some reason, and the people making the change will convince themselves that they aren’t really participating in a complex process of confirmation bias as they make the choices of changes to apply (and not apply) so that the end result shows that NC really warmed, of course it did, forget the silly little things called thermometers that failed to show it before being properly “adjusted”.
To put it bluntly, Paris is not about climate catastrophe, it is All About the Money. It is about surpressing the third world to be able to continue to rape them of resources. It is about lining the pockets of all the people who aren’t invested in the current energy infrastructure who want in. It is about lining the pockets of the existing energy infrastructure even more (who are you kidding if you think otherwise, given that anything that makes energy more expensive increases margina profits of those that provide it). It is about pandering to the “Greens” whose unstated agenda is to bring about a reduction in world population of some unstated billions of living souls, as rapidly as possible, and whose stated agenda is pretty much the elimination of civilization as we know it — usually for everyone else since they enjoy driving their cars and flying in jets and air conditioning and electricity just as much as you or I.
So yes, I absolutely agree with Steve that some parts of the science are settled to the point where most rational people would immediately reject certain assertions, but those parts are irrelevant to the major point, which are indefensible assertions of global catastrophe based on the computations of future global warming due to increased CO2 using models fit to models that do not agree particularly well with the models fit to data that don’t even agree with each other.
This bit is not settled science but is carefully presented to both policy makers and the public as if it is.
So I’m curious, Steve. Do you agree with this? If not, which specific points do you disagree with?
rgb
I concur that CO2 is a GHG and that humans are probably largely responsible for most of the increase in CO2 since the 19th century. However, the fact remains that there is no actual physical evidence for man-made global warming during that period. The warming cycles of the late 19th, early 20th and late 20th centuries are not in any way out of the ordinary, compared with previous such intervals and with each other. Thus, observations do not support rejecting the null hypothesis, nor do they support the hypothesis of man-made global warming.
Clearly, the climate system has not responded to increased CO2 as “climate scientists” assumed it would, so no wonder the models based upon those assumptions fail miserably.
Reasons for this failure include, but are not limited to, the negligible effect of added GHGs, given the logarithmic nature of the effect; other climatic factors swamping out any actual warming, and prompt and powerful negative feedback effects, rather than the strongly positive feedbacks assumed by “climate scientists”, ie computer gamers. That earth hasn’t experienced runaway global warming under much higher CO2 concentrations and similar insolation should have given “climate scientists” a clue that earth is self-regulating.
The money-grubbers should also have been tipped off by the fact that the initial response of the planet to rapidly rising CO2 from 1945 to 1977 was to cool dramatically. The man-made global warming hypothesis was thus born falsified.
Yes, this is a very important point. The only graph I have seen with error bars is this Met Office Monthly Global Average Land Temperature – 1850 to Present graph:
Met Office – Hadley Center – Base Period 1961-1990 – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Bob Tisdale – bobtisdale.wordpress.com – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
and I think that grossly understates the uncertainty. Especially as that graph relies on the highly suspect “bucket model” adjustments;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/historical-sea-surface-temperature-adjustmentscorrections-aka-the-bucket-model/
where Jones, Wigley, Briffa and several of the other usual suspects adjusted sea surface temperatures before 1945, based on some highly suspect estimates about how bucket insulating effects ship based ocean temperature measurement. These estimates resulted in a large upward adjustment to ocean temperatures before 1945:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="850"]
If you eliminate the bucket model adjustments, than there was more warming during the first half of the 20th century versus the second half. Given that anthropogenic CO2 contribution before 1950 was insufficient to have a significant impact on Earth’s temperature;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/29/when-did-anthropogenic-global-warming-begin/
then the warming during the first half of the century was natural. As such, the warming in the second half of the century is less than what our crude measurement of normal/natural temperature variation was during the first half of the century. Even when taking the bucket model adjustments into account, Phil Jones admitted during a 2010 BBC interview that, “As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different.”
Our understanding of Earth’s climate system is rudimentary at best, our measurement capabilities are crude and our historical measurement record is laughable brief. The science isn’t settled, it’s barely begun…
justthefactswuwt
November 7, 2015 at 9:07 am
Climatology might have been growing out of infancy and childhood into adolescence by now, had its development not been stunted by “climate science”.
Steven – I agree, those tests are far too severe and broadly your three areas of agreement between knowledgeable scientists are quite correct. I suspect that few would disagree with the proposition that climate system is fundamentally chaotic and that even the best modelling methods will find it hard to replicate the dynamics of such a system to the degree of resolution that Robert Brown specifies. The argument, to my mind, is about how sensitive the climate system is to changes in CO2 forcing. It’s the same proposition that if by some mischance the earth was pushed closer to the sun by 27000 miles then what would be the effect on the climate (or 56000 miles if you assume an ECS of 2). That is where the argument should be and where it should remain.
There is no evidence supporting an ECS higher than the ~1.2 degrees C that should arise in the absence of feedback effects. This is confirmed by the failed models themselves, which, in deriving gains of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C for a CO2 doubling from 280 to 560 ppm, far overestimate how much warmer 2015 “ought” to be from 1990 than it in fact is.
Mosh:
Your rhetoric is weak.
I simply cannot believe that you would engage in this inane exercise of reification of Brown’s central thesis.
Perhaps RGB wants the reader to conclude for herself that no science is ever “settled”.
Certainly the field of Quantum Mechanics seems to elude the comprehension of many people sucking on grantors’ teats, even though it is about 100 years in the making, as they declare such things as “science doesn’t deal in probabilities” remember that gem? You wrote that.
Hard to polish that piece of excreta Mosh….
It is funny that you should employ that phrase “or have you removed from the faculty” when youre not a member of any faculty… and youre responding to a guy who is a tenured professor with orders of magnitude more papers published in peer reviewed journals( you know Mosh…the hard work of science) than you.
From just what faculty can we remove the public voice of BEST?
Steven,
I agree with most of the above except one – the part about what people mean when they refer to “settled” climate science. You and I may agree on what is settled, but there are a lot of people out there, including some scientists, who mean more than what you have stated.
And that is the rub. Whenever I raise the points you touch on above and ask exactly what it is I’m denying, I get no response from the types who like to claim the science is settled and we need to start following policy proscriptions they are putting forth.
I’m willing to stipulate that the assertions below are more or less settled, although both are subject IMO to valid questions, since, among other reasons, science is rarely if ever truly “settled”:
1) CO2 is a so-called “greenhouse gas”;
2) Humans are probably responsible for most of the allegedly observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since AD 1750, 1850 or whatever start point is currently most fashionable, and
3) So far, increased CO2 levels have been good for living things.
Beyond this, nothing is settled, IMO.
On reflection, I’ll add that it’s probably settled that:
4) The world is warmer now than at the depths of the LIA during the Maunder Minimum, c. AD 1680-1709.
Before debating the issue of whether global warming science is settled we should have a mutually agreed upon definition of “science.” A strong argument leads to the conclusion that is should be defined as the mutual information between the sample space and condition space of a model. This is the information that is available for the control of a system including the climate system. For global warming science, the mutual information is nil. Thus in claiming that the science is settled one is claiming that the mutual information is perfect when it is nil.
Terry,
True.
My definition of science in this case would be “according to the scientific method”, according which the hypothesis of man-made global warming is so far from settled that it’s in fact antithetical to the scientific method. It stands the method on its head by changing “data” instead of the massively failed models.
Gloateus:
Your conclusion is similar to mine.
“After reading this article, do you think climate science is settled? “
Just out of curiosity, who do you think has claimed that “climate science is settled” — ie that every issue related to climate is now fully understood? Can you point to any competent scientist who has said this? If not, what is the purpose of this article? Who are you trying to convince? Everyone with a modicum of knowledge about this issue already agreed before you even started!
PS Paraphrasing Willis, if you disagree please provide a quote and a source for a scientist making the “every single aspect of climate science is settled”. It doesn’t count to find a quote about specific topics like “CO2 causes warming” or “temperatures have risen in the past x years”.
Tim
“Just out of curiosity, who do you think has claimed that “climate science is settled.”
Just google “climate science settled.” Doing a little of your own homework would help.
Here’s the thing — I *DID* do my own homework. Here are a few early hits.
* “Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties …. Some aspects of the science of AGW are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any” http://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm
* “The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.” President Obama State of the Union address. Note that he is addressing the existence of climate change, not that every last detail is known.
* A WSJ article a year ago also makes my point. “The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. … The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself. Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, “How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?” ” http://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565
tjfolkerts,
Thanx for you opinions. But that’s all they are.
There has yet to be a measurement quantifying AGW produced by anyone. That means AGW is still not much more than a conjecture (I personally think AGW exists. But the fact that there are no measurments quantifying it means it must be very tiny).
You comment like a true believer, with no real skepticism. Having a belief system is fine. But don’t confuse that with science, because it’s not.
Tim,
The little that could be considered “settled” doesn’t lead to any policy prescriptions.
It is definitely settled that the climate changes. Earth’s climate has ranged from the planet’s being covered in molten rock to covered in frozen water. No one disputes the scientific fact that climate changes.
It is sufficiently settled IMO that gas molecules composed of two different elements (or three of the same element, as with ozone) can absorb photons of various energies, then release that energy in all directions, usually via collisions with other atmospheric molecules. I could be wrong about this.
Beyond those observations or possible facts, very little is settled. The baleful influence of anti-scientific “consensus” science for going on 30 years has stifled learning more about how the climate system actually functions.
It is definitely not settled that human activities have a major effect on global climate, although they clearly do on local climates and microclimates. Science cannot even say with any degree of certainty whether the net effect of human activity on global climate is to cool or warm it. In any case, the effect is negligible, based upon all available evidence, as opposed to GIGO advocacy-based modeling.
Science can also state with a high degree of probability that so far increased CO2 in the air has been a boon for the planet and its living things, not a catastrophe, nor is disaster at all likely to result from fossil fuel burning on our self-regulating planet.
If people like Gore and Obama make statements that imply this, and if they are not challenged by leading climate scientists, then the silence of these climate scientists speaks volumes.
Werner he quoted Skeptical Science. WTF
Yep, if you use SkS as a citation…(except in mockery)
…. you can only be considered a brain-washed, know-nothing, ignoramus.
You have marked yourself as such, Tim.
The source is only relevant for plagiarism purposes.
I am a member of a prestigious scientific professional society (surprised even me). I participate in an online forum, at which I made the mistake of disparaging “the science is settled”. Boy, did I get a screenful from scientists around the country. They all told me the science is settled, the time for debate is over, we must act now. I shall not, here, name that society, or those corespondents, out of an abundance of caution to avoid any libel suits, claims of violation of privacy, and to spare them embarrassment. As Nicholas Schroeder says, Google “climate science is settled” and read, and weep for science.
“… prestigious scientific professional society …”
Jim, it is my considered opinion that there are no prestigious professional societies left. Everywhere one looks he sees only politically motivated groups of rent-seekers. One man’s opinion.
You’re being disingenuous when you say things like “every single aspect of climate science is settled”. Of course no one says that. If you asked Obama whether he believes that , he would demur. But as we know he’s on the record as saying “the science is settled” meaning CAGW is bearing down upon us. That’s the problem (as, I suspect, you already know).
Tm the biggest problem would be pointing to a competent climate scientists. Like a neutron fired at a gold atom.
We must wait for all the cycles to show themselves to be properly observed and understood, now that mankind has the capability to do so. This could be centuries for some terrestrial cycles and several magnitudes of time greater for galactic cycles.
Will we understand and control gravity by that time either?
Thanks for reprinting rgbatuke’s comment. It’s awesome. Should be circulated as a pdf.
It’s my hunch that a full understanding of climate relies on our knowledge of the heliosphere and the star we orbit, and that star’s galactic influences.
Bingo.
The lack of interest in our little twinkling star, the sun, baffles me.
Convection moves heat from the hot side to the cold side much, much faster than conduction or radiation does
….
— moderate changes in the thermal gradient just make the existing rolls roll faster or slower to maintain heat transport.
=============
this argues strongly that the lapse rate is due to such a structure, and one cannot change the surface temperature of the earth without changing the lapse rate.
back radiation to the surface via more CO2 will not do it, because convection will simply increase to offset the increased radiation due to CO2.
The money line is this: Convection moves heat … much faster than conduction or radiation does
This IMO is an important reason why the expected (ie, “settled”) retardation of LW energy escape from 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere hasn’t actually been observed.
The models have the wrong weight given to items that effect the climate, do not have the initial state of the climate correct and have incomplete and inaccurate data.
The result is what you get, which is the models fail miserably when trying to predict the future climate and this will only be getting worse as we move forward.
Never forget interactions. Every variable interacts, potentially, with every other variable. In a well designed experiment, each interaction is treated as a variable. Interactions alone should make us all doubt the predictive value of any of these models.
And, I keep saying, if these models worked, the modellers would be rich from the wheat futures market.
If it was settled, there would not be some 90 or so Climate Models, but rather just 3 setting out predictions (not projections) for the 3 future CO2 scenarios. Being generous, there might be a total of 9 models producing predictions (not projections) as above but as varied with the 3 manmade future aerosol emission scenarios.
So one only has to look at the IPCC Reports themselves to know that the science is not settled.
Further, the most important aspect is the so called Climate Sensitivity. However, they are unable to put a figure on Climate Sensitivity, instead a wide range is set that has not been narrowed in some 35 years notwithstanding countless billions of dollars spent on the issue, and they are not even able to set out a consensus view on this topic.
I don’t consider that it is necessary to go into any more detail than that, to realise that the claims that the science is settled is patently not the case, and the proposition that it is settled is farcical in the extreme. One does not have to get into the fact that there are so many uncertainties surrounding known factors and that it is almost certainly the case that there are unknowns yet to be discovered and understood.
We have some 90 or so different models all projecting different outcomes. As the Dire Straight’s song goes ‘two men claim they are Jesus, one of them must be wrong’ applies. We know as fact that at least 89 of the 90 models are wrong! Should one have confidence that with this skill, the other remaining model is right? I would say NO. Further, we cannot in advance identify which one of the 90 or so models is the right one. Of course, if this current El Nino does not deliver up a long lasting step change in temperatures, as was seen coincident upon the 1997/8 Super El Nino, it appears that by 2019 all the models will be outside their 95% confidence bounds, and we will by then be able to say that all the models have been disconfirmed.
As the Elton John song goes ‘sorry is the hardest word’ and it is only because of this that the IPCC cannot admit that the science is far from settled and that it has got some fundamentals seriously wrong and has no idea as to how the future will unfold and whether man has any control whatsoever over that future and if so how man can control it.
With the socialist ideologues Obama (Biden, Kerry et al.), Bon Ki Moon (his IFCCC, IPCC and WMO) and Latin-Pope Francis, Climate Socialists do not need Science, nor want it.
Agenda 21 is their actual goal and has nothing to do with climate change or saving the planet !!!
RGB:
“Self-organization as a concept preceded Prigogene, but he quantified it and moved it from the realm of philosophy and psychology and cybernetics to the realm of physics and the behavior of nonlinear non-equilibrium systems.
“To put it into a contextual nutshell, an open, non-equilibrium system…will tend to self-organize into structures that increase the dissipation of the system, that is, facilitate energy transport through the system.”
Hence, life.
Life may be as inevitable as “rocks rolling down a hill”:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1478-3975/10/1/011001;jsessionid=87C1E8FE3E61D214420ED19C5415731C.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
Meteorites are loaded with lots of amino acids and other complex organic compounds. They carry far more different organics than those which serve as the chemical constituents of living things.
RNA forms spontaneously in ice, and is capable both of acting as an enzyme to catalyze reactions, leading to peptide polymers, and of storing and transmitting genetic information, leading to replication. At this elementary level, the two processes, ie metabolism and replication, are similar.
“Meteorites are loaded with lots of amino acids and other complex organic compounds. They carry far more different organics than those which serve as the chemical constituents of living things.”
And so many “scientists” laughed at Fred Hoyle and pansperima. There is at least some evidence that life could have come from the cosmos — much more evidence than CO2 warms the surface by 33 degrees as the present delusion has it.
Mark,
True. And getting more plausible all the time, while catastrophic man-made global warming becomes ever more remote a possibility with each passing year under higher CO2 without any warming.
It’s possible that life first developed five to ten billion years ago in space rather than in the past four billion years on earth. Asteroids and comets contain ice (& maybe even liquid water). The little droplets of liquid water within ice in these bodies could be where RNA first started replicating itself and using energy to conduct metabolic chemistry.
Has anyone else noticed that climate alarmists have problems with spelling, grammar, and sentence structure?
Not to mention punctuation and capitalization.
And matters of fact. I haven’t ever read anything skeptical of the “consensus” published by “Big Oil”, although Gore, Mann and other alarmists are of course financed by Big Oil.
Not to mention rational thought and common sense.
dbstealey November 6, 2015 at 11:26 am
Has anyone else noticed that climate alarmists have problems with spelling, grammar, and sentence structure?
Eye dint knowtiss.
Gloateus Maximus,
This is your comment upthread about Mr. McGinn’s preposterous conjectures, reposted for effect:
IMO the moderators of this blog bend over backwards to allow raving lunatics to spew errant nonsense ad infinitum, but if those whose name dare not be mentioned for advocating a scientifically defensible position (to which I don’t subscribe) contrary to the consensus on radiative forcing and the GHE, then surely this totally unsupportable drivel should be banned.
Does every monomaniacal, uneducated ignoramus get his say here forever, or is there a limit? How divorced from objective reality are commenters allowed to remain for how long?
That water vapor, ie gaseous molecular H2O, is a vital component of earth’s atmosphere is a fact. All the evidence in the world supports this observation, with none against it. The hydrological cycle could not exist without it. The marvelous human cooling system wouldn’t work without evaporative cooling. Meteorology would be a nonsense without relative humidity.
James still refuses to state whence the loon imagines dew originates.
Time to shut James’ running off at, if not indeed foaming at, the mouth off for good, IMHO. The spigot of spew should be turned off. The self-appointed El Presidente has already gotten far more free publicity for his crazed site than the fool deserves.
He does it across the blogosphere, unless those site owners put a stop to it. Maybe he will just MovOn with his failed conjectures. We can hope, anyway, because all of physics would collapse if he was right.
Actually, if he just admitted what people educated in the hard sciences know – that water vapor is a component of the atmosphere – I wouldn’t have that much of an issue with it (maybe I’d add his ridiculous conjecture that convection doesn’t affect weather). But his “no water vapor (steam) exists in the atmosphere” assertion is as loopy as saying that gravity doesn’t exist… (well, maybe he thinks that too, because in his conjecture the lapse rate couldn’t exist, either).
So I’m with you, GM. James has wired around his On/Off switch. It’s permanently ‘On’, so I doubt that the scales will ever fall from his eyes.
dbstealey:
McGinn’s conjecture that steam, H2O(g) (gaseous H2O) does not exist exists in the atmosphere is as loopy as saying that gravity doesn’t exist because in his conjecture the lapse rate couldn’t exist, either.
James McGinn:
If you think that true, that the lapse rate could not exists unless steam, H2O(g) (gaseous H2O) does exist in the atmosphere, then you should present an argument to that effect, after all if I was to deny the existence of the lapse rate I would have to be a complete loon.
And please stop the incessant whining.
McGinn,
Don’t you have a productive job? Because you post your pseudo-science here 24/7, and on lots of other blogs, too, day in and day out.
Oh… I forgot, you do have a job! You’re the “President” of a giant organization that’s going to “solve tornadoes”, whatever that means. ☺
Hey, you never answered my questions: was getting elected President a tough fight? Who were you running against? And what was your final vote tally? When are the next nominations being published, and where?
Finally, no one is ‘whining’, that comment is just your usual projection. Because the fact is, you’re whining about it. As stated, that comment was simply a response to some truly preposterous claims. It was so pertinent that it deserved to be re-posted. IMHO, of course.
You are a complete loon.
That much is glaringly obvious.
Please go away and pollute some other blog.
Thanks!
DB,
I wonder if James is really now convinced that water vapor exists in the atmosphere or finally ostensibly accepted the obvious reality of this fact just to be able to keep sliming this blog.
My guess is that on the other sites the loon infests, he will continue peddling such errant nonsense.
Gloateus Maximus November 9, 2015 at 12:07 pm
Leave me out of your delusions. I’ve never denied that water vapor is prevalent in the atmosphere.
Then why did you repeatedly make that assertion?
Have you gone off your meds?
Gloateus Maximus November 9, 2015 at 3:01 pm
Then why did you repeatedly make that assertion?
Quote me directly you strawbaiting nitwit.
Here you are, blithering ignoramus loon, saying that water in its gaseous state, ie vapor (which is not droplets of liquid), doesn’t exist in the atmosphere, only liquid water. You don’t get to invent your own scientific terminology.:
Jim McGinn
October 28, 2015 at 2:02 pm
Micro6500:
What’s the kinetic energy of a water molecule that has the energy to leave the liquid and become vapor,
Jim McGinn:
A single molecule cannot break off, except upon boiling, in which case many break off. (Beyond that I don’t know the answer to your question, sorry.)
Water’s polarity increases when one bond is broken, making the second very hard to break.
Evaporation doesn’t produce gas. H2O gas (steam) can only exist above its boiling point. Evaporation produces vapor, which is not a gas but small droplets.
BTW, this completely refutes meteorology’s notion that convection causes storms. There is no steam in earth’s atmosphere and only if it did exist would meteorology’s notion of convection make any sense at all.
Gloateus Maximus November 9, 2015 at 3:45 pm
Here you are, . . .
James McGinn:
You lost me. I stand by everything you quoted here. I still don’t get what your point is. Sorry.
Can you possibly really be this dumb? Or are you just trying to waste everyone’s time?
You maintain that “water vapor” is liquid, contrary to all actual observations of nature. It is not. It is H2O in the gaseous state, ie individual molecules, as with N2, O2, Ar, CO2, etc.
The atmosphere does indeed contain water in liquid droplet form, as in clouds, fog and mist, which is visible. The gas isn’t. Yet science knows for a fact that it is there.
Gloateus Maximus November 9, 2015 at 7:29 pm
Yet science knows for a fact that it is there.
James McGinn:
Does it? How so?
If one has a hard time distinguishing between arguments based on evidence and arguments based on absence of evidence I would suggest avoiding science in general and the atmospheric science in particular.
McGinn,
Wait, what??
YOU are the one who invented this new conjecture, claiming that water in its gas state does not and cannot exist in the air. You wrote this more than once:
“THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.”
Therefore, YOU have the onus of producing some proof, or at least convincing evidence, showing that your conjecture is true.
That’s how the Scientific Method works. Skeptics of your new conjecture have nothing to prove, but you keep trying to put the onus back on them.
That’s wrong. You have the duty to suppoert your belief, no one else does, and no one else has anything to prove. But so far, all you’ve done is assert that it’s so.
James,
You have provided not a single shred of evidence in support of your insane assertion.
As I said, all the evidence in the world shows that water vapor, ie gas, exists in the earth’s atmosphere. It can be observed and measured. It varies from over 4% of air molecules in the moist tropics to just a few molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules in polar regions.
In the tropics, one H2O molecule will on average be surrounded by 19-20 N2 molecules, five to six O2 molecules and maybe an Ar molecule. The concentration at any one place varies with time of day and season.
Your rejection of reality means you’re nuts. No amount of evidence appears to sink into your cracked pot.
Gloateus Maximus November 9, 2015 at 7:29 pm
GM:
The atmosphere does indeed contain water in liquid droplet form, as in clouds, fog and mist, which is visible. The gas isn’t.
JM:
Much of, or maybe even most of, the liquid droplets in earth’s atmosphere are invisible also. That is what has you (and many others) confused. Read this very, very, very carefully:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/06/is-climate-science-settled-now-includes-september-data/#comment-2066794
Read it slowly. Don’t respond until after you’ve read it two or three times. Take a deep breath. Read.
Why would I subject myself to such drivel yet again?
Water vapor is not tiny liquid droplets. It is a gas, ie molecular.
You might as well try to convince the scientists on this blog that the moon is made of green cheese as that water vapor, ie gaseous H2O, doesn’t exist in the atmosphere.
Here is an image of water vapor, which to NOAA, just as to everyone else, means molecules of H2O(g):
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/PCPN/DATA/RT/NA/WV/20.jpg
Since for you seeing is not believing, please go peddle your errant nonsense somewhere else.
Here’s an IR animation of water vapor on the move:
http://weather.unisys.com/satellite/sat_wv.php?inv=0&t=l12®ion=ea
Invisible to humans but visible in the IR.
Well, I re-read McGinn’s nonsense again. The only one here who’s confused is James McGinn.
Aside from violating basic physics, McGinn’s belief: that only liquid water is in the air, but not water vapor, is nonsense. It goes against common sense: McGinn is claiming that H2O can exist in the air by water molecules “clumping” <–(that's his word, not mine) together. So two or more H2O molecules (or two million molecules) can float around in the air, just so long as they "clump" together.
But Ginn’s claim is that ONE molecule of H2O cannot exist in the atmosphere. He has stated repeatedly that no individual molecules of H2O are in the air, or can even exist in the atmosphere.
As if.
It’s obviously easier for a single molecule to remain airborne than for a droplet or “clump”, of whatever size. Cloud droplets require a condensation nucleus.
James is a raving lunatic.
There is a wealth of laboratory evidence that clearly and unambiguously indicates that the boiling/pressure point of H2O is immutable. Should we just, offhandedly, assume that the laws of nature are different in the atmosphere than they are in the laboratory? If you want to do that then you do that. You are free to believe whatever you want. Go with the consensus. But here’s the thing, the consensus rarely knows why it believes what it believes. Sheep just follow sheep. They don’t know why.
Moreover, misconceptions are built into the language. For example, above I mentioned the boiling/pressure point of H2O. I might have also mentioned it as the condensation/pressure point. But if I had that would have probably confused you, because the word condensation is, in common usage, considered the reversal of boiling AND it is considered the the reversal of evaporation. And boiling and evaporation are very different processes (one produces atmospheric H2O[l] and the other produces H2O[g]).
So, you see, the language conspires against us. The only thing you can do is be tough minded about it. And that is not something that comes easily to many people. (As you can see, however, Werner seems to be doing pretty good with it.)
Unfortunatelty, this is one of those things that some people get and some just don’t. And there isn’t much I can do to change that. All I can suggest is that you work at it.
No one considers condensation to be the reverse of boiling. There is no reverse of boiling. A liquid is either boiling or not boiling.
Evaporation is the reverse of condensation.
Before I answer your question let me ask you if you understand the difference between the following:
Amospheric H2O(L). (Droplets suspended in the air.)
and
H2O(g) gaseous H2O
Do you realize these are not one and the same? Can you explain the difference. Go ahead. Answer the question and I will answer yours. Okay?
You clearly understand nothing. Less than nothing.
Anyone with high school physics and chemistry can answer your moronic question.
Can you really possibly be as idiotic, ignorant, lazy, crazy and arrogant as you appear?
McGinn says:
Answer the question and I will answer yours.
Yes, I understand the difference. One is in a liquid state and the other is a gas.
Your turn. Name one who agrees with you.
dbstealey November 10, 2015 at 7:50 pm
That question was not directed at you it was directed at DM.
But to answer your question, I know not of even one physicists, chemists, and/or peer reviewed papers, or who teach in universities, or who write critically acclaimed physics or chem textbooks who have stated such.
But I also know of no laboratory evidence that indicates otherwise.
You stick with what is important to you. I will stick with what is important to me.
Fair enough?
McGinn,
That says it all, so I guess I can’t complain. Fair enough. But next time, please address whoever it is you’re replying to.
So, there isn’t one person in the whole wide world with any real credibility who agrees with you. Most folks would take that as an indication that maybe their strange conjecture needs a little work. To put it politely…
After so much time and effort mud wrestling with a pig, it’s time to stop. You only get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
Why, oh why, does this prize-winning blog allow such idiocy at such length?
McGinn says:
Have you all considered the possibility that you may all be wrong?
Speaking for myself, I considered that when you first proposed your conjecture that droughts increase downwind from windmill farms. I was intrigued.
But you tucked tail and ran when it was proposed that your conjecture would be very easy to check. You could do a straightforward experiment using free, publicly available precipitation records downwind of the literally hundreds of wind farms all over the globe.
But you just made excuses rather than do that very simple experiment. For me at least, that took all the air out of your credibility, and you’ve done nothing since then to resurrect it.
(And by the way, when you wrote: That question was not directed at you it was directed at DM Did you notice the time stamps make that claim highly questionable?)
dbstealey November 10, 2015 at 8:40 pm
McGinn says:
Have you all considered the possibility that you may all be wrong?
Speaking for myself, I considered that when you first proposed your conjecture that droughts increase downwind from windmill farms. I was intrigued.
The coorelation does seem uncanny. The one that most intrigued me was Brazil. And then there’s India. I didn’t know they had wind farms going back to 1996. And it would seem that the drought began immediately thereafter. And then all the farmer suicides.
It’s especially ironic that one of the solutions to the financial hardship of drought being suggested to farmers is wind turbines.
Why don’t you see if you can get a meteorologists to do the study. I mean, its not like they have a theory to flesh out.
McGinn says:
Why don’t you see if you can get a meteorologists to do the study. I mean, its not like they have a theory to flesh out.
More excuses…
McGinn says:
I think we have to do more than just accept the Scientific Method. We have to apply it.
The central problem here is that you never apply your ideas to an experiment. Instead, you constantly challenge skeptics of your ‘steam’ conjecture to do experiments. Apparently you either don’t realize, or don’t care, that such experiments support basic physics, and they have been done over many decades. The onus is not on established physics to prove anything to you. Rather, the onus is on you to provide convincing experiments that support your conjecture.
But the one time you were given the opportunity to do a very simple and conclusive experiment (your ‘wind farm/drought’ conjecture), you tucked tail and ran away, emitting excuses in a cloud of pixels like a squid emits a cloud of ink to escape. But those excuses don’t hold water; none of them did. They were just lame excuses, like your attempts to get skeptics to do the work you refuse to do.
Your true motive became clear in one of your comments, when you stated what you intended to do if you couldn’t convince anyone else to buy in to your pseudo-science. You stated that you would:
Become a thorn in their side.
Now you are just a crank, incessantly posting past the point of threadjacking. I do not think you will last much longer here.
dbstealey November 10, 2015 at 8:14 pm
dbstealy:
Most folks would take that as an indication . . .
I agree. Most folks would stop, accept it. Not me, though. I look at it this way:
1) Is there anything that proves the proposition true or false. If yes, stop. All is well and good. If no, go to next step.
2) Is the issue critical (does the truth or falsity of the proposition have any bearing on an existing body of work?). If no, stop. It’s not worth pursuing. If yes, go to next step
3) Are the people in the discipline to whom for which the issue is critical aware that the proposition has not been effectively proven true or false? If no, stop and inform them. If yes, move to next step.
4) Are the people actively seeking to test/falsify the proposition? If yes, stop. All is well. If no move to next step.
5) Become a thorn in their side.
What you are saying about the temperature of H2O(g) violates a law of thermodynamics. So there is no need to go further.
Werner Brozek November 11, 2015 at 7:15 am
Not me, though. I look at it this way:
1) Is there anything that proves the proposition true or false. If yes, stop. All is well and good. If no, go to next step.
What you are saying about the temperature of H2O(g) violates a law of thermodynamics. So there is no need to go further.
JM:
As with cold steam, is this law allergic to laboratories?
A laboratory is not even needed here. We all know that if a hot marble is dropped into a cold bowl of water, the hot marble cools off and the water warms up. If you are questioning such basics, we perhaps need to give up talking.
You know nothing about anything.
Fair enough?
How about this laboratory experiment? Put water in a dish and let it evaporate at room temperature. Measure the water vapor concentration before the evaporation and after. Guess what? There will be more water molecules in the air above the dish after the evaporation than before, with all other factors controlled.
Wow! Who would have thought that?
H2O(l) is what we have in a fog or in clouds. There are hundreds or thousands of water molecules clumped together. And if large enough in clouds, these drops fall as rain.
H2O(g) is just individual molecules of H2O without a second H2O attached to it via hydrogen bonding. When the relative humidity is 99% or less, that is what you have, namely H2O(g) whose temperature is as cold as the surrounding air, which could be -60 C in Antarctica.
Werner Brozek November 10, 2015 at 9:23 pm
H2O(g) is just individual molecules of H2O without a second H2O attached to it via hydrogen bonding. When the relative humidity is 99% or less, that is what you have, namely H2O(g) whose temperature is as cold as the surrounding air, which could be -60 C in Antarctica.
James McGinn
How would you substantiate these this moisture is not really, really small ice crystals and, therefore, not “cold steam.” Seriously, think about that. I mean, it’s not like there is every rain at that temperature.
James McGinn:
You ask
Individual molecules cannot be a crystal. And “really, really small ice crystals” would be liquid because the surface of every ice crystal is coated in liquid.
This surface property of ice is why ice is slippery and it was first discovered by Michael Faraday (you may have heard of him, he did some work on electricity when he was one of those scientists whom you claim know less than you). It has been investigated in the centuries since.
If the crystals were really, really small then their surface layers of molecules would be their entire volume. In other words, they would be droplets of liquid and not crystals. And if they were larger than that then their solid surfaces would be coated in liquid water. And the liquid water would wet my clothes: it does not.
The reason that the water in the air does NOT wet my clothes when there is not fog is because the water is vapour – i.e. a gas – and not droplets of liquid water and not crystals coated in liquid water.
So, Mr President, I reply to you, think about that. I mean, it’s not like you know anything about water in the air.
Richard
richardscourtney November 11, 2015 at 2:58 am
If the crystals were really, really small then their surface layers of molecules would be their entire volume. In other words, they would be droplets of liquid and not crystals. And if they were larger than that then their solid surfaces would be coated in liquid water.
And the liquid water would wet my clothes: it does not. The reason that the water in the air does NOT wet my clothes when there is not fog is because the water is vapour – i.e. a gas – and not droplets of liquid water and not crystals coated in liquid water.
JM:
Richard, I would hardly consider this a controlled experiment. You are claiming a depth of understanding that isn’t possible. And your evidence is anecdotal. Steam is quite intrusive. (Steam cleaning.) Yet the anecdote you present appears to indicate otherwise.
You all behave like people whose religion has been criticized. If the science of meteorology can’t stand on its own two feet then the best thing you can do is let it fall–and not take it personally.
It’s just science.
James McGinn:
Centuries of study of the surface property of water is NOT “anecdotal”. Recent methods have revealed how and why solid ice is always coated in a layer of liquid water.
What “understanding” do you claim is “not possible”?
I certainly agree that you are incapable of understanding much, but I and most others reading this understand that liquid water is not a gas: water vapour is a gas.
Water vapour does not wet my clothes because it is a gas, but liquid water does wet my clothes. When steam condenses to water it wets.
Now, Mr President, I suspect that wetting is something else not understood by Your Ignorance. For example, I doubt you know why and how washing up liquid makes water wetter.
So, Your Ignorance, please go elsewhere until you have learned some basic physical chemistry.
Richard
James McGinn
How would you substantiate these this moisture is not really, really small ice crystals and, therefore, not “cold steam.” Seriously, think about that. I mean, it’s not like there is every rain at that temperature.
Do the experiment I suggested up thread: Add a known mass of ice to an evacuated vessel and heat the vessel until all the ice has evaporated. Measure the pressure in the vessel, you will find that it corresponds to a gas of molar mass 18grams, not the 180+ gms that your hypothesis suggests.
You, sir, are a blithering imbecile, scientific ignoramus and foaming at the mouth lunatic. Sorry, but that’s all there is to say.
Have you never in your whole miserable, worse than worthless existence stinking up this planet noticed the phenomenon of evaporation? Water molecules go into the air at far below the boiling point.
I don’t know which is harder to credit, that anyone could possibly be as stupid and crazy as you or that moderators on this site would have been so lenient as to let you keep spewing such garbage at such length.
(Hey! Don’t blame us! It’s not our call. -mod)
OK, I won’t.
I guess it’s my fault and that of all others here who fed the troll.
We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
Goombayah November 10, 2015 at 6:28 pm
Why are you getting angry?
I’ll tell you why. You looked for laboratory evidence that confirms what you believe (and that contradicts what I stated) and you couldn’t find it. It’s incomprehensible to you that this evidence couldn’t exist. Yet you couldn’t find it. You know it must be out there, right? It must be out there, right?
And do you know the reason you couldn’t find it? Because it doesn’t exist. And do you know why it doesn’t exist? Because the notion that gaseous H2O (steam) can exist in our atmosphere is complete nonsense.
It’s that simple folks. There is no such thing as cold steam. It is but an urban myth. The H2O that is in clear moist air is not invisible because it is gaseous H2O(g). It is invisible because it consists of microdroplets that are too small to be seen.
When all else fails, do an experiment.
J. McGinn,
You wrote this to me one hour after I replied to you:
Answer the question and I will answer yours. Okay?
OK. I’ve answered your question. Quit prevaricating and post a name if you’ve got one.
(Note: for some unknown reason WordPress mixes up the comment order. Readers should review the time stamps on comments to see the correct order. -mod)
Not only every lab on earth, but the air everywhere on earth shows that H2O gas exists in the atmosphere. Only a raving lunatic or sick troll would even consider arguing otherwise.
I and every other reader here is sick of your act. There can be no other reason for your pollution of this blog than to discredit it.
Go away! Beat it! Scram! Shoo!
You are a worse than worthless, lame-brained, lying, lunatic, idiotic, ignorant, insane splat of subhuman garbage. And those are your best points.
What if we had a bowl of liquid water at 1 C with a vacuum above it? Would we then not get cold steam?
Werner Brozek November 10, 2015 at 9:41 pm
There is no such thing as cold steam.
What if we had a bowl of liquid water at 1 C with a vacuum above it? Would we then not get cold steam?
Don’t you think quoting people out of context is beneath somebody of your advanced status/maturity:
http://t.co/2Hfa6TiovV
McGinn,
Since prof Brozek replied you have posted comments to Hipper, to me, and to Werner at 9:56 pm, and 10:06 pm, and at 10:07pm, at 10:30 pm, again at 10:39 pm, at 11:30 pm and at 11:50 pm, at 12:07 am, and at 12:21 am, and again at 12:37 am. People are not replying to your thread-jacking.
So far you’ve been entirely in your own world, expounding your baseless beliefs. You refuse to do anything except argue by using your personal opinions and assertions. You never defend your conjecture with any real world experiments, even though the onus is entirely on the one making the conjecture.
Skeptics of your conjecture, which includes everyone else, have nothing to prove. You do. But you always deflect from that, and try to make skeptics in effect prove a negative. If you accepted the Scientific Method you would have been gone from here long ago, because other than your assertions, you’ve got nothing but your opinion. You’re trying to contradict basic physics, which skeptics are not required to defend.
Please give up posting your nutty conjectures here. This is a science site, and you’re wasting the time of everyone else with your pseudo-science. We’re interested in real science, not in the fantastic ideas that only exist in your own mind.
You’ve worn out your welcome, don’t you think? It’s a big internet out there; you have millions of places to argue to your heart’s content. Thread-jacking is against site policy here, so please stop it. Really. You have not convinced one person of anything, and you seem to take pleasure in antagonizing people with your incessant arguments.
If you can find even one credible scientist or educator who supports your ‘no steam in the air’ conjecture, I will acknowledge that you are not the only one in the entire world with your ideas, and I’ll bow out. But if you can’t, it’s time to move on. That’s fair, no?
dbstealey November 11, 2015 at 1:05 am
dbstealey
Skeptics of your conjecture, which includes everyone else, have nothing to prove. You do. But you always deflect from that, and try to make skeptics in effect prove a negative.
James McGinn
Wait a minute. You all are saying cold steam exists in Earth’s atmosphere. That is not a negative. That is a positive assertion. The fact (which not one of you can deny) that it has never been tested is something YOU ALL should be concerned about. This notion is not part of my model. It is part of your model.
You are disputing/dismissing my model based on the fact that my model contradicts a notion that you refuse to test. It doesn’t bother me that you dispute my model. Nor does it bother me that you use this notion (cold steam) to dispute it. I would just suggest that you wait until after you have tested it before you do so–so that you don’t look even more ridiculous than you do already.
dbstealey
If you accepted the Scientific Method
James McGinn
I think we have to do more than just accept the Scientific Method. We have to apply it.
I apologize if you feel I quoted you out of context. But let me just repeat what I said before. If Antarctica has a temperature of -60 C, and if the relative humidity is 5%, then you have no H2O(l) nor H2O(s) in the air, but just very slow moving H2O(g) molecules.
Werner Brozek November 11, 2015 at 8:13 am
If Antarctica has a temperature of -60 C, and if the relative humidity is 5%, then you have no H2O(l) nor H2O(s) in the air, but just very slow moving H2O(g) molecules.
James:
If there was evidence of H2O(g) at -60 C I would have no choice but to concede the argument. But that is the case at any temperature 99 C (at 1 ATM) and below. You still have the problem of how you detect/verify its existence.
Your argument is starting to resemble that of paranormal researchers. They go to increasingly exotic locations to chase their elusive evidence — locations where a controlled experiment is difficult or impossible. That way they always have an excuse in their back pocket for why their experiment failed.
Believers always leave a back door from which the can escape any attempt to genuinely test what they wish to continue to believe. If there was any such thing as cold steam it would be detectable under laboratory conditions of one kind or another. But I suppose when you are chasing ghosts you have to go where the ghost go. And I guess ghosts really don’t like laboratories.
You once stated that H2O(g) cannot exist in air at under 212 F, correct? So let us assume a desert at 110 F and a relative humidity of 5%. If a space probe above the desert were to analyse infrared waves given off, it would detect certain frequencies that are not getting through that would get through if the relative humidity were 0%. And furthermore, these frequencies would be those that can be proven to be from H2O(g) and nothing else. Do you agree?
Werner,
Please correct me if wrong, but could not refraction of the IR light traveling through the air above the desert distinguish between the presence of individual molecules (gas) and water droplets or “clumps” of molecules (liquid) suspended in it?
Refraction would be sightly different with different gases, so air at 99% relative humidity would refract light slightly differently than at 5% relative humidity. The refractive index of air is 1.00029.
From:
http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_5/2_5_7.html
“The refractivity of water vapour is less than that of air, so that if the air is moist its refractive index will be smaller than the value calculated for dry air. This water vapour term is dependent upon wavelength.”
Since the above applies to visible light and different amounts of water vapor, I see no reason for it to not apply to infrared and water vapor as well as to infrared and droplets of H2O(l). However droplets as in clouds would have a greater influence by reflecting and scattering light in my opinion.
Thanks.
That was my impression as well. Thus your space probe observer could determine whether the vapor were actually a gas, as is demonstrably the case, or the mythical, magical tiny droplets of liquid imagined without any basis whatsoever by James.
James, are you aware that other liquid compounds besides H2O also evaporate and sublime, producing gas molecules?
Remedial education for James:
https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/liquids-and-solids-11/phase-changes-90/liquid-to-gas-phase-transition-390-3658/
Werner Brozek November 11, 2015 at 11:30 am
This is extremely contrived. A simple measurement of the relative weight of moist to dry air, controlling for all other factors, would suffice.
There’s another guy on the internet, an Australian, who dispute AGW based on sketchy information from Venus. That is what this reminds me of.
Keep it as simple and straightforward as possible.
And furthermore, these frequencies would be those that can be proven to be from H2O(g) and nothing else. Do you agree?
Surreal.
How could I possibly agree.
Stick to your books.
Please make up your mind. When I stick to my books, you want an experiment. When I propose an experiment, you tell me to stick to my books.
Both my “books” and experiments show the same thing. How could it be otherwise?
Werner,
I am as frustrated as you are. McGinn hasn’t responded to my comment either, in which I asked him what the difference is between two or more molecules of H2O “clumped” together (which he says is OK and can be found throughout the atmosphere) and a single molecule of H2O, which he insists cannot exist in the air, and which cannot be found as a component of the atmosphere.
That is McGinn’s central conjecture, which underlies his whole belief system, and which he has argued over several hundred comments. I would like to see his answer explaining why 2 or more molecules of water are acceptable in his strange world, but one is not possible. But he avoids that problem by not answering.
One other thing (besides his incessant thread-bombing) that irks me is is McGinn’s refusal to ever conduct any experiment that would falsify his conjecture. In fact, he never conducts experiments; he only gives his endless opinions.
McGinn constantly attempts to put the onus on those skeptical of his weird beliefs. That is wrong, of course; someone proposing a new conjecture or hypothesis has the duty of providing convincing supporting evidence that what he says is valid. But he will not do anything other than express endless opinions. He refused to acknowledge Phil’s experiment, and his comment above shows that he can’t refute either your textbooks, or your experiments. And of course, the very simple experiment I proposed that would either prove or falsify his windmill conjecture was dismissed with such pathetic excuses that it is clear he is running away.
Now, after several hundred comments by McGinn we are no farther along than when he first appeared here. He might just as well be arguing that Scientology is valid physics. He has become nothing more than a crank who dodges and weaves constantly, while promoting such anti-science nonsense that rational readers only roll their eyes. There is no reason this science site should tolerate a crank like that. Science is a cooperative effort; it doesn’t progress via the invention of what is clearly errant nonsense, which can never be corrected. It’s past time to show him the door, no?
I know that there are some topics that are not tolerated here at WUWT. But even those topics often have many people that believe in them. Of course that does not make them right or wrong, and the consensus was often wrong in the past. People at the cutting edge like Einstein did have brand new ideas that no one else shared for a while. But disputing high school chemistry and having no one who agrees with you or even with your definitions is another matter.
As for showing him the door, that is not my call, nor would I want it to be my call. On the other hand, by not challenging his ideas, I would not want new readers to think he was on to something on the grounds that they were not challenged. Of course I do not always comment on all errors I see, but in this case, being one of the authors, I feel I have an extra responsibility to do so. And its been fun!
(P.S. As I pointed out before, along the lines of leaving wrong things unchallenged, I was never a professor, just a high school physics and chemistry teacher. I know you mean well by calling me a professor however I would feel as if I would be committing a sin of omission by not correcting you on this as I did earlier.☺)
Hi Werner,
You’ve made it clear before that you were a physics teacher (I didn’t know you also taught chem). So I used small ‘p’ professor. Robert Brown gets the official big P on his title. ☺
Anyway, what McGinn is promoting here isn’t science, it is only his personal fantasy. If he could get just one other person to agree with him, I wouldn’t say that. But what he’s claiming isn’t any more credible than astrology. Maybe even less.
dbstealey
FYI:
Duke University’s physics department lists Robert Brown as a “Lecturer” rather than a “Professor.”
Terry Oldberg,
I didn’t know that. Is there a difference? More importantly: does it really matter?
dbstealy:
Good question! In deciding on whether to accept the conclusion of a person’s argument, a human sometimes employs a heuristic that takes the rank of this person into account. To do so is illogical but common.
OK, but see:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-g-brown-robert-g-brown-125b2b16
“Robert G. Brown
Professor at Duke University”
Any way, Robert G. Brown has never corrected me on this.
Goombayah November 10, 2015 at 6:28 pm
. . . that moderators on this site would have been so lenient as to let you keep spewing such garbage at such length.
[Snip. Please don’t speak for the moderation team. We have enough work going through 1000+ comments and spam every day without dealing with that. -mod.]
That hurt. I knew it would. Try to see it in terms of relative good and bad. The time has come to take Meteorology behind the barn and shoot it.
James McGinn:
So, my most recent refutation of your nonsense “hurt”. Good! Now, perhaps you will take your nonsense elsewhere.
Richard
J. McGinn,
There are literally thousands of physicists who are known to the public; in the public eye. Chemists, too. Those who have published peer reviewed papers, or who teach in universities, or who write critically acclaimed physics or chem textbooks.
Name one of them who has stated that water vapor (steam) cannot be found in the atmosphere, and that it is not a component of the atmosphere.
Name just one.
dbstealey November 10, 2015 at 6:28 pm
J. McGinn,
There are literally thousands of physicists who are known to the public; in the public eye. Chemists, too. Those who have published peer reviewed papers, or who teach in universities, or who write critically acclaimed physics or chem textbooks.
Name one of them who has stated that water vapor (steam) cannot be found in the atmosphere, and that it is not a component of the atmosphere.
Name just one.
James McGinn:
I cannot. Nor can I name one that has done anything but just assume it to be true.
I bet you can’t either.
Am I right?
McGinn cannot find one credible person anywhere to support his ‘steam’ conjecture. When asked, he admitted it:
I cannot. Nor can I name one that has done anything but just assume it to be true.
I bet you can’t either.
Am I right?
No, you are wrong as always.
To begin, there’s prof Werner Brozak and Professor Robert Brown, authors of this article. Either they are right, or you are right. But you cannot all be right.
Since you cannot name one credible person out of the millions available who will agree with your invented beliefs, you have become a crank. You are a site pest who has decided to pester everyone here with your silly ideas. Those ideas are merely asserted, based on your weird chemistry ideation, but they are not based on anything observed in the real world.
That the air contains H2O(g) is not an assumption, as James so falsely and crazily presumes without any evidence at all, but a fact, that is, a scientific observation.
Are you now suggesting that all of the water that evaporates from the lakes and oceans of the world become H2O(g)? GREAT!!!
By the way, boiling also produces H2O(g).
James McGinn November 10, 2015 at 6:10 pm
There is a wealth of laboratory evidence that clearly and unambiguously indicates that the boiling/pressure point of H2O is immutable. Should we just, offhandedly, assume that the laws of nature are different in the atmosphere than they are in the laboratory?
Well?
I am obviously missing your point. Of course water boils at 100 C and 1 atmosphere pressure. No one denies that. But the oceans lose water all the time and they are not boiling.
Werner Brozek November 11, 2015 at 8:22 am
No one denies that. But the oceans lose water all the time and they are not boiling.
Evaporation happens in the laboratory also. But it seems to not produce H2O(g). I wonder why?
Water evaporates everywhere to produce H2O(g). It not only does not seem not to do so, but demonstrably does.
Did you sleep through chemistry class?
See Phil’s experiment above. Consider your crackpot hypothesis well and truly falsified.
Phil.
November 11, 2015 at 10:14 am
Comment with experiment showing your delusion false.
Happy Veterans Day to all who served!
Just give the link by clicking the date and copying and pasting:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/06/is-climate-science-settled-now-includes-september-data/#comment-2069349
Thanks.
No doubt James has read Phil’s experiment but is ignoring it.
No doubt James has read Phil’s experiment but is ignoring it.
This is extremely contrived. A simple measurement of the relative weight of moist to dry air, controlling for all other factors, would suffice.
Can you really be as dumb as you sound?
Phil’s experiment disposes of your loony conjecture. The crackpot notion has been thoroughly falsified. Better try to imagine a new crazy idea.
James McGinn November 11, 2015 at 1:37 pm
“No doubt James has read Phil’s experiment but is ignoring it.”
This is extremely contrived. A simple measurement of the relative weight of moist to dry air, controlling for all other factors, would suffice.
Which is what the International Committee for Weights and Measures did. Extremely accurate balances require a correction for the buoyancy effect, this requires an accurate knowledge of the density of moist air. One of the methods they used was to weigh two objects of the same mass and surface area but different volume, the density of the air was then determined using Archimedes’ Principle. The equation of state that they determined using these measurements (CIPM-2007) includes a correction to the Gas Law for the mass fraction of water vapor. This correction is negative indicating that moist air has a lower density than dry air, thus falsifying McGinn’s hypothesis.
http://www.nist.gov/calibrations/upload/CIPM-2007.pdf
James McGinn November 7, 2015 at 6:40 pm
dbstealey:
And I should have known that your mind is closed to any possibility that gaseous H2O exists in the air. If you admitted that, your entire belief system would fall apart,
James McGinn:
I admit that admitting it would be very painful, because it would essentially refute my whole hypothesis on tornadogenesis, which took me four years to develop. But if it could be demonstrated empirically I would have no choice but to accept that. So, it is no small matter for me.
So now that McGinn’s hypothesis has been falsified I assume that he will accept that fact and publish a retraction on his website?
James McGinn November 11, 2015 at 1:37 pm
No doubt James has read Phil’s experiment but is ignoring it.
This is extremely contrived. A simple measurement of the relative weight of moist to dry air, controlling for all other factors, would suffice.
Like the International Bureau of Weights and Measures do, for very precise balances a correction for the density of air is necessary. The method they use is to weigh two different objects of the same mass and surface area but different volume and determine the density of air using Archimedes’ principle. These measurements are extraordinarily precise (they recently changed their recommended formula to account for an improved value for the mol fraction of Argon in air).
The equation of state for moist air (CIPM-2007) they determine is the gas law with a negative correction term for the mass fraction of water, i.e. they find the density of air to decrease as the concentration of water increases. So controlling for all other factors they find that moist air is less dense than dry air. McGinn’s hypothesis is therefore falsified, I take it that James will now concede the argument and publish a retraction on his website?
James:
If there was evidence of H2O(g) at -60 C I would have no choice but to concede the argument. But that is the case at any temperature 99 C (at 1 ATM) and below. You still have the problem of how you detect/verify its existence.
Picard A and Fang H 2004 Mass comparisons using air buoyancy artefacts Metrologia 41 330–2
http://www.nist.gov/calibrations/upload/CIPM-2007.pdf
Phil. November 12, 2015 at 6:31 am
James McGinn November 11, 2015 at 1:37 pm
No doubt James has read Phil’s experiment but is ignoring it.
This is extremely contrived. A simple measurement of the relative weight of moist to dry air, controlling for all other factors, would suffice.
Like the International Bureau of Weights and Measures do, for very precise balances a correction for the density of air is necessary.
Uh, did you read the paper?. Let me clue you in:
THEY DIDN’T MEASURE/COMPARE THE WEIGHT OF MOIST AIR TO DRY AIR. THEY CALCULATED IT! and the ASSUMED H2O as steam.
It’s right there in black and white.
Believers need but a feather of evidence to see confirmation of what they want to believe. They then put that evidence in their cap and go on their merry way.
Meteorologists are the dumbest of the dumb.
{really? OK bud, you’re done here – bit bucket for you – Anthony}
It should be noted that the equation in the link above has been compared to measured air densities and found to be correct to within a very small factor (see e.g. Picard A, Fang H and Glaser M 2004 Discrepancies in air density determination between the thermodynamic formula and a gravimetric method: evidence for a new value of the mole fraction of argon in air. Metrologia 41 396–400). If moist air were heavier than dry air the comparison documented in this study would have found huge differences between the calculated and measured densities.
There is absolutely no uncertainty here: moist air is less dense than dry air.
Not surprising, since H2O is lighter than other air molecules, ie N2, O2, Ar, CO2, CH4, etc.
I wonder if departed James also imagines that evaporating liquid or sublimating solid carbon dioxide and methane also form “clumps” rather than existing in air as single molecules in their gaseous phase.
Distinguished host,
Thanks!
[Deleted. Mr. McGinn, you have made 299 comments claiming that your beliefs are valid. But you have consistently refused to provide any experimental data as requested, and your recent comments are simply threadjacking in violation of site policy. We wish you the best of luck wherever you decide to post. ~mod.]
I dare you to post what this is in response to.
(Done. But that’s it. ~mod.)
Uh, did you read the paper?. Let me clue you in:
THEY DIDN’T MEASURE/COMPARE THE WEIGHT OF MOIST AIR TO DRY AIR. THEY CALCULATED IT! and the ASSUMED H2O as steam.
Yes I did read it and you are wrong, they measured the buoyancy force acting directly on the object which is equal to the weight of the air displaced, so they directly compared the weight of moist air to dry air.
The only calculation necessary is to divide by the volume to determine the density.
There is no assumption of the state of the water.
The ‘believer’ here is you, McGinn, stretching everything to find confirmation of what you want to believe.
You asked for ‘a simple measurement of the relative weight of moist to dry air’, which is exactly what I gave you! Time to retract your falsified hypothesis.
Your attempt to malign meteorologists has no effect on me since I’m a physical chemist, however the scientists who did this work are metrologists (look it up).
Do you really imagine that only boiling water produces water vapor?
In that case, you’re not only ignorant and stupid, but nuts.
If there is no conclusive evidence one way or another then its best to just agree to disagree. (Or do an experiment.)
“Can’t we all just get along?”
Rodney King
We know the heat of vaporization of water to be 2260 J/g. I assume this is when a single water molecule at a time escapes into the air. So if many break off, would the heat not be way less? For example, let us presume that 100 H2O molecules at a time break off at a time. Since the bonds between these same 100 molecules would not be affected if 100 broke off at once, would the heat of vaporization not be 1/100 as much or 22.6 J/g?
Water’s polarity does not change when one bond is broken. The electronegativity difference between H and O does not change when one molecule escapes by breaking a hydrogen bond. The second molecule needs just as much energy to escape as the first. If this were not the case, then as a sample of liquid boils, the heat of vaporization should get higher and higher as more liquid boils. Would that be a logical conclusion if you are correct saying: “ making the second very hard to break”?
Water’s polarity does not change when one bond is broken.
Actually, it does.
The electronegativity difference between H and O does not change
True. Electronegativity differences are a constant. (As I indicated previously.)
when one molecule escapes by breaking a hydrogen bond. The second molecule needs just as much energy to escape as the first. If this were not the case, then as a sample of liquid boils, the heat of vaporization should get higher and higher as more liquid boils. Would that be a logical conclusion if you are correct saying: “ making the second very hard to break”?
You are not making sense here. Each H2O molecule can share a bond with four neighbors. In cool, calm liquid water (except along the surface) the vast majority of them (but not all) do just that.
When it comes to polarity, electronegativity differences are only part of the puzzle. In cool, calm liquid water the prevalence of bonds reconciles the assymetry that underlies the polarity (read this sentence again, slowly). It’s got nothing to do with the electronegativity. Electronegativity differences are a constant. As you stated, “The electronegativity difference between H and O does not change.” It’s the achievement of symmetry (the fact that the electronegativity is no longer lopsided) that is the significant change that neutralizes the polarity. AND THAT IS WHY WATER IS FLUID.
Think about it. If your statement about polarity being a constant were true then the fluidity of water would not exist. Compare hydrogen bonds (in water) to ionic bonds (in salt). Think about it: the force that brings water molecules together is not that much greater or lesser in magnitude than the force that brings the Na and the Cl together in table salt. Yet table salt is hard, and water is fluid. Why? Because in water (hydrogen bonds) the force that brought them together is neutralized (specifically, the polarity is neutralized by the achievement of the symmetry restoring hydrogen bonds). In salt there is no neutralization. The forces (ionic) that brought them together is not neutralized. So salt is hard.
If what you are saying was true we’d be able to walk across the oceans.
You can walk across the oceans if the temperature is low enough and ice forms. Even salt (NaCl) melts at 801 C.
It seems that your concept of what constitutes water vapor is not what real scientists consider water vapor.
Your semantic games are beyond stupid. Kindly STFU and crawl back into whatever stinking hole out of which you crawled.
The Control Freaks around the Big Machine look deceptively benign. The significant variables and their controls should also have polarity signs, no?
An interesting and enjoyable article, but then I don’t need much convincing. There must be items that should be added to the list of inputs, but I’m more concerned about the ones that should be removed. Physics? Biology? Chemical? You have included a rider before the list, but given the last two items in your list, the other items should be the known knowns.
I can settle once and for all the question posed by the article. Of course the science is settled; it has been settled for a long time. And it’s high time we kicked the settlers out — that bunch of undesirables and ne’er do wells are ruining the whole neighbourhood.
&
How to answer the questions “. . . do you think climate science is settled? If not, do you think it will be settled in your lifetime?”? Do I answer them in the context of the broader intellectual issues or in the narrower context of the actions and works of the IPCC? For this comment I will go with IPCC context. Perhaps I will comment separately about the other broader intellectual context.
To the question ‘do you think climate science is settled?’ – I answer that the IPCC endorsed hypothesis** is unsupportable in any sense based on any clear objective scientific perspective. One can find the evidence that the hypothesis is unsupported in the IPCC’s FAR, SAR, AR3, AR4 & AR5. My view of the current disposition of the hypothesis is that it is unsupported by observation.
To the question ‘If not, do you think it will be settled in your lifetime?’ – I answer that the emphasis on the climate science discussion is likely to morph its focus to a more fundamental intellectual struggle to save the integrity of science from subjectivism in the philosophy of science; save climate focused science from the IPCC’s commitment to and endorsement of the subjective process. Assuming that at my current age of 65 it is possible that I will live ~20 more years (hopefully). Then I think I will live to see the end of that intellectual struggle in the philosophy of science focused on climate and that a much more objective philosophy of science focused on climate will prevail and I think it will persist for a while, perhaps 100 years.
** The IPCC endorsed hypothesis is dualistic and the hypothesis is there must be significant anthropogenic climate change (aka AGW) from burning fossil fuels which must cause an overall net dangerous/negative effect on the manifold lifeforms that are exposed to the ‘coupled Earth-Ocean-Atmosphere-Solar system’.
NOTE: I really love the intellectual vibrancy in these kinds of threads. Thanks WUWT and thanks to rgbatduke /Werner Brozek /Just The Facts. The responses by commenters are wonderfully stimulating.
John
The moon may well influence the reported increase in sea level because there are several periodicities in the tides and I never see any reference to the lunar influences when I read articles about the recent increases.
Thanks to the authors for a great article.
to your list I would add under (2) nutation, imparted by (3) the moons gravity tidal forcing.
I would really like to hear your analysis of the following article’s suggestion:
“Are Lunar Tides Responsible for Most of the Observed Variation in the Globally Averaged Historical Temperature Anomalies? ”
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/are-lunar-tides-responsible-for-most-of.html
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/part-b-are-lunar-tides-responsible-for.html
Piers Corbyn has thoughts on this here:
https://weatheraction.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/piers-corbyn-the-mid-atlantic-cold-blob-is-a-total-defeat-for-co2-warmist-delusion-and-vindication-of-solar-lunar-driven-wild-jet-stream-mini-ice-age-conditions/#more-5079
Piers Corbyn – “The Mid-Atlantic ‘cold blob’ is a total defeat for CO2 warmist delusion and vindication of Solar-Lunar driven Wild Jet stream / Mini Ice Age conditions”
My inclination is to take what he says seriously.
It’s not that complicated.
1. Mankind’s contribution to the earth’s CO2 balance is trivial.
2. CO2’s contribution to earth’s heat balance is trivial.
3. GCM’s don’t work.
Werner,Robert -you ask
“After reading this article, do you think climate science is settled? If not, do you think it will be settled in your lifetime”
Before answering we must first define “settled ” more precisely. I would suggest that in order for it to be settled we must think we have enough knowledge of the climate system and certainty about our future
climate forecasts that we can decide whether there is a climate problem that needs to be addressed.
The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without reference to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year cycles so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense.
Section1 of my blog-post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
has a complete discussion of the uselessness of the climate models. I’m sure that rgb would agree with me that the forecasts of the scientific establishment provide no useful guidance with regard to this question .A new forecasting method needs to be adopted.
The core competency in the Geological Sciences is the ability to recognize and correlate the changing patterns of events in time and space. This requires a mindset and set of skills very different from the reductionist approach to nature, but one which is appropriate and necessary for investigating past climates and forecasting future climate trends. Scientists and modelers with backgrounds in physics and maths usually have little experience in correlating multiple, often fragmentary, data sets of multiple variables to build an understanding and narrative of general trends and patterns from the actual individual local and regional time series of particular variables.
Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths combined with endogenous secular earth processes such as, for example, plate tectonics. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of the relation of the climate of the present time to the current phases of these different interacting natural quasi-periodicities.
In other words, to have any meaning ,any projections of any temperature time series into the future must set that data segment into the context of its position in the natural cycles.
In this regard the Brozek, Brown analysis above is seriously lacking because it does not provide any working hypothesis of climate change other than an implied simple straight line projection from past to future.
For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check the blog-post linked above
The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the activity peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zZLVnsvgYTw/Vj0GEDv2q7I/AAAAAAAAAag/eumhxpS9ciE/s1600/trend11615.png
As to the question of when we will know enough to have confidence in our predictions.
The temperature data in the link shows that the temperature peak in 2003 was close to a peak in both the 60 and the 1000 year cycles . If we are now on the downslope of the 1000 year cycle then the next peak in the 60 year cycle at about 2063 should be lower than the 2003 peak and the next 60 year peak after that at about 2123 should be lower again, so, by that time ,if the peak is lower, we will be pretty sure that we are on our way to the next little ice age.
That is a long time to wait, but we will get some useful clues a long time before that. The neutron curve in Fig 14 – shows that from the beginning of 2007 to the end of 2009 solar activity dropped to the lowest it has been for a long time. Given the 12 year delay between the 1991 solar activity peak and the 2003 temperature peak, if there is a similar delay in the response to lower solar activity , earth should see a cold spell from 2019 to 2021 .
It should also be noticeably cooler at the coolest part of the present 60 year cycle – halfway through the cycle at about 2033.
We can watch for these things to happen but meanwhile keep in mind that the overall cyclic trends can be disturbed and hidden for a time in some years by the El Nino weather patterns in the Pacific and the associated high temperatures that we see in for example 1998 and 2010 and that we are just beginning to see in the RSS data Oct 2015.
Personally, I think many changes are sinusoidal. See an earlier post of mine here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/09/are-we-in-a-pause-or-a-decline-now-includes-at-least-april-data/
It shows the graph from Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu. http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=330
Thanks for the links. The Akasofu graph shows nicely the joint 60 year and millennial peak at about 2003.Projections beyond that point should include the declining trend of the millennial cycle modulated by the 60 year cycle.
.The temperature curve is an emergent phenomena ,the result of the stacking of a large number of quasi cyclic processes.
The simplest assumption ,which Ockams razor says should be used for starters, is that the shape and amplitude of the next millennial cycle will be like the last one.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4nY2wr6L-WY/U81v9OzFkfI/AAAAAAAAATM/NA6lV86_Mx4/s1600/fig5.jpg
As you can see the shape is more saw toothed than sinusoidal with a down leg of about 635 and an uptrend of about 365 years.
In short any forecast which doesn’t include the relatively large amplitude millennial cycle is worthless.
Dr Page
I do not consider that from a 1000 years of data, one can say that “the shape is more saw toothed than sinusoidal with a down leg of about 635 and an uptrend of about 365 years” as if this is meant to signify something of substance such that this is a trend that will be repeated throughout the inter glacial.
Your plot (Fig 5) does not tell one, what the future will hold, although I do consider that it is likely that natural cycles, especially oceanic ones and the amount of solar insolation getting through to the oceans, will dominate and control the future, more than the so called control knob of CO2.
And you should NOT be putting trend lines across the 1997-2001 El nino step event.
This graph shows the actual reality.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/rss/from:2001.2/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1996/trend/plot/rss/from:2001.2/trend/offset:-.26
Anyone is free to draw the trend lines wherever they think best illustrates their ideas. You wish to illustrate a step jump . This is certainly a possibility .Whether is “actual reality ” is something else entirely.
I guess if you consider the El Nino as part of the general slight warming trend from 1979-1997, you should display it as such…….
…. even though it was a large step event, separate from that slight warming trend. 😉
Andy
I am with you in that if you are seeking to wean out some underlying background warming trend, then one should remove the El Nino from the data since this is not part of the background trend that one is seeking to discover.
The satellite data set clearly shows no correlation with CO2 induced warming, but of course it is a short data set but one in during which a significant part of all manmade emissions of CO2 has taken place.
Mr CFC, stick around and read what’s here. Bring on your best arguments. Leave your predispositions behind and test everyone’s comments on the rules of scientific debate.
What is naive is accepting a consensus of opinion from authority which is all paid by government based upon their performance in support for the present political agenda of “planned austerity”.
We are here to try and help each other think independently and rationally. Maybe it might rub off on you.
By the way, if settled science can’t explain the pause, then it can’t explain the cause. IT HAS FAILED and must be replaced with whatever actually explains reality. (h/t R. Feynman)
That’s why NOAA’s trough-feeding, anti-scientists felt the need to get rid of the Plateau, just as Mann used tricks to try to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.
Have you got the legend for the red and the blue lines mixed up ?
Relativistic effects should be added and “physics” should be removed…
Physics is conceptual ideas of how nature works, relative effects are a proven concept of how nature works lol just elaborating 🙂
A long name does not signify intelligence to us but the writing does signify stupidity.
Read RGBs script. I dare you
How many people drink what has settled to the bottom of the bottle?
(That’s where the Kool-Aid lives.)
Solar irradiance unquestionably provides the overwhelming bulk of energy that drives the climate system, with geothermal energy making only a very minor contribution. Thus it’s astounding to see solar energy relegated No. 4 in the list of climatic variables, while the earth’s rotation is listed as No. 1. The latter merely steers fluid motion on the globe through the Coriolis effect, rather than driving it, and is a factor only in the spatial redistribution of thermal energy.
100% correct. And no one mentions the repeated Ice Ages of the last 2 million years that come and go like clockwork.
But surely “not having the evidence that CO2 might be a problem, is not a reason for not taking action, as if it was a problem”. And therein lies the rub!
Obama has discounted the AGW discussion and Paris will do the same. Ultimately the Greens will be seen for what they are. Dangerous destroyers who would like to think it was better in the Middle Ages but they still drive Eco SUVs.
The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than now.
Yes it was but there were no SUV’s or electricity causing CO2 to rise!!!
You might consider approaching IBM and offering them your product. IBM is looking for products that add a lot of value and that smaller competitors can’t sell successfully.
Or, if not IBM, then some large and aggressive IT company that makes acquisitions, like Microsoft or HP.
I would suggest Computer Associates (CA). They seem to see a market and buy someone else’s product and sell it as their own. NetQoS is a good example.
The question of whether “climate science is settled” assumes a fact not in evidence. This is that climate “science” is a legitimate science. I say no.
Good point! Perhaps it would be better if we assumed “climate science” was a combination of dozens of different individual sciences.
Werner:
The “science” should be defined as the mutual information between the model’s condition-space and sample-space as this is the information that is available for the purpose of controlling our climate system. The mutual information aka science is nil. Thus, the climate system is uncontrollable.
Is climate science settled? Instead I say Is global warming a settled science? Basically because the natural variability components are not global in nature but they are more of local and regional in nature similar to general circulation patterns defined by systematic variations in climate change.
To answer this [1] IPCC must stop using climate change, that relates to all met parameters, to global warming, that relates to one met parameter, namely temperature; [2] IPCC must present quantitatively the trend in global average temperature estimated using reliable data series [not cooked up or manipulated data series]; [3] IPCC must then separate the component that contributing by human activity in global average temperature trend in quantitative terms; [4] IPCC must separate the trend due to anthropogenic greenhouses component created by greenhouse effect from the human activity component, which is known as global warming component; [5] Unless these are not answered, we cannot say global warming is a settled science and thus its impact on nature is real. Models may tell many things but they are hypothetical and not real.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Since even the IPCC says the range of climate sensitivity is from 1.5 to 4.5 per doubling, as far as I am concerned, this is an admission that the issue of global warming is not settled. Furthermore, the pause would indicate that even 1.5 is too high.
The climate sensitivity” aka “the equilibrium climate sensitivity” (TECS) is the ratio between the change in the global surface air temperature at equilibrium and the change in the logarithm of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Though the ratio between two variables is not generally a constant the ratio between these two variables is asserted by the IPCC to be a constant. This assertion cannot be tested because the value of the numerator in the ratio (the change in the global surface temperature at equilibrium) cannot be observed. Thus, TECS is scientific nonsense.
Werner
I am with you on that. As I said (richard verney November 6, 2015 at 10:56 am):
“If it was settled, there would not be some 90 or so Climate Models, but rather just 3 setting out predictions (not projections) for the 3 future CO2 scenarios. Being generous, there might be a total of 9 models producing predictions (not projections) as above but as varied with the 3 manmade future aerosol emission scenarios.
So one only has to look at the IPCC Reports themselves to know that the science is not settled.
Further, the most important aspect is the so called Climate Sensitivity. However, they are unable to put a figure on Climate Sensitivity, instead a wide range is set that has not been narrowed in some 35 years notwithstanding countless billions of dollars spent on the issue, and they are not even able to set out a consensus view on this topic.”
As regards the ‘pause’ it must be the case that the longer the ‘pause’ continues, the lower Climate sensitivity must be. I have often pointed out that if this current El Nino does not result in a long lasting step change in temperatures (as was coincident upon the 1997/8 Super el Nino), the high 2015/early2016 temperatures will simply be a temporary blip on the chart and a following La Nina will bring temperatures down and following that La Nina one may anticipate that temperatures will once again track the 2001 to 2003 anomaly level.
IF (and that is a big IF) that is the case then coming into AR6 the ‘pause’ will be more than 21 years in duration. Further one may reasonably expect many more papers published on Climate Sensitivity in 2017 and 2018 suggesting ever lowering figures for Climate sensitivity. As you suggest, it is likely that these papers will put a figure of less than 1.5 on Climate sensitivity.
How will the IPCC cope with that? The discrepancy between model projections and real world observational data will widen, with all the models being outside their 95% confidence bounds, and with recent papers putting Climate Sensitivity at 1.5 or less, which is not the required scary figure of more than 2degC.
Difficult times lie ahead for the IPCC unless this current strong El Nino results in a long lasting step change in temperature.
richard verney:
The theory that there has been a “pause” has the shortcoming that it defines the “global warming” in the interval of the pause in such a way as to make it multivalued. Thus in circumstances in which it is true that the “global warming” is nil it is also true that the “global warming” is not nil violating the law of non-contradiction. I’ve provided details in several posts to this blog.
Also, the theory that “the climate sensitivity” is a constant of Earth’s climate system has the shortcoming of lacking either theoretical or empirical support. That it appears to be a constant seems to have been achieved by placement of “the” in front of “climate sensitivity.”
IPCC AR5 text box 9.2 acknowledges a 15 year pause/hiatus/lull/stasis (at publication) and the GCMs disappointing failure to model it.
Robert G Brown is one of the few people I look up to, not because he has solved the problem of Climate (change) but because he accurately understands the almost complete impossibility of understanding it!
Years ago someone said to me that, faced with a problem that you didn’t know how to solve, you must go back to first principles. None of the theories and equations helping? start from scratch and develop new ones!
Robert G Brown reminds us that the ‘easy’ problems that we can solve with the application of linear differential equations (and in a sense, scientific theories are simply differential equations, like F=ma) have already been solved, and that what remain are the fiendishly hard problems, that, even if we can identify the differential equations that govern system behaviour, are practically incalculable because of the inherent non linearity of multiple terms, all of which affect each other.
In essence this approach – finding the underlying (partial) differential equations – won’t work, not because we get the raw science wrong, but because the integration of those partials over time leads us into sensitivity issues and chaotic behaviours that is essentially the nature of the beast. Larger and larger supercomputers merely extend the size of the area we can predict with some degree of accuracy, from the minuscule to the pathetically small.
And this is why even this brave attempt to identify all the variables, and even establish the correct partial differential equations based upon them will not result in a computer model that accurately predicts the climate.
The only approach that I have ever come across that partially works, is to examine the possible cases and eliminate those that are completely unstable – that is if we consider all possible climates in terms of stability, we will find that huge collections of them are so mightily unstable that should perturbation of the system by e.g. volcanic eruption or meteor strike or even releases of lots of lovely CO2, cause the system to enter such a region, the overwhelming tendency would be to revert back to a more stable region.
That is, we might be able to map climate into zones of possible quasi stability, and zones of impossible instability. If you like instead of working out what the climate will be, we could at least ascertain what it simply couldn’t be. And then leave the rest as ‘what it could and might be’.
This alone is probably what an organisation like the IPCC should be tasked with – what are the possible states of future climate, what are their potential probabilities, and impacts, and how should we meet the challenges – not by attempting to stop them happing, but by identifying the physical and social and economic changes necessary to adapt to them.
IN my time beyond engineering as a business man, I learnt a Golden rule. Do not expend effort on attempting to change that which is inevitable, nor attempting to solve that which is – for whatever reason, effectively insoluble: Rather use the techniques of pragmatism – as practised by both engineers, and oddly enough, the military,. and consider all the possibilities, do the research or reconnaissance to ascertain which of them are likely, plan accordingly,. make tentative steps forward, and as soon as it appears that the situation is not as it appeared to be, change the plan without shame.
IN other words, going back to first principles, as a putative agent of government, what the real question is, is not ‘where is the climate going’ but ‘where might the climate go, with what probability, and, given that its unlikely we can in all honesty stop it, what should be a meaningful response that preserves as much of civilisation as is practicable’?
I know that the flnal answer would be along he lines of :
‘Almost anywhere within a degree or two, a few cm or so of sea level, a few cms or so of rainfall, and indeed along the any of the lines that the historical record have already shown us is certainly possible’ and as to what we ought to do about it, the final answer there would be: ‘be prepared with a contingency fund, to meet whatever Nature sends, but dont waste a single halfpenny on trying to stop it or second guessing what its going to do, because frankly the mathematics is insoluble to that level of detail’.
And to PROVE that the ‘mathematics is insoluble to that level of detail.’ is the first step.
Its not just a matter of finding the right equations, don’t waste time on that. Because the simpler job is to prove that even if you did find them they wouldn’t actually allow the integration to a realistic and useful prediction, anyway.
All we need to do is to have enough of the relevant parameters to show that the problem is chaotic and non linear, calculate the size of computer needed to give an answer in real time, rather than hindcasting, and that will show that all climate science of the sort that is claimed is ‘settled’ is in fact completely useless.
Not that it will change a damned thing politically, because the mathematics to do that would be beyond nearly everyone – especially ‘climate scientists’ who are mainly, at best, third rate alchemists – and as we know, that which passeth all understanding, is in the end a matter of faith to those whom it passeth….
Leo says:
Robert G Brown is one of the few people I look up to…
I think the same of your comments, Leo. And quite a few others like Anthony, Willis, Drs. Spencer, Ball, Brown, and others here who argue the skeptics’ side of the story.
The people commenting here are credible for the most part, and as we know, skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. All we’re doing is asking the purveyors of climate doom to show us where there is anything unprecedented, or even unusual happening. But they haven’t been able to do that.
“… In essence this approach – finding the underlying (partial) differential equations – won’t work, not because we get the raw science wrong, but because the integration of those partials over time leads us into sensitivity issues and chaotic behaviours that is essentially the nature of the beast. Larger and larger supercomputers merely extend the size of the area we can predict with some degree of accuracy, from the minuscule to the pathetically small. …”
The above quote is a small part of the very, very good comment. Having been guilty of teaching both calculus and physics to impressionable young people, I can not help but agree with this to the max. I can only add that if some of our beginning assumptions about how the system really works are wrong, then this problem becomes even more difficult than Leo Smith pointed out. In other words, if we had the “raw science” right it would be a massively difficult problem — and if we have the “raw science” wrong (as I believe we do) then the problem becomes impossible.
Thank you Leo for the great comment. By the way, I think Leo’s comment might well be one that should be elevated to a full post here to allow for discussion of these issues.
I agree! Perhaps I will use it in a future post if it has not been elevated by then.
Leo, I believe your approach is eminently doable and, in part, is done! How many kinds of weather are there anyway? In the polar regions, what, 2-3, in the temperate zones 5 or 6, and in the tropics 2-3. Empirically it has reached these temperatures, these rainfalls/snowfalls (or lacks thereof), these intensities and numbers of storms of a couple of types and the secondary effects – rates of sea-level change, droughts, fires etc. Also some physical, non weather stuff – volcanoes, tsunami, earthquakes, extraterrestrial bolides. We should be spending more money on tracking all the asteroids while we are at it and planning possible things that might be done.
I have a soft hypothesis -actually it might be better termed an axiom- that PREDICTIONS OF DOOMSTERS WILL NEVER COME TRUE. Such predictions are made using linear thinking of the kind discussed here for which a supportive legitimate mathematical expression is impossible. In the case of malthusian disasters, their predictions are even less possible because they miss out the confounding principal component of human ingenuity in their thinking. Our cities didn’t end up being buried in horse manure (Malthus), the industrial revolution didn’t starve itself out by 1900 because of the shortage of coal (Jevons), we didn’t starve to death by 2000 and run out of mineral resources (Club of Rome, Holdren, Ehrlich) nor did we freeze to death by that date with the imminent man-made new ice age on the way (by the same people). Saudi oil minister Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani said it best in a 2005 interview with New York Times discussing peak oil: “The Stone Age didn’t end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil.”
The Club of Rome’s 1972 “Limits to Growth” and others by the same group in recent years were totally blown away. We have doubled the 1972 world population and have 7B people living better and longer than the 3.5B of 1972. That there are still apparently well educated persons making such doomster predictions is evidence more of their misfit psychology than the application of sound methods. All these predictions are made by biologists and social scientists whose training and knowledge are linear and more akin to accounting than to creative science. Such disciplines give the air of erudition but they are precisely the least equipped to make such predictions. Knowing the sex rituals of the chameleon, which do not change over a very long time if at all, or counting tiger turds in the jungle to calculate population, are not the kind of skills required to properly attempt to forecast the future of mankind and the planet.
Mention should also be made here of the inevitability of unexpected consequences (themselves arising from the same kind of lack of unpredictability inherent in “doom” and climate science) that have and will abound in any action that might be designed by doomsters to correct the perceived fantasy. Some of their geoengineering ideas are downright scary and definitely not the work of engineers (although I guess you could buy one). These aspects definitely also brand doomster climate scientists as political activists and social scientists.
“There is absolutely no question that our climate is precisely a self-organized system of this sort. We have long since named the observed, temporally persistent self-organized structures — ENSO, the Monsoon, the NAO, the PDO.”
You are kidding yourself, NAO and ENSO variability is driven by atmospheric responses to solar plasma variations.
I envy you your certainty, sir.
I look at this all like a 10K piece jig-saw puzzle, with no accompanying picture to look at. We have the border assembled because those pieces are obvious. now we must begin to find where the assembled groups of similar colored pieces will be in the picture, which we have not seen, but from all indications is abstract and unpredictable in its composition.
“..but from all indications is abstract and unpredictable in its composition.”
That’s rather like the IPCC declaring the nature of what they have not yet understood.
(in case anyone is still reading this thread) it’s not the EPA. some bureaucracy. or sciensce sugardaddy.
“After reading this article, do you think climate science is settled? If not, do you think it will be settled in your lifetime?”
if i believe the idea skeptical vieuw: yes as they say in chorus the only “settled scientific point you can make about climate”: It changes and will always change and we don’t know which way it will change. We can go to a new optimum or dive down into an ice age. It even can go back to the eocene maximum. during that eocene maximum, trocical fish were swimming in the arctic oceans. or it can go to the snowball earth episode. We simply don’t know.
definitely it won’t be settled in our liftetime. We even don’t have a decent record to really know what happened the last 1000 years so how can we then even settle it in the coming 20-40 years?.
i would go back to my question i always ask: if we would have a reliable record of the length of the Vostok core (430.000 years) would we then label this warming we see as “abnormal”? i doubt this, i even would say nobody would care as then the abrupt climate changes from the past would have dwarfed what we see now.
“…the changes, if any, are linear, exponential, logarithmic, sinusoidal, random or some other pattern.”
or, and I may be going out on a limb here, myriad, continuous and utterly incomprehensible using current technology.
So yeah, lets panic, tax ourselves into the stone age and fundamentally transform our entire way of life to “fix” it before it’s too late!!!
The science is settled. The climate is stable. How do I know this? Observation. I would not be here as a human to ask the question if that were not true.
I started as an engineer using a slide rule. It was a matter of training to first simplify the problem by looking at the important variables and estimate an answer before starting the calculation so you can check that the results in case you made a mistake.
In the navy we were taught to observe the changes in nuke reactors power based on changes to the inputs to a simplified 6-factor formula. When living on a small ship, you do not have the luxury of computers to predict what is going to happen. Of course the design used science to make a stable system.
I have often observed some human are insecure about simple answers and feel a need to spend lots of money on computer time. I was brought on to a 6 month project with unlimited overtime to review thermo calculations. While waiting for the first calculation to be done, I found the 4 foot stack of IBM cards for the original calculation. My review showed the original model to be very conservative and validated by plant experience. We were done in two weeks. Worked myself out of nice contract. That is the commercial world.
Working for the government is different. Spend the money so you will get more next year. From experience, I know that spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely under 6 feet of water and the boil off rate is an easy calculation. It is a simple differential equation to show that the decay rate is greater than the leach rate, allow the water to meet safe drinking water standards. After a few years, the fuel can be air cooled in dry storage. After 300 years, the level of radiation is the same as dirt along the road in Nevada.
Having lots of money, the US Congress passed regulations requiring a geological repository be analyzed for 10,000 years. Thanks to watermelons, 10,000 was rule to be arbitrary. This was my first experience with environmental models that considered beyond 100,000 years. What I noticed is over millions of years the climate is a very stable system. We survived the little ice age. While the forcing function that caused it is just interesting theory, the climate returned to ‘normal’ and did not become unstable.
While I do not have anything against scientists, I setting the thermostat the same place where Dr Hansen and POTUS Obama set it. Where my wife is comfortable.
Thanks Kit. That was a great post. Expand it a little and submit it for a post — your story is that good.
Warmest Regards, Mark
I will be happy to work on it manana. Red meat and red wine trump AGW. That from the KISS (keep it simple stupid) culinary school.
To add to your list: The Earth Itself, how do we represent it, which earth geoid model should be used for climate studies, what “gridding” and infilling are doing to the end error, how to represent spatial error in climate data, etc.
End of global warming debate: http://realclimatologist.org
“There is absolutely no question that our climate is precisely a self-organized system of this sort.”
Should read “There is absolutely no question that our climate was precisely a self-organized system of this sort, until we dumped trillions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere by burning sequestered carbon.”
Jack Dale:
The “sequestered carbon” was CO2 sequestered from the air and the burning is returning the “sequestered carbon” to the air as CO2.
Please explain why the climate
(a) was a “self-organized system of this sort” before the CO2 was sequestered from the air
and
(b) was a “self-organized system of this sort” while the CO2 was sequestered from the air
but
(c) ceased to be a “self-organized system of this sort” when some of the sequestered CO2 was returned to the air.
Richard
Jack Dale
Er, uhm, ahhhh. No. Not correct. However, we can extend your comment slightly and make it accurate
“There is absolutely no evidence at all for the claim that “There is absolutely no question that our climate was precisely a self-organized system of this sort, until we dumped trillions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere by burning sequestered carbon.””
Are you suggesting that raising the CO2 from 0.028% to 0.040% has totally upset the Earth? The Earth has ways of coping and is doing very well with this extra CO2.
Werner Brozek November 8, 2015 at 4:01 pm
JM: Consequently when a water molecule has two bonds on its negative oxygen molecule the polarity is neutralized and the resulting force of the bond disappears (2∂ – 2∂ = 0∂). So, when there are two hydrogen bonds completed the positively charged hydrogen atoms just kind of float. The only thing holding them is that if they move away the charge returns pulling them back.
WB: You lost me here. The oxygen end of the water molecule is always negative and the hydrogen end is always positive.
JM: Is it? Are you sure about that? (These are just rhetorical questions.) I think it would be more accurate to say that the oxygen atom is always negative and the hydrogen atoms are always positive. (Why am I making this distinction? It’s not because I’m trying to be dogmatic. There is a reason, and I’ll do my best to explain below.)
WB: This is because of the large electronegativity difference between oxygen and hydrogen.
JM: Right, and it is how its H atoms are arranged (one half of a tetrahedral) that causes the H2O molecule to be a dipole (and to, therefore, have the lopsided electronegativity).
WB: There are strong polar covalent bonds between each oxygen and hydrogen of each individual water molecule in a liquid.
JM: Well, to be as accurate as possible, there are strong covalent bonds between the hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atom. But (as I am sure you realize) these covalent bonds are not “polar” is is how they are arranged (one half of a tetrahedral) that causes the whole molecule to be polar, or what they call a dipole.
WB: Furthermore, there are always attractions between the positive hydrogen end of one water molecule and the negative oxygen end of the adjacent water molecule. This is the hydrogen bond . . .
JM: I agree.
WB: . . . and it is never neutralized
JM: Well, wait a second. Hold this thought; Let’s take a step back. Consider the Methane molecule CH4. It consists of a carbon molecule surrounded by four hydrogen molecules arranged in a tetrahedral. Consider its similarity to the H2O molecule. But also consider it’s starkly different properties. It is very much NOT a dipole. For example, it’s boiling point is -164 °C (at 1 ATM).
Now let me ask you another rhetorical question. Even though it is impossible, if we were to be able to remove two of the the covalently bonded hydrogen atoms from the methane molecule (and assuming the remaining ones maintained their orientation, one half of a tetrahedral) would it not turn into a dipole, like H2O? And would it not, therefore, also have a high boiling point similar to H2O? And would it not, therefore, have all of the other quirky characteristics of H2O)?
Do you see where I’m going with this?
I’m going to wait for your response before I continue with this because it is critical that we are on the same page at this juncture.
The shape and the electronegativity differences are two completely different things. IF the electronegativity of hydrogen and oxygen were the same, there would be no partial charge and no dipole, regardless of its shape. The electronegativities of C, H, and O are 2.55, 2.1, and 3.44 respectively. So the difference between C and O is 0.45. However CO2 is linear, so even though carbon attracts the electrons less than oxygen, there is no negative end due to the linear shape.
If the electronegativity difference is 0, the bond is nonpolar. Between 0.1 and 1.6, it is polar. At 1.7 and above, it is ionic. With a difference between H and O of 1.34, the O-H bond is highly polar and close to ionic, but not quite.
It would have a positive and negative end, but much weaker than that of water since the electronegativity difference is only 0.45 instead of 1.34.
No and no, since the bond between an H of one molecule and the C of the next is extremely weak.
Werner Brozek November 9, 2015 at 6:04 am
JM: It is how its H atoms are arranged (one half of a tetrahedral) that causes the H2O molecule to be a dipole (and to, therefore, have the lopsided electronegativity).
WB: The shape and the electronegativity differences are two completely different things.
JM: Well, of course. I never stated otherwise? So, I don’t see why you mention this.
WB: IF the electronegativity of hydrogen and oxygen were the same, there would be no partial charge and no dipole, regardless of its shape.
JM: Of course, but . . . isn’t this both obvious and irrelevant to my point?
WB: The electronegativities of C, H, and O are 2.55, 2.1, and 3.44 respectively. So the difference between C and O is 0.45. However CO2 is linear, so even though carbon attracts the electrons less than oxygen, there is no negative end due to the linear shape.
JM: Right. As you indicate, only when the electronegativity is lopsided will it be a dipole. If they are symmetrical it will not be a dipole.
JM: But (as I am sure you realize) these covalent bonds are not “polar” it is how they are arranged (one half of a tetrahedral) that causes the whole molecule to be polar, or what they call a dipole.
WB: If the electronegativity difference is 0, the bond is nonpolar.
JM: Right, it has to have BOTH. It has to have non-zero electronegativity AND it has to be non-symmetrical to be a dipole. If it doesn’t have both of these it is not a dipole and will, thereby, not possess the characteristics of a dipole. And the example that proves this point is the methane molecule. Surely you agree with this. Right?
WB: Between 0.1 and 1.6, it is polar.
JM: Wait, wait, wait. Don’t dismiss your earlier assertion. This is only part of the equation (as you indicated). If it is between 0.1 and 1.6 AND it is non-symmetrical it will be polar (remember methane). Again, if it doesn’t have both of these it is not a dipole and will, thereby, not possess the characteristics of a dipole. I don’t see how you could possibly not agree with this. Do you agree, yes, no? (Please answer this question.)
WB: At 1.7 and above, it is ionic. With a difference between H and O of 1.34, the O-H bond is highly polar and close to ionic, but not quite.
JM: I agree. And this is a really good example. (I’ve been trying to look up the boiling/melting point of OH. I couldn’t find it. Possibly it is not stable enough for this notion to be applicable. I don’t know. [Maybe you can assist.]) And the reason it is a really good example is that it is, like H2O, a polar molecule but it does not quite possess all of the quirky properties of H20. And so, there must be some explanation of this. And that is what I am working towards.) But that can only happen if we can stay on the same page. I’m hoping we will be there after this post. [But, then, that is what I thought on the post that preceded this post.])
JM: Even though it is impossible, if we were to be able to remove two of the the covalently bonded hydrogen atoms from the methane molecule (and assuming the remaining ones maintained their orientation, one half of a tetrahedral) would it not turn into a dipole, like H2O?
WB: It would have a positive and negative end, but much weaker than that of water since the electronegativity difference is only 0.45 instead of 1.34.
JM: I agree. And so its melting/boiling point and resulting quirkiness would not be as great as those of H2O however BUT THEY WOULD BE GREATER THAN THOSE OF METHANE. (How much greater is hard to say, since we are talking about a molecule that is hypothetical [it cannot actually exist].) And the reason would be because of the lopsided electronegativity. (Please tell me you get this and you agree. If not it is just about impossible to go on from here.)
JM: And would it not, therefore, also have a high boiling point similar to H2O? And would it not, therefore, have all of the other quirky characteristics of H2O)?
WB: No and no, since the bond between an H of one molecule and the C of the next is extremely weak.
JM: No? Well, .45 is about 1/3 of that of 1.34. And so, the polarity aspect woud be 1/3 of that of H2O BUT IT WOULD BE GREATER THAN FOR THAT OF METHANE. And the reason would be because of the lopsided electronegativity WHICH THE METHANE DOES NOT POSSESS. (Please tell me you get this and you agree. If not it is just about impossible to go on from here.)
JM: Thank you for being so explicit, unambiguous, and quantitative in your objections. I hope that continues.
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
I agree to here.
It should be: It has to have non-zero electronegativity DIFFERENCE AND…..
I agree.
An individual C-H bond in methane is extremely slightly polar since the carbon atom has a slightly larger electronegativity, but due to the symmetrical shape, there is no dipole. The same is true for CCl4. So if you had a slow flow of CCl4 for example, and you held a charged comb to the side, the stream would not get pulled over. But it does get pulled over with a stream of water.
OH is not a substance you can have in a bottle by itself. It is an ion with a charge of -1. So if you add NaOH to water, you get positive Na ions and negative OH ions in solution. Try HF for what you wish to prove. It is extremely polar if not ionic and has all quirky properties of water.
I agree, assuming everything else is the same such as the total number of electrons, otherwise we have to deal with different van der Waals forces.
You are welcome!
Werner Brozek November 9, 2015 at 11:55 am
WB: It has to have non-zero electronegativity DIFFERENCE AND…..
JM: Good catch. Yes, I agree. It’s the difference in electronegativity that matters.
JM: And the example that proves this point is the methane molecule. Surely you agree with this. Right?
WB: I agree.
JM: You are a breath of fresh air.
WB: Between 0.1 and 1.6, it is polar.
JM: Wait, wait, wait. Don’t dismiss your earlier assertion. This is only part of the equation (as you indicated). If it is between 0.1 and 1.6 AND it is non-symmetrical it will be polar (remember methane). Again, if it doesn’t have both of these it is not a dipole and will, thereby, not possess the characteristics of a dipole. I don’t see how you could possibly not agree with this. Do you agree, yes, no? (Please answer this question.)
JM: The fact that you did not provide a direct response to this question concerns me somewhat. (Sorry to be a stickler. Over the years I’ve learned that one cannot be too explicit in these kinds of discussions.) So let me ask the question again: It has to have both an electronegativity difference between 0.1 and 1.6 AND it has to be non-symmetrical for it to be a dipole. If it doesn’t have both of these it is not a dipole. Do you agree?
WB: An individual C-H bond in methane is extremely slightly polar since the carbon atom has a slightly larger electronegativity,
JM: Right, as we discussed, the difference is .45 (which is well within the criteria [0.1 and 1.6] that you mentioned.
WB: but due to the symmetrical shape, there is no dipole.
JM: Right, being symmetrical it does not meet the second criteria to be a dipole. (Keep this point in mind. It has huge significance to my greater point.)
WB: The same is true for CCl4. So if you had a slow flow of CCl4 for example, and you held a charged comb to the side, the stream would not get pulled over. But it does get pulled over with a stream of water.
JM: Good example.
JM: I’ve been trying to look up the boiling/melting point of OH. I couldn’t find it.
WB: OH is not a substance you can have in a bottle by itself.
JM: That is what I suspected. (As dbstealey indicated, I am somewhat self-taught on a lot of this stuff. Or, at least, self-retaught. High school chemistry was not wasted on me.)
WB: It is an ion with a charge of -1. So, if you add NaOH to water, you get positive Na ions and negative OH ions in solution.
JM: Interesting. Like NaCl (table salt) I suppose. (I looked it up [When all else fails, read the instructions]: Sodium hydroxide, also known as lye and caustic soda . . .)
WB: Try HF for what you wish to prove. It is extremely polar if not ionic and has all quirky properties of water.
JM: Interesting, but actually it is, from what I can tell, tangential to my point. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) I was only addressing OH because you brought it up. Nevertheless that is very interesting. And I will look into it further.
JM: And so its melting/boiling point and resulting quirkiness would not be as great as those of H2O however BUT THEY WOULD BE GREATER THAN THOSE OF METHANE.
WB: I agree, . . .
JM: Fantastic! (I pretty much got you where I want you now–in a good way. Hopefully you will see what I mean by this very soon.)
WB: . . . assuming everything else is the same such as the total number of electrons, otherwise we have to deal with different van der Waals forces.
JM: Yes, I think we can assume this. This too is, from what I can tell, tangential to my point. (Van der Waals forces is something I’ve been meaning to look into.)
JM: Thank you for being so explicit, unambiguous, and quantitative in your objections.
WB: You are welcome!
JM: You are a superstar!
JM: I’m going to wait and see if you have any other objections before I continue. Are we on the same page?
Yes, I agree.
Yes.
Yes, with respect to polar molecules. But what do you think about the form of water in air with a relative humidity of 50%? Do we have H2O(g) or H2O(l)?
Werner Brozek:
Yes, I agree.
Yes.
Yes, with respect to polar molecules.
James McGinn:
Wow, I’m not used to getting these kind of honest responses. Are you new to the internet? 🙂
It’s almost intimidating.
Werner Brozek:
But what do you think about the form of water in air with a relative humidity of 50%? Do we have H2O(g) or H2O(l)?
James McGinn:
H2O(l). (That will pretty much always be my answer. The only exceptions being during meteor impacts or volcanic events. [Or, I suppose, if I was applying for a grant.])
Thanks for the rapidity of your response. I will need an hour or two to formulate my continuation of the argument.
Kindest Regards,
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn November 9, 2015 at 3:26 pm
Werner Brozek:
Yes, I agree.
Once again, this thread is getting kind of long, so I responded at the bottom of this comment section.
To support Werner’s point S has an electronegativity of 2.58, almost exactly the same as C, it forms H2S an analogous molecule of the same shape as H2O. However because of the very low electronegativity difference between H and S the H-S bonds have very low polarity and therefore there is no H bonding and as a result H2S is a gas at room temperature.
WB: Between 0.1 and 1.6, it is polar.
JM: Wait, wait, wait. Don’t dismiss your earlier assertion. This is only part of the equation (as you indicated). If it is between 0.1 and 1.6 AND it is non-symmetrical it will be polar (remember methane). Again, if it doesn’t have both of these it is not a dipole and will, thereby, not possess the characteristics of a dipole. I don’t see how you could possibly not agree with this. Do you agree, yes, no? (Please answer this question.)
This refers to the polarity of the bond, all the bonds in methane are slightly polar as indicated by Werner but the molecule is not due to its symmetry. S and C have almost the same electronegativity and H2S has the same bent structure as H2O but because of the reduced bond polarity it does not form H bonds. Consequently it is a gas at room temperature (b.p. -60C)
dbstealey November 8, 2015 at 5:09 pm
DB: . . . because all of physics would collapse if he was right.
JM: I think you are being overly dramatic. Storm theory, a habitually ignored sub-discipline of Meteorology would collapse. But that is about it.
DB: Actually, if he just admitted what people educated in the hard sciences know – that water vapor is a component of the atmosphere – I wouldn’t have that much of an issue with it . . .
JM: Okay. I admit it. Moreover, I’ve never denied it.
DB: . . . (maybe I’d add his ridiculous conjecture that convection doesn’t affect weather).
JM: Barring reproducible evidence to the contrary, I’m going to maintain this belief.
DB: I doubt that the scales will ever fall from his eyes.
JM: I doubt that also.
DB: . . . (maybe I’d add his ridiculous conjecture that convection doesn’t affect weather).
JM: Barring reproducible evidence to the contrary, I’m going to maintain this belief.
Actually, this is too broad. Convection effects the weather in that it determines the structure of the atmosphere. But it does not play the active role in the weather that meterologists have assumed, IMO.
James McGinn :
You are spending far, far too much time posting here when you say you are fighting your re-election campaign as President of an organisation with the strange name Solving Tornadoes. Unless, of course, the only reason you are posting so much complete lunacy on WUWT is to advertise for the campaign funds that you said you are seeking.
Mr President, I admit that I am convinced your only reason for posting the lunatic nonsense with which your posts pollute WUWT is to fool gullible people into providing the campaign funds you said you are seeking.
Who was it you said are your electorate and when did they elect you President? Oh, sorry, I forgot you have refused to answer those questions possibly because it would distract from your fund raising.
Richard
richardscourtney November 9, 2015 at 1:53 am
James McGinn:
Convection (snip) does not play the active role in the weather that meteorologists have assumed, IMO.
richardscourtney:
. . . you are posting so much complete lunacy on WUWT . . .
James McGinn:
Richard, if you look into the history of science you will see that, time and time again, notions that we now accept as obvious were dismissed as, “complete lunacy.” For example, at one time it was considered complete lunacy to suggest that disease was caused by little organisms too small to see. It was only after the development of the microscope that we had evidence of these little creatures. Even then it took hundreds of years for the notion to be widely accepted.
If you have any empirical evidence of the agency of convection with respect to storms I will gladly consider it. I’ve been looking for about 7 years now. So far all the evidentiary support that I have seen does not amount to much more than somebody standing in a field, pointing up to a thunderstorm and stating, “Look convection.” And the only mitigation measures that I’ve seen with respect to problems related to severe weather and drought are about as effective as blood letting is to treating disease. We are trying to change that.
I think you should try to behave more like somebody that lives in the 21st century and less like somebody that lives during the middle ages.
Just a suggestion.
Thank you for your support.
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes
James,
Your comparison with microbes is ludicrous.
Convection has long been directly observed. Its existence in the atmosphere is a scientific fact, as its role in storm formation. Like any other well established science, students are of course still learning more about it.
Had you ever studied meteorology, you’d know this. You could start educating yourself here:
http://www.cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/Monograph/Overview.html
Who better to learn about tornadoes than from the U. of OK?
Gloateus Maximus November 9, 2015 at 2:03 pm
Your comparison with microbes is ludicrous. Convection has long been directly observed.
LOL. That people who have been treated with blood letting (or leaches) subsequently become healthy has been directly observed. That climate changes has been directly observed.
The fact that hot air baloons go up is not evidence that hurricanes, tornadoes and thunderstorms are caused by convection.
Get a clue.
Gloateus Maximus November 9, 2015 at 2:03 pm
GM:
Had you ever studied meteorology, you’d know this. You could start educating yourself here:
http://www.cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/Monograph/Overview.html
Who better to learn about tornadoes than from the U. of OK?
James McGinn:
Actually, Doswell is a crackpot:
Doswellian Lunacy Prevails in the Cult of Meteorology/Tornadogenesis
http://t.co/P9j4Mjjd1C
https://t.co/YbuFjtL0cC
Cult mentality of Meteorology
http://t.co/sbxxcOSbZN
I was eased into it while still teaching many years ago.
Yes, you have always said this. The quote below is from a different post that I will comment on.
Here is my perspective of the problem: When you say “water vapor” you are thinking “H2O(l)”. Is that correct? But Gloateus Maximus undertands water vapor to be H2O(g). Who is right?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor
Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the gaseous phase of water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice.
Werner Brozek November 9, 2015 at 3:56 pm
See my post above with the title: James McGinn November 7, 2015 at 9:26 pm
By the way, I would include Wikipedia in the “peanut gallery.”
Special thanks to Werner for introducing the nomenclature of H2O(g) and H2O(l).
(Good luck trying to explain any of this to GM, DB, or RC.)
Regards,
James McGinn
President, Solving Tornadoes.
dbstealey November 8, 2015 at 9:37 am
What are the requirements for nomination and election. And finally I ask McGinn: isn’t it true that you fabricated being ‘elected’ as President, and that there was never any official nomination/election process?
If I’m wrong I will apologize. Just provide verifiable evidence that the process was done; when, where, and where were nominations and the election results published?
James McGinn:
It’s funny that you ask because I actually didn’t win the election at first. It was only upon recount that I (we) were victorious. It’s a crazy story. It involves a computer glitch and it involves a village in India, very close to the border of Bangladesh.
Most people realize that the place tornadoes are most prevalent is the US. But not a lot of people know that India is second. Especially in the far east, close to Bangladesh. The name of this village–a village so small it doesn’t show on any maps–is Node Bate. As you will see that name plays a big role in all that transpired.
All of our data indicated we were going to win by a landslide. And so, when the results were originally counted we were kind of in shock.
Anyway, when I get a chance I’ll tell the rest of this story.
Like the US, most of India is fairly ambivalent about tornadoes. In most places they hardly notice you. They might listen for a bit, nod their heads and be on with their day. But not Node Bate. When a researcher arrives its like a national holiday. Everybody in the village turns out to greet you. And there is a lot of fanfare, almost like a parade. You don’t have to check into a hotel because they have a place for you to stay, Tornado researchers never have to pay for a meal in Node Bate.
The valley in which Node Bate lay gets hit by more tornadoes than any place on earth. Why that is the case is not exactly clear–thus the reason so much research is conducted there. You may know that most tornadoes track from the southwest to the northeast. Well, in that one little valley the tornadoes do something unprecedented, they track from the northwest to the southeast! (On a clear day, standing on a rooftop in the center of Node Bate, one can see a peak of the Himalayas. I don’t know, but I’ve always assumed it must be mount Everest.) The atmospheric phenomena that takes place there is genuinely strange. It’s as if the tornadoes wait their turn at the mouth of the valley so that they can track right down it.
You might think that the reason that the people of Node Bate are so happy to see tornado researchers is because they see us as their savior from this deadly atmospheric phenomena, and in a way that is true. But not in the way you might think. There is actually something more banal about their eagerness to see the arrival of tornado researchers. Hell, I won’t mince my words: there is actually something sinister about it. You see, since research began there, starting in 1950, 13 tornado researchers have lost their lives in in Node Bate–in tornadoes!
More later.
Node Bate = No Debate. Trolling…
Yes, Wiki can be a problem, however do you have any source that says water vapor is H2O(l)?
Werner Brozek November 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm
WB: . . .do you have any source that says water vapor is H2O(l)?
JM: I’ve said all I have to say on the subject. You should feel free to use whatever convention you wish. I would only suggest you do your best to be explicit and consistent.
It’s not a convention, lying lunatic ignoramus. it’s a physical observation of nature, that water exists as a gas, ie in single molecules, in earth’s atmosphere, which incontrovertible, scientific fact you continue to reject, despite all the evidence in the world.
All you had against my own and others’ demonstrations of this fact, was to call me a nitwit. What a twit. It’s beyond me why you haven’t been permanently ejected from this esteemed blog, like those whose name I dare not utter, despite their being less anti-scientific than you.
Gloateus Maximus November 9, 2015 at 7:19 pm
. . . water exists as a gas, ie in single molecules, in earth’s atmosphere, which incontrovertible, scientific fact . . .
James McGinn:
Evidence?
YHGTBSM!
You have been shown evidence here from every possible source.
As I’ve said, for instance, water vapor can be seen directly with lidar. But the fact of water vapor in the air has not been in doubt since before the chemical composition of water was discovered.
It is a scientific fact, ie an observation. Predictions based upon this fact invariably are validated.
You might as well claim that the moon is green cheese as assert without a shred of evidence that gaseous water doesn’t exist in the air.
Are you suggesting that I and others have not been explicit and consistent?
Werner Brozek November 9, 2015 at 9:57 pm
You should feel free to use whatever convention you wish. I would only suggest you do your best to be explicit and consistent.
Are you suggesting that I and others have not been explicit and consistent?
James McGinn:
No. I’m only making a recommendation as to how one should proceed from this point on, assuming their goal is conceptual clarity.
James McGinn
By the way, just give the link next time. When I did ctrl + F, for your name, I got 107 responses.
This is often the case with many words. But if you can, I and others would like you to prove that “water vapor” is, or at least can be, H2O(l).
Does a rose by any other name not smell the same?
Werner Brozek November 9, 2015 at 5:13 pm
By the way, just give the link next time.
JM: Aha! I just figured out how to do that (click on the date/time stamp). Thanks.
Werner Brozek says:
…I and others would like you to prove that “water vapor” is, or at least can be, H2O(l).
He can’t prove it. That is McGinn’s belief; the onus is on him, but he has no proof at all.
McGinn’s belief, that gaseous H2O cannot exist in the atmosphere, is no different than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s belief that fairies lived at the back of his garden. When others claimed to see fairies, Conan Doyle became convinced. When he was shown pictures, he believed them; he thought the Cottingley fake photographs likely showed fairies.
Someone has convinced McGinn that H2O cannot exist as a gas in the air. He believed that, and now he is proselytizing that fantastic belief to everyone else, all across the blogosphere. This is just one of many places where he tries to sell people on his baseless belief system.
The only difference is that instead of fairies, McGinn believes that liquid H2O is the only way that water can exist in air. He says that only “clumps” of liquid water can exist. He has stated emphatically and repeatedly that single water molecules do not, and cannot exist in the atmosphere.
But that belief falls apart at first glance: if only liquid water is in the air, then where does McGinn draw the line? Does his liquid water begin when 2 molecules of H2O “clump” together? Is that where his “clump” of liquid water starts? And if so, why is it impossible to have a “clump” of one H2O molecule? McGinn doesn’t say. Or rather, his convoluted ‘explanation’ doesn’t umm-m… hold water.
Or maybe McGinn believes that a “clump” of water begins at some arbitrary number of water molecules. If so, where is that line drawn? Is it 10 molecules? Fifty? And who draws the line? Do we elect someone President, and he gets to draw that arbitrary line where “clumping” water begins?
To go one step further: if as McGinn claims, water cannot exist in air as a single molecule of H2O, could we observe his “clumps” of water when they get big enough? Maybe a few million molecules? What would stop a sheet of water from evaporating, and peeling off a person’s forehead all at once? But do we ever observe sheets of water clumps, floating off peoples’ foreheads?
No, we don’t. We never observe water evaporating from peoples’ heads, or from anything else for that matter, for the simple reason that water always evaporates one molecule at a time.
So now J. McGinn bows out with: “I’ve said all I have to say on the subject.”
Eventually, crank science always runs into insurmountable objections. People might believe something that turns out to be wrong — we all do at one time or another — but skeptics have a self-correcting mechanism: when the facts contradict what they believe, they go back and try to figure out why they were wrong.
The problem arises when someone’s belief is shown to be wrong, but rather than try to understand why, they keep coming up with new rationalizations to support their belief.
“If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.”
~Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
In the end, it’s really just an ethics test.
dbstealey November 9, 2015 at 8:06 pm
James McGinn:
Is your argument based on evidence or is it based on absence of evidence? (Or, even, absence of evidence to the contrary?) If it is the former I can only wonder why you have not provided a reference or, at least, some kind of substantive argument. If it is the latter, I can only inform you that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (Likewise with absence of evidence to the contrary.) But I think it is most likely that you don’t know the answer to this question. So, see if you can at least answer this question, then go from there.
I hope that helps.
James Mcginn
President, Solving Tornadoes
McGinn says:
“Is your argument based on evidence or is it based on absence of evidence?”
I’m not arguing that water molecules cannot and do not exist in the air.
You are.
I have nothing to prove; the onus is on you to support your wacky conjecture.
McGinn contradicts what he previously wrote:
“THERE IS NO STEAM (GASEOUS H2O) IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.”
~ James McGinn
People, don’t feed the troll. He’s simply on a wind up job. Nobody can be that stupid. He’s taking the p1ss.
Yoh! And to think that some people think the science is settled!
“All of these structures tend to dissipate a huge amount of energy that would otherwise have to escape to space much more slowly. ” I am amused by the denial of the climate modellers -they cannot model even a modest tropical cyclone, yet that cyclone dissipates more energy that humans produce during its short life. Take a really decent sized one, also not able to be modeled, and climate believers are out by an order of magnitude. To think, they sleep easy. They shouldn’t.
James McGinn November 9, 2015 at 3:26 pm
Werner Brozek:
Yes, I agree. Yes. Yes, with respect to polar molecules.
James McGinn:
I will need an hour or two to formulate my continuation of the argument.
—————————
JM: Well, it took longer than an hour.
Let us reconsider our theoretical (but impossible) substance H2C. As we established, it has the shape of the water molecule. But it has only 1/3 (.45 / 1.34) of the electronegativity difference. Using the boiling point of methane (-164) as the theoretical bottom limit and the boiling point of H2O (100) as the upper limit, let’s do the math and designate the boiling point of this theoretical substance:
164 + 100 = 264. 264/3 = 87 -164 + 87 = -77 C
Now let’s consider three of these molecules ([a], [b] and [c]). And let’s say that in the first of these three [a] we (magically) reactivated its ability to form covalent bonds with hydrogen molecules. And, instead of using independent hydrogen atoms we use one of the atoms from [b] and [c], essentially restoring the full tetrahedral. And, keep in mind, in so doing we are also restoring the symmetry of that first molecule. (Yes, I know, it creates a totally new kind of molecule. But please disregard that for purposes of this demonstration.) And, as we discussed, in restoring its symmetry we are nullifying its polarity. (Remember, it has to have non-zero electronegativity [between 0.1 and 1.6] AND it has to be non-symmetrical to be a dipole.) And, in that sense, we return its EFFECTIVE melting point to -164. And then, let’s say we were to break one of these two additional covalently bonded other molecules, let’s say [c]. That would reactivate one half of that nullified polarity. And, in so doing, that would change its EFFECTIVE melting point to -164 + (87 / 2) = -121.
Now we can ask ourselves a question. What if instead of covalent bonds we were to reconsider the whole scenario with hydrogen bonds? And keep in mind that the strength of the hydrogen bond is determined by the strength of its polarity. With the addition of [b] and [c] all of the additional polarity would be nullified. These would be two very weak hydrogen bonds (effective melting point being -164). And if we remove one of them, let’s say [c], we would reactivate one half of that nullified polarity. And, in so doing, that would create a STRONGER bond (effective melting point being -121). (Remember, with hydrogen bonds the bond strength is a consequence of the polarity.)
Now, taking all of this into account, reconsider the the conversation we had about 4 or 5 posts ago:
JM: I took a different approach to theorizing H2O polarity, hydrogen bonding, and implications thereof. I decided that I would develop an understanding that explained all of the outlier phenomena, one of which being non-Newtonian fluids:
Solution to the molecular mechanism underlying non-Newtonian fluids?
http://t.co/Uftino7mHm
What is the molecular mechanism underlying non-Newtonian fluids?
http://t.co/o8ZWxviFEX
JM: Consequently when a water molecule has two bonds on its negative oxygen molecule the polarity is neutralized and the resulting force of the bond disappears (2∂ – 2∂ = 0∂). So, when there are two hydrogen bonds completed the positively charged hydrogen atoms just kind of float – this being the bond associated with evaporation and sublimation (*see note below). The only thing holding them is that if they move away the charge returns pulling them back. And when we pull off only one of the two hydrogen bonds (2∂ – 1∂ = 1∂) it restores one half of the polarity, producing a strong hydrogen bond – this being the bond associated with boiling.
(*note The bonds associated with evaporation and sublimation can only be broken if there is a collective of molecules breaking off. This is due to the fact that if it was one molecule both the weak and the strong bond would have to be broken. And that can’t happen at low energy.)
WB: You lost me here. The oxygen end of water is always negative and the hydrogen end is always positive. This is because of the large electronegativity difference between oxygen and hydrogen. There are strong polar covalent bonds between each oxygen and hydrogen of each individual water molecule in a liquid. Furthermore, there are always attractions between the positive hydrogen end of one water molecule and the negative oxygen end of the adjacent water molecule. This is the hydrogen bond and it is never neutralized since you simply cannot reduce the partial charges to zero, regardless how wish to rearrange the water molecules relative to each other. So partially positive hydrogen atoms never “just kind of float”.
JM: So, Werner, I hope you get my point now. According to this understanding, the hydrogen end is actually neutralized with the restoration of the symmetry that underlies the polarity. And only half of it is neutralized with the restoration of just one of them. And so, polarity is not a constant. It is a variable and completion of bonds is the mechanism that restores the symmetry to neutralize polarity.
Understanding this mechanism is one of the keys (but just one of the keys) to getting insight into the quirky behavior of H2O molecules. Another key understanding has to do with the geometric aspects of how H2O molecules fit together (cancelling polarity) and, in some cases, don’t fit together (causing “surface” tension). Enough for now, but this all has huge implications on how we conceptualize surface tension, evaporation, sublimation, freezing, size of suspended micro-droplets, non-Newtonian fluids, heat capacity, the nature of boiling, Mpenga effect, super-chilled water, . . . the list goes on. And, it also has huge implications on how we conceptualize atmospheric flow – vortices – a subject that I discuss in my book. (I’ll give you a hint. I refer to the substance that comprises vortices as, “surface tension on steriods.”)
Thanks again for all of your assistance. It was especially helpful that you enumerated electronegativity.
Kindest Regards,
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Werner,
You probably figured it out by now but, just in case, I made some corrections to the second paragraph. (I capitalized additions/changes.):
Now let’s consider three of these H2C molecules ([a], [b] and [c]). And let’s say that in the first of these three [a] we (magically) reactivated its ability to form covalent bonds with hydrogen molecules. And, instead of using independent hydrogen atoms we use one of the HYDROGEN atoms from [b] and FROM [c]. WE ARE, essentially, restoring the full tetrahedral USING ONE OF THE HYDROGEN ATOMS FROM [B] AND ONE FROM [C]. In so doing we are also restoring the symmetry THAT IT WOULD HAVE HAD AS A METHANE MOLECULE. (Yes, I know, it creates a totally new kind of molecule. But please disregard THIS FACT for purposes of this demonstration.) And, as we discussed, in restoring its symmetry we are nullifying its polarity. (Remember, it has to have non-zero electronegativity [between 0.1 and 1.6] AND it has to be non-symmetrical to be a dipole.) And, in that sense, we return its EFFECTIVE melting point (METHANE) to -164. And, IN ADDITION, let’s say we were to, THEN, break one of these two additional covalently bonded other molecules, let’s say [c]. That would reactivate one half of that nullified polarity. And, in so doing, that would change its EFFECTIVE melting point to -164 + (87 / 2) = -121. (OR, -77 + -44).
I hope this is clearer.
This is getting extremely complicated! And I am not sure I totally understand what you are saying. But let me just say this. When a water molecule evaporates, the covalent bond between an H and the O is not broken. The only thing that is broken is a hydrogen bond between an H and an O of a neighboring molecule. And when this happens, the boiling point or melting point is not changed at all for any remaining molecules.
Hydrogen bonds in water have a certain strength. Period. These bonds are broken with evaporation and sublimation. There is no weak and strong bond being broken.
Werner Brozek November 10, 2015 at 5:38 pm
JM: And then, let’s say we were to break one of these two additional covalently bonded other molecules, let’s say [c]. That would reactivate one half of that nullified polarity. And, in so doing, that would change its EFFECTIVE melting point to -164 + (87 / 2) = -121.
JM: Oops, I just noticed an error on my part. Here I said “melting point.” I meant to say BOILING point. Sorry.
WB: This is getting extremely complicated!
JM: You have to struggle with it. It took me a long time to work all of this out. You’ve only had a few hours.
WB: And I am not sure I totally understand what you are saying. But let me just say this. When a water molecule evaporates, the covalent bond between an H and the O is not broken.
JM: Well, this is obvious. But the fact that you are telling me this suggests that there is something fundamental that you are not getting. I suggest starting back up-thread and working through it again. (Also, it’s important to understand that I am kind of using the methane molecule as an explanatory proxy so that we can temporarily sidestep the confusion associated with the completion of a hydrogen bond being the mechanism that neutralizes the symmetry/polarity.)
WB: The only thing that is broken is a hydrogen bond between an H and an O of a neighboring molecule.
JM: Again, this is obvious and, again, the fact that you are telling me this suggests that there is something fundamental that you are not getting. (I don’t want to guess what it might be because it might make you even more confused.)
WB: And when this happens, the boiling point or melting point is not changed at all for any remaining molecules.
JM: (I apologize for including “melting” point. I meant to say BOILING point only. My bad.)
JM: I don’t know how to answer this. (I’m afraid that no matter how I answer my answer will only increase your confusion at this juncture.)
JM: The bonds associated with evaporation and sublimation can only be broken if there is a collective of molecules breaking off. This is due to the fact that if it was one molecule both the weak and the strong bond would have to be broken.
WB: Hydrogen bonds in water have a certain strength. Period.
JM: Nope! They are not constant. They are variable. And the reason they vary is because symmetry that underlies the polarity varies with completion of bonds. (I know you will eventually get this. I didn’t get it at first either.)
WB: These bonds are broken with evaporation and sublimation.
JM: Only weak ones are broken. And that can only happen when collectives of water molecules break off. (You have to get the mechanism straight in your mind and then you have to consider the collective implications thereof. It’s going to take a while for you to get it. Don’t give up.)
WB: There is no weak and strong bond being broken.
JM: Yes there is. Go over it again, you’ll get it. (Remember, it has to have non-zero electronegativity [between 0.1 and 1.6] AND IT HAS TO BE NON-SYMMETRICAL to be a dipole. With the achievement of hydrogen bonds the [tetrahedral] symmetry is restored. And that neutralizes the polarity [WHICH IS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE NON-SYMMETRY].)
JM: Start upthread and read it over again. You may have to do this multiple times, but I am sure you will eventually get it.
McGinn,
When Werner Brozek, a physics professor for many years before he retired, makes a statement based on physics and you flatly contradict him, you need to provide support for your beliefs. So far, all you’ve done is emit your opinion. But here at the internet’s “Best Science” site, you need more than that. Much more.
We keep asking, but you rant on as if you possess some inside knowledge. You don’t, at least not concerning basic physics.
So once again I challenge you to produce the name of just one public figure who either teaches physics or chemistry at university level, or who has written physics or chem texts that are currently in use, to agree with you and state that individual water molecules are not a component of the atmosphere, and that they cannot exist in the atmosphere — explicit statements that you have made here repeatedly. Give us one name.
The challenge is to go find a well known physicist or chemist who agrees with you. If you’re onto something, and not trying to promote some kind of lunacy, there must be at least one esteemed professor, out of many thousands in this country alone, who agrees with you. Go find him or her.
Take your time, I’ll wait here. I’m retired, got nothin’ else to do… ☺
I will pass on this suggestion. It is way off topic anyway.
For the record, I taught high school physics. I also proofread two high school physics textbooks by Pearson.
I am also regularly the last to proofread our grade 12 diploma exams in Physics 30 and Science 30 before the students write them.
That’s good enough for me. ☺
(You’ve explained that before. I gave you the professor title because you certainly know the basics of physics, which is all we’ve been discussing here in trying to educate our young but misguided friend.)
Werner Brozek November 10, 2015 at 8:14 pm
You may have to do this multiple times, but I am sure you will eventually get it.
I will pass on this suggestion. It is way off topic anyway.
You’ve got to be kidding me. I stepped you through this whole argument and NOW, you are bailing. Geez.
McGinn,
When Werner Brozek, a physics professor for many years before he retired, makes a statement based on physics
Physics is a subject. It’s not an argument.
and you flatly contradict him,
He bailed. There was nothing to contradict.
you need to provide support for your beliefs. So far, all you’ve done is emit your opinion. But here at the internet’s “Best Science” site,
Surreal.
Reality is complex. Werner bailed because he reached his limit. Not my problem.
It’s easy to believe something if believing it will help you avoid something that is complex.
One of Werner’s last statements was, “Hydrogen bonds in water have a certain strength. Period.”
If this was true water would be simple to understand, and there would be no outlier phenomena to be resolved.
For many, being honest about what they don’t understand is the hardest thing of all.
Sorry about that! There were just too many holes in your theory as I have repeatedly tried to point out. But save your arguments for others and if you should be able to convince some one like Dr. Spencer that H2O(g) for example is very rare in the atmosphere that has a relative humidity of 50%, and that the individual H2O(g) are at a much higher temperature than the surrounding air molecules, then I may reconsider my position. Of course, that would require a rewriting of the basic laws of thermodynamics. Good luck with that!
You’ve got to be kidding me. I stepped you through this whole argument and NOW, you are bailing. Geez.
Sorry about that! There were just too many holes in your theory
Reality is too complex for you. You haven’t an alternative. You have an excuse.
as I have repeatedly tried to point out.
You want simple. I want accurate.
But save your arguments for others and if you should be able to convince some one like Dr. Spencer that H2O(g) for example is very rare in the atmosphere that has a relative humidity of 50%,
You need an authority? Is this science or Sunday school?
and that the individual H2O(g) are at a much higher temperature than the surrounding air molecules,
So, now you’re putting words in my mouth.
then I may reconsider my position. Of course, that would require a rewriting of the basic laws of thermodynamics. Good luck with that!
LOL. There is more to science than throwing big word around.
You tried to win, and lost. Take it like a man.
Did you never claim that if H2O(g) existed in the atmosphere, that it had to be at least 100 C?
Was this loss a unanimous decision?
Better yet consider the molecules H2S or H2Se which have the same structure as H2O with bond dipoles very close to C-H.
UAH Update:
With the October numbers, the flat streak for UAH6.0beta3 goes up by one month to 18 years and 6 months. October showed a huge jump, so the negative value of the slope decreased from last month, but it was still negative.
(As reported earlier, the RSS streak rose to 18 years and 9 months.)
I forgot to insert “stinking” between insane and splat.
Have you all considered the possibility that you may all be wrong?
That reminds me of the mother whose son played in a band. She said that at one point, every one in the band made a mistake except her son.
That reminds me of the mother whose son played in a band. She said that at one point, every one in the band made a mistake except her son.
Be glad that she stuck up for you?
See I have been quite certain he was wrong on all these points from the beginning because all of his conclusions come from a deeply flawed premise (he thinks the hydrogen bond associated with the H20 molecule is MUCH stronger than it actually is). There is no point in answering his questions because he has no real understanding of physics or chemistry and because of this has no apparent ability to grasp arguments from those who do understand them.
But I think it is worthwhile to point out where he is objectively wrong (e.g. boiling does not have an opposite – it is or isn’t). It does feed the troll, though, so I could well be wrong on this point.
It depends on your perspective. Suppose I have water at 70 C and I steadily apply heat. What happens is that the water increases in temperature to 100 C. Then with more heat, we have H2O(l) + heat gives H2O(g). Then with more heat, H2O(g) goes from 100 C to let us say 130 C if we apply heat that long.
What happens if we start with H2O(g) at 130 C and let it cool off until we get liquid water at 70 C? Exactly the reverse or opposite happens.
With all due respect, this is not correct. Boiling occurs when bubbles form in a liquid due to the vapor pressure above the liquid being greater than the pressure of the overlying gas. The point at which this occurs depends on temperature and pressure, not on whether energy is being applied to or removed from the liquid, the gas, or any other element of the system.
Boiling is an on or off process that happens in a liquid when specific conditions are met. It is not a process that has a reverse. There are no temperature/pressure combinations where a gas can be forced back into liquid form in a manner that is analogous to the way it leaves a liquid when it boils.
Granted, there are differences. However would you agree that to heat and boil and heat 100 grams of liquid water at 70 C to steam at 130 C would require the exact same heat that is given off if 100 g of steam at 130 C were to cool and become water at 70 C?
Werner Brozek November 10, 2015 at 9:09 pm
(e.g. boiling does not have an opposite – it is or isn’t)
It depends on your perspective.
Uh, I’m going to pretend you didn’t say this.
Suppose I have water at 70 C and I steadily apply heat. What happens is that the water increases in temperature to 100 C. Then with more heat, we have H2O(l) + heat gives H2O(g). Then with more heat, H2O(g) goes from 100 C to let us say 130 C if we apply heat that long.
Oh brother. Werner, you’ve never done an experiment in your whole life, have you? Your whole understandng comes from books. Doesn’t it.
Why don’t you try this? Get pot of water. Get a thermometer and see if you can get it over 100 degrees.
What happens if we start with H2O(g) at 130 C and let it cool off until we get liquid water at 70 C? Exactly the reverse or opposite happens.
So, you’re not a meteorologist?
hipper November 10, 2015 at 9:22 pm
With all due respect, this is not correct. Boiling occurs when bubbles form in a liquid due to the vapor pressure above the liquid being greater than the pressure of the overlying gas.
Vapor pressure? Are you serious. This isn’t evaporation and it isn’t a closed container. It’s just a pot of boiling water on a stove.
The point at which this occurs depends on temperature and pressure,
Right.
not on whether energy is being applied to or removed from the liquid, the gas, or any other element of the system.
What?
Boiling is an on or off process that happens in a liquid when specific conditions are met.
Right.
It is not a process that has a reverse. There are no temperature/pressure combinations where a gas can be forced back into liquid form in a manner that is analogous to the way it leaves a liquid when it boils.
Wrong. It’s the same as boiling. Below 100 it is a liquid. It’s perfectly reversible.
I never said that you would have liquid water at one atmosphere pressure at 130 C. I said you would have steam. However it is possible to have liquid water above 100 C if the pressure is high enough.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheated_water
“This pressure is given by the saturated vapour pressure, and can be looked up in steam tables, or calculated.[9] As a guide, the saturated vapour pressure at 121 °C is 200 kPa, 150 °C is 470 kPa, and 200 °C is 1,550 kPa. The critical point is 21.7 MPa at a temperature of 374 °C, above which water is supercritical rather than superheated. Above about 300 °C, water starts to behave as a near-critical liquid, and physical properties such as density start to change more significantly with pressure.”
Werner Brozek November 10, 2015 at 10:25 pm
Oh brother. Werner, you’ve never done an experiment in your whole life, have you? Your whole understandng comes from books. Doesn’t it.
Why don’t you try this? Get pot of water. Get a thermometer and see if you can get it over 100 degrees.
I never said that you would have liquid water at one atmosphere pressure at 130 C. I said you would have steam.
That too is impossible except in a closed container.
You should have quit when you still had people here fooled.
You know what they say about opening one’s mouth and removing all doubt.
hipper November 10, 2015 at 8:50 pm
It’s interesting that your argument is indistinguishable from that of AGW advocates.
Werner Brozek wrote: “Granted, there are differences. However would you agree that to heat and boil and heat 100 grams of liquid water at 70 C to steam at 130 C would require the exact same heat that is given off if 100 g of steam at 130 C were to cool and become water at 70 C?”
Oh, absolutely. But one cannot say that something analogous to boiling (or the opposite of boiling) is involved in the reverse process. Boiling does not have a direct opposite.
OK. Fair enough.
Werner Brozek November 10, 2015 at 9:51 pm
OK. Fair enough.
I suggest doing some research before you agree with that.
If you sense that you might be in a hole, it is time to stop digging.
James McGinn:
debstealey
said to you
and you have replied
You now know you are certainly wrong.
dbstealey can refute your silly assertion by naming me now I have provided my recent reply to you that explains how and why an everyday observation demonstrates that water vapour in the air is a gas.
Millions of scientists could have provided other answers but your assertions are too silly to bother refuting. A week ago I gave you a reference that explained you were wrong but you have continued with proclaiming your idiotic assertions. You have now obtained complete refutation of those assertions.
Is it too much to ask you to – at long, long last – take your silly assertions elsewhere instead of polluting WUWT with them?
Richard
Meteorology is a belief system that brings comfort. But it’s not a real science. It’s a religion.
These climate scientists are so blinded by their ideology they can’t see the forest through the trees:
1) He laughs off the comment that CO2 lagging temperature is a serious problem. In their world X = Ym+b, not Y = mX+b.
2) He clearly identifies volcanoes as a major source of CO2. Last I checked we don’t have good measurements of how much CO2 volcanoes pump out. They seem to be finding a new undersea volcano just about every other day.
3) Measuring the output of the sun is irrelevant, it is the radiation that reaches the earth that is relevant. last I checked we don’t have long term records of albedo and cloud cover.
4) His own records show 4000 ppm CO2 and no catastrophic warming.
5) CO2 changes occur over 1/2 million years, those changes are way to slow to explain the high variability of temperature.
6) In this video clip starting at 19 min 30 seconds he highlights how CO2 and ice are correlated. No freaking way, ice and CO2 are related? Who would have thunk that? Has this guy never studied Henry’s Law? The colder the temperature the more CO2 the oceans will absorb. Didn’t they guy ever bother to ask why it got so cold when CO2 was 4000 PPM if CO2 was the cause of the warming? What caused the cooling? High levels of CO2? Duh!!! These people make such circular arguments it is ridiculous. Here is a model that makes sense, the sun warms the oceans, ice melts, CO2 increases, the sun cools the oceans, the oceans absorb CO2, ice expands with the cooling. Duh!!! His own charts show that and he blames CO2 as the only cause. Once again, what caused the cooling and expanding ice when CO2 was 4000 PPM? By what possible mechanism can CO2 cause and ice age? By what mechanism can CO2 pull us out of the ice age if CO2 lags temperatures? They can’t even answer the most basic questions. Lastly, how does IR between 13 and 18 microns warm the oceans? The entire model he details is dependent upon the oceans, yet no one can explain how CO2 and IR between 13 and 18 microns can warm water, let alone the oceans. Climate science is a joke, and it certainly isn’t science.
https://youtu.be/RffPSrRpq_g?t=19m30s
Once again, these ideologically blinded climate scientists can’t see the forest through the trees. They reverse the dependent and independent variables. He clearly states that 1) Volcanism produces huge amounts of CO2, ie natural causes change atmospheric CO2 far greater than your SUV, the history easily proves that. 2) Huge amounts of volcanism, given 3/4 of the earth is under H2O, most likely resulted in warming the oceans. Warm oceans release CO2, but the oceans warming is due to volcanoes, not CO2. Also, once again, how does CO2 increase to pull us out of the ice age? There is a clearly identified pattern of ice ages, but the ending of the ice ages don’t correlate with volcanic activity. What causes the warming to end ice ages? How do ice ages start with high CO2 levels. Any real science would start with answering those questions. Climate science is a joke, and it certainly isn’t a science.
https://youtu.be/RffPSrRpq_g?t=21m50s
There is no such thing as cold steam. It is but an urban myth. The H2O that is in clear moist air is not invisible because it is gaseous H2O(g). It is invisible because it consists of microdroplets that are too small to be seen.
When all else fails, do an experiment.
Who would like to participate?
James,
Why are you ignoring the experiments that have been shown you here demonstrating that your delusion is an urban myth of your own crackpot creation.
Water vapor is invisible to visible light because it is molecular gas, not liquid. Steam is nothing but hot water vapor. In cold enough air, it quickly cools, condenses and turns to ice.
Boiling is simply more rapid evaporation, due to the difference in temperature of the water and the air, which occurs throughout the water mass, not just at its surface. Whether boiling or evaporating more slowly, the liquid water changes phase to gas, that is, to molecular water.
Werner Brozek November 10, 2015 at 5:38 pm
Werner Brozek:
This is getting extremely complicated!
Hydrogen bonds in water have a certain strength. Period.
James McGinn:
You are being obstinate and close minded. If that were true then all of the outlier phenomena that my theory is attempting to explain (and that are currently so poorly explained) would not exist (including the invisibility of evaporate, atmospheric H2O[l]).
For example, if it was true that, as you state, “Hydrogen bonds in water have a certain strength, Period,” and “There is no weak and strong bond being broken,” then ice would and could only be denser than liquid water. Ice actually involves bonds being broken. (Thus the reason it expands.) And, as that take place, the assymetry of the electronegativity is re-established (polarity is reactivated), turning the remaining weak bonds into strong bonds, thus the reason ice is hard.
Yes, I know, the mechanism I am proposing is complicated (and downright counterintuitive). But it works. And its explanatory power is not limited to this one example. It is instrumental in resolving ALL of the outlier phenomena: surface tension, evaporation, sublimation, freezing, size of suspended micro-droplets, non-Newtonian fluids, heat capacity, the nature of boiling, Mpenga effect, super-chilled water, . . . the list goes on.
And, it also has huge implications on how we conceptualize atmospheric flow – vortices – a subject that I discuss in my book. (I’ll give you a hint. I refer to the substance that comprises vortices as, “surface tension on steriods.”)
Don’t let the complexity scare you.
When a resolute fellow steps up to the great bully, the world, and takes him boldly by the beard, he is often surprised to find it comes off in his hand, and that it was only tied on to scare away the timid adventurers.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
That is for sure! The quote below seems very contradictory. First bonds are broken, then weak bonds are turned into strong bonds.
So tell me exactly why water expands when cooled from 3.98 C to 0.01 C?
It takes but a feather of evidence for a believer to find confirmation for what they believe and they put the feather in their cap and go on their merry way.
Meteorology is a consensus science and consensus is for fools.
James McGinn:
Yesterday morning, in a post way upthread I explained to you that an everyday observation (i.e. clothes are wetted by fog but not water vapour) demonstrates that water vapour in the air is a gas and not “crystals” of ice and is not liquid droplets of water when I wrote to you
You tried to evade that writing
But I rejected that evasion saying
A day has passed and you have made 8 posts in this thread since then but you have not answered my question. I repeat it.
Liquid water wets and ice is coated with liquid water so wets.
Gaseous water doesn’t wet.
Water vapour doesn’t wet and, therefore, is observed to be gaseous.
What “understanding” of this do you claim is “not possible”?
Richard
Excellent response.
It appears that James has never studied elementary chemistry.
Or been in an airplane in a cloud to observe how “clumped” water molecules, ie liquid, behave.
Maybe on his planet clothes get wet standing in room temperature air with 1% water vapor but without water droplets, such as fog or mist.
Mods:
I have made a post asking JM to answer my question of a day ago that he has evaded.
The system has given me an indication the post is awaiting moderation and that if it is approved – for some inexplicable reason – it will appear at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/06/is-climate-science-settled-now-includes-september-data/#comment-2070020
which is in the midst of posts from nearly a week ago.
If you do approve my post then please be so kind as to move it or copy it to the present end of the thread where I intended it to be.
With thanks in appreciation for your consideration
Richard
Mods: Apparently it’s become impossible for me to post a reply on here as I’ve posted a reply here 4 times and it’s disappeared each time.
(Reply: James McGinn is in moderation hold due to violating site policy [threadjacking, etc]. Any comment with his name is automatically held for review. Your comment is posted now. ~mod.)
A climate variable not listed above is the distribution of mass on Earth; it is of course related to Gravitation. Where there is more mass, near mountains, the variable increases, where there is less mass a deep valley, the variable decreases. This will have an effect on air flow, water flows, snow, ice, etc.
This section has a huge amount of material. The following seem to have some relevant material, especially the last point.
“Through the course of a Wilson cycle continents collide and split apart, mountains are uplifted and eroded, and ocean basins open and close. The re-distribution and changing size and elevation of continental land masses may have caused climate change on long time scales”;
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
Isostasy also exists whereby a “state of gravitational equilibrium between the earth’s lithosphere and asthenosphere such that the tectonic plates “float” at an elevation which depends on their thickness and density.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy
Similarly, variable composition within the Earth’s interior which has not yet achieved maximal stability and minimal energy (in other words, with densest parts deepest) continues to cause a fraction of the convection of fluid rock and molten metal within the Earth’s interior (see below).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Gravitational_or_buoyant_convection