Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Recent discussion about record weather events, such as the warmest year on record, is a totally misleading and scientifically useless exercise. This is especially true when restricted to the instrumental record that covers about 25% of the globe for at most 120 years. The age of the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years, so the sample size is 0.000002643172%. Discussing the significance of anything in a 120-year record plays directly into the hands of those trying to say that the last 120-years climate is abnormal and all due to human activity. It is done purely for political propaganda, to narrow people’s attention and to generate fear.
The misdirection is based on the false assumption that only a few variables and mechanisms are important in climate change, and they remain constant over the 4.54 billion years. It began with the assumption of the solar constant from the Sun that astronomers define as a medium-sized variable star. The AGW proponents successfully got the world focused on CO2, which is just 0.04% of the total atmospheric gases and varies considerably spatially and temporally. I used to argue that it is like determining the character, structure, and behavior of a human by measuring one wart on the left arm. In fact, they are only looking at one cell of that wart for their determination.
The degree that promoters of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis will go to distract and deceive was emphasized again in the article by Quang M. Nguyen. Almost the entire activities of the promoters involve proving that everything in the period of instrumental record is record breaking. This includes changing the paleo record, as they did with the ‘hockey stick’ and adjusting the slope of the gradient in the instrumental record. Considering the 120-year period of instrumental record as representative of anything is ludicrous. In the infamous 2001 IPCC Report, we learned from Phil Jones that the temperature increase for the instrumental record, that became the blade of the ‘hockey stick’ was 0.6°C with an error factor of ±0.2°C or ±33%. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Two major themes of the AGW claims are that temperature change is greater and more rapid than at any time in the past. This is false, as a cursory look at any longer record demonstrates. If it wasn’t, the actions taken to change the record are unnecessary. The Antarctic and Greenland ice core records both illustrate the extent of temperature change in short time periods. Figure 1 shows a modified Antarctic ice core record.
Figure 1 (Original Source SPPI.org no longer available)
The total temperature range is approximately 12°C (-9°C to +3°C). The variability is dramatic even though a 70–year smoothing average was applied. The diagram compares the peak temperatures in the current interglacial with those of the four previous interglacials. The horizontal scale on the x-axis is too small to identify even the length of the instrumental record.
Steve Goreham shows how small a portion it is in this diagram of the last 10,000 years (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Another graph shows the same period, the Holocene Optimum, in a different form (Figure 3).
Figure 3
The temperature range in this period is approximately 3.75°C (28.75 to 32.5°C) but is above the current annual average global temperature for most of the 10,000 years. Just put the approximately 120-years of instrumental record in any segment of the graph and you see how it is cooler than most of the period and well within natural variability.
The IPCC claim Radiative Forcing (RF) remained relatively stable before 1750. Since then they claim a steady rise due to primarily to the human addition of CO2 (Figure 4). As NOAA explains
Since 1750, human-caused climate drivers have been increasing, and their effect dominates all natural climate drivers.
So the claim is that a 2.29 W m-2 increase in RF explains almost all temperature change since 1750. Compare this increase with the variation in RF from a few natural climate drivers not included in the IPCC models. How reliable is this data? What are the error ranges? We know that climate sensitivity, that is the RF impact on temperature has decreased significantly (Figure 5). Notice that the IPCC is an outlier in this range of climate sensitivity estimates. These estimates are within or very close to the error of the estimate. One definition of RF says,
Radiative forcing by a climate variable is a change in Earth’s energy balance between incoming solar radiation energy and outgoing thermal IR emission energy when the variable is changed while all other factors are held constant.
Figure 5
The phrase “all other factors are held constant” is traditionally covered by the Latin term ceteris paribus. Unfortunately, that is never the case in reality and to apply it in the dynamic system that is climate change renders meaningless results. It is like the phrase that something is ‘purely academic,’ which means it has no relevance to the real world. The slope in Figure 5 shows a trend that supports those who argue that CO2 has no climate sensitivity. Regardless, the amount of sensitivity is too small to be significant.
The trouble is the estimates of just one side of that balance, the “incoming solar radiation” (insolation) varies considerably. Figure 6 shows the variation in values of insolation estimates from several computer models. In a 2005 paper titled How well do we compute the insolation at TOA in radiation climatologies and in GCMs?
Ehrhard Raschke wrote,
“The solar forcing used in 20 models participating in the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP-2) was compared with the same quantity computed for ISCCP. Models and climatology should agree at least in this quantity, however, the figure at the bottom of page 1 (Figure 6 in this article) shows a large disagreement.
It can be speculated that such different meridional profiles of the solar radiative forcing at TOA should also have impact on the computed atmospheric circulation pattern, in particular when simulations over periods of several decades to several centuries are performed. Therefore, related projects within the World Climate Research Program should take appropriate steps to avoid systematic discrepancies as shown above and to estimate their possible impact on the resulting climate and circulation changes.”
Figure 6
The average variation is low near the equator but considerable in higher latitudes. It is reasonable to assume an error overall of at least 5 Wm-2 which more than covers the IPCC claimed CO2 sensitivity.
A larger question is what climate forcing variables are ignored, especially in the IPCC models. The answer is a great many. With most the variability and the error of the estimates totally swamp the claimed human RF.
The Milankovitch Effect is not included in the IPCC computer models because it is argued the changes are too slow and too small for the 120-year instrumental record.
Figure 7 shows the variation in RF at 40°N over a one-million-year period.
Willis Eschenbach examined the relationship between the insolation curve and the 100,000-year Milankovitch cycle and found no connection with the EPICA Antarctic ice core temperature anomaly. That is not my concern here, rather it is the swing of insolation of 100 W m-2 compared to the IPCC claim of 2.29 W m-2.
Eschenbach compared Milankovitch against glacial/interglacial swings during the Pleistocene. Many people don’t know that there are at least four glaciations before the Pleistocene with speculations about the cause but with no agreement. The most common speculation involves orbit of the Sun around the Milky Way and interactions with galactic dust in that voyage. How does that affect RF?
The list of variables and mechanisms that cause variation in the RF over short and long periods well beyond the 2.29 W m-2 claimed for human produced CO2 is extensive. Lamb included a diagram in Volume 2 of Climate Present, Past and Future (Figure 8).
Figure 8
Then there is the question of water vapor. Everyone agrees it is the most important greenhouse gas by far, they just don’t agree on how much. Water vapor is 95% and CO2 4% by volume, so AGW proponents claimed CO2 was “more effective” in its ability to block outgoing thermal radiation. The wide range of estimates of the effect is proof that nobody knows. Worse, there is a contradiction between NASA’s claim in a study trying to prove the positive feedback of water vapor is real and consequential, and the IPCC.
“This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere,” said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. “Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.”
So, the increase in atmospheric CO2 from humans determines the amount of atmospheric water vapor. In the 2007 IPCC Report, we learned,
“Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.”
There is little doubt that the variation in atmospheric water vapor and the error in the estimates alone exceeds the 2.29 W m-2 attributed to human CO2. It is also true for most variables, especially those omitted by the IPCC.
It is the misuse of science to create the deception that is the AGW claim that makes distraction, exaggeration and selective truths necessary. However, as Aldous Huxley said, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
The fact that rainforest regions are cooler than desert regions at the same lattitude disproves the AGW theory.
Yes well said and easily confirmed with any statistically significant study of temperature and precipitation data. Ironically, the IPCC contention is that WV does most of 33 degrees of warming, which is at least 20 degrees for each 1% in the atmosphere. So rain forests which can have 4% WV above them should (by IPCC claims) be at least 50 degrees hotter than similar but dry regions.
Imagine I wanted to measure the average temperature of my car to 1/100th degree C. How would I go about doing it. Once I calculated the number, what would I do with it?
Regarding the theory that Milankovitch cycles are linked to the insolation has also always seemed to me to be less than compelling. There isn’t any really obvious fit to explain the very rapid temperature increases at the end of each glaciation. There was a recent wild idea about how the lowering and raising of sea level affects the amount of decompressive partial mantle melting along the mid ocean ridges that seemed rather elegant. In summary the lower sea level during glaciations causes reduced pressure (13 bar) which allows partial melting to occur resulting in a high activity extrusion period that rapidly warms the ocean hence the rapid rise in temperatures. The higher ocean level supresses the magmatic activity and hence the slow cooling back to a period of glaciation and lower sea levels allows more melting and approx 80,000 years later out it comes again,
Interesting.
The heat source that is #1 is the sun. And if it changes its output of heat suddenly and stars certainly can do this, then there is less heat here on the nearby planet. Ditto in double for warming.
To answer the question: Long -Term Climate Change: What Is A Reasonable Sample Size? the answer is fairly simple. For a reasonable degree of certainty (90%?) One needs around 10x the length of time of data of the length of time in which we are taking a trend – and all the data must be from one homogeneous source. So, e.g. in order to assess whether the last century was abnormal, we need around a millennium of data. In order to assess whether the 1970-2000 warming was abnormal, we must compare the 1970-2000 trend in CET with the last 300-350 years in CET. And the longest period in the raw instrumental dataset that can be assessed would be around 16years.
However, if all falls apart if we start comparing apples with cheese: tree rings for 1000 years with bogus fraudulent surface data for 30 years.
However, to compromise with the need for quicker indications, I would suggest that we can get a “more likely than not” indication for 3x the period. So, e.g. with 160 years of data, we can start saying with a modest certainty that if the last 50 years showed warming that had not been seen before in the last 160 years, then something was odd. But even using the bogus upjusted data, the 1970-2000 period shows the same warming as 1910-1940. So, there is no indication of any abnormality with the global temperature (despite the known upjusting – which tells us just how normal the present period is – that even fraudulent changes can’t change it enough to make it abnormal).
Scottish Sceptic, I’m not a statistician, but I seem to recall that ideally at least about 30 samples are needed to draw high confidence statistical conclusions. That would mean to properly understand an apparent trend over a 30 year period (one trend sample), a period of 30 x 30 years, or 900 years would be needed to have high statistical confidence whether or not the trend might be unusual. In other words, if the trend is higher than for any other 30-year trend over the last 900 years, then we might have high confidence that it is very unusual, and indeed “unprecedented” within the scale of 900 years.
I also agree that for high confidence, we need to be comparing apples to apples over the entire period of concern. Unfortunately, we don’t have that luxury. Our best modern measurements related to estimating global temperature anomalies are arguably only since the satellite era beginning around 1979 because of spatial coverage problems and changing measurement methodologies over time prior to the satellite era. So at best, our period of highest confidence is at most about 37 years now, which means trying to evaluate whether a recent 30-year trend is unusual is near impossible with any reasonable degree of confidence.
Thus, we are left trying to compare apples and oranges or perhaps tree rings versus ice cores versus ocean sediments, etc. All of these proxies have much larger uncertainties than our methodologies available to evaluate global climate within the last 37 years, which makes comparisons even more challenging. Most efforts these days seem to either ignore the uncertainties or to greatly under-estimate them to make political conclusions that are in reality not supported by the evidence with its inherent uncertainties. Playing on human fears seems to be a common theme in politics and finding “scientists” willing to corrupt their “science” to meet political expectations is easy to accomplish with politically directed funding and pressure to be politically correct (which can include confirmation bias).
In order to be considered current participants in science, who want at all costs to prove that the nature of acting as their models and mathematics give results?
I think that in most of them their CO2 entered the brain and darkened their gyrus of the brain, so that they only see CO2 as the cause of climate change. Can scientists to accompany accompany climate change on other planets? Since there are no people should be nothing new there are not happening, and it is for people of CO2, causing these changes.
It really is a miracle that has not been not revealed as the true cause of climate change. These “wars”, conducted among millions of participants, about the causes of climate change, have to cil only material benefit to fraud and false theories which deceives mankind and thus performs the contamination of our consciousness.
All previous “evidence” and the price on the causes of these changes, is nothing more than usual “junk science” who has reached our consciousness, as the container is full of waste, but many are not aware of it.
The menu is a miracle, that no one wants to think about some powerful factors that govern with all the features and planets to us on those planets.
Be oriented in the right direction for the unraveling of the enigma, here’s a question that will help to sober up and begin to think normally.
Why is our planet Earth has cooled for the past more than 4 billion years old?
Is there something that she is not allowed to cool as the moon? Here is the basic cause !!!!
I know i own this evidence, if there is an interest.
I’m tired of reading and listening to the many illogical and misleading price on the causes of climate change.
Let me start how God commands !!
The ice caps on Mars grow and retreat the same as earth poles. When my grandfather studied Mars back 120 years ago, it had a much larger ice cap than today thanks to Martian global warming. 🙂
Tim Ball : the attached is on a par or I believe as much at stake with ( Mann Lawsuit ) i.e.your legal battle with Michael Mann. In South Africa news are calling it the trial of the century. http://www.biznews.com/low-carb-healthy-fat-science/2016/02/08/tim-noakes-banting-babies-trial-best-outcome-hope/ Nokes has stated that if all diabetics around the globe were put onto LCHF diet, “at least six pharmaceutical companies would go out of business”.
When you add to this argument the fact that atmospheric CO2 concentration is overwhelmingly a function of temperature and that it’s current accumulation is not anthropogenic, the Warmist position is truly bankrupt.
See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/04/an-engineers-ice-core-thought-experiment-2-the-follow-up-2/
Dr Tim ball:
“The AGW proponents successfully got the world focused on CO2, which is just 0.04% of the total atmospheric gases and varies considerably spatially and temporally.”
Not according to satellite data.
You do like sat data?
Seems pretty well-mixed to me. (varies by barely 15ppm globally)
So well-mixed indeed that you can even see the NH seasonal changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration reflected in a trace from the South Pole.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/South_Pole_CO2.jpg
“I used to argue that it is like determining the character, structure, and behavior of a human by measuring one wart on the left arm. In fact, they are only looking at one cell of that wart for their determination.”
Nope – the best analogy is drinking 0.04% solution of cyanide in water.
In other words the absolute proportion of anything is irrelevant – what is relevant is the power of that substance to change it’s environment.
So you’re saying insignificant is still insignificant.
Toneb:
Thankyou for providing that OCO-2 plot which shows emissions of CO2 from human activities are insignificant with industrial regions having lowest CO2 concentrations.
The plot you provide is for only one month, but similar indication is provided by annual OCO-2 data.
More clear evidence refuting the anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) hypothesis is hard to imagine. Thankyou for presenting it.
Richard
richardscourtney:”
“Toneb:
Thankyou for providing that OCO-2 plot which shows emissions of CO2 from human activities are insignificant with industrial regions having lowest CO2 concentrations.
The plot you provide is for only one month, but similar indication is provided by annual OCO-2 data.
More clear evidence refuting the anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) hypothesis is hard to imagine. Thankyou for presenting it.”
No, please – don’t mention it – but you appear to have misinterpreted the meaning of my post.
What I showed was a clear refutation of Dr Ball’s “varies considerably spatially and temporally.”.
Unless of course you want to argue that 15 out of 400 or 3.75% merits the adverb “considerably” to be added to the verb “vary”.
Oh, and did you note that the variation due to NH seasons is also visible at the SP?
Toneb:
I don’t doubt the intention of your post but I wrote to point out its meaning; i.e, the OCO-2 data which you presented is clear evidence refuting the AGW hypothesis.
Richard
The plots show nothing about emissions. They simply show that CO2 concentrations vary throughout the year, within a fairly narrow range, as they no doubt always have. It is well known that large amounts of CO2 move around within the atmosphere, as oceans seasonally warm and cool, and vegetation seasonally absorbs CO2, with reduction products that are then respired.
Nick S.:
The plots show atmospheric CO2 concentrations are NOT highest near or over major regions of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
An excuse for WHY major regions of anthropogenic CO2 emissions do NOT show highest conentrations of atmospheric CO2 is needed by those who claim the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the observed – and continuing – rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Risible assertions that “The plots show nothing about emissions” are not a credible excuse.
Richard
richardscourtney;
“Toneb:
I don’t doubt the intention of your post but I wrote to point out its meaning; i.e, the OCO-2 data which you presented is clear evidence refuting the AGW hypothesis.”.
Could you please say why?
Toneb:
I refer you to my rebuttal here of the twaddle from Nick S..
Richard
richardscourtney:
“The plots show atmospheric CO2 concentrations are NOT highest near or over major regions of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
An excuse for WHY major regions of anthropogenic CO2 emissions do NOT show highest conentrations of atmospheric CO2 is needed by those who claim the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the observed – and continuing – rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Risible assertions that “The plots show nothing about emissions” are not a credible excuse.”
I must rebut your “rebutal”.
It is no surprise that “atmospheric CO2 concentrations are NOT highest near or over major regions of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”
However please observe China (world’s largest producer of anthro CO2) marked out in orange/red.
Because the vast majority of atmos CO2 comes from natural sources.
Nowhere will you find a scientist state that that is not the case.
It is simply that the EXTRA than man emits is tipping the balance beyond what the Earth’s natural sinks can absorb.
The Tropics produce most.
http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-sources
Toneb:
You assert
NO! The OCO-2 data indicates that emissions of CO2 by humans are NOT “tipping the balance beyond what the Earth’s natural sinks can absorb”. And the fact that one region of high CO2 emission from human activity does coincide with high atmospheric CO2 concentration does not alter that indication unless you want to claim China alone is responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The AGW hypothesis says anthropogenic (i.e. from human activity) emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs, mostly CO2) will accumulate in the atmosphere to raise the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs which will induce global warming.
For that hypothesis to be true it is necessary for anthropogenic CO2 emissions to be in excess of what nature (i.e. the CO2 ‘sinks) can sequester. Otherwise there would be no accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.
The OCO-2 data shows the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are NOT in excess of what nature can sequester.
If the anthropogenic CO2 emissions were in excess of what nature can sequester then the excess CO2 would be seen as high CO2 concentration over the regions where the major anthropogenic CO2 emissions are added to the atmosphere. And that excess would spread from those regions to other parts of the atmosphere.
What is seen is that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are low over almost all regions of major anthropogenic CO2 emission. This indicates that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are NOT in excess of what nature can sequester: it is sequestered in ‘sinks’ near its emission sources.
This is not surprising because anthropogenic CO2 emission is less than 3% of total CO2 emission. Such a small variation is a trivial variation.
However, there is an important point to note.
The OCO-2 data does NOT disprove the possibility that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the observed and continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
although
The OCO-2 data does disprove the claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are overloading the ‘sinks’ for CO2.
One of our 2005 papers
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
provided 6 models of the carbon cycle system with 3 of the models assuming a significant anthropogenic contribution to the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the other 3 models assuming the rise is purely natural.
Each of the models in that paper matches the available empirical data without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses to get its model (i.e. the Bern Model) to agree with the empirical data.
So, if one of the six models of our paper is adopted then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible. And the six models each give a different indication of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
The superior performance of each of our models over the IPCC’s Bern Model results from our modelling assumption. The Bern Model uses the assumption of anthropogenic CO2 emissions being in excess of what nature can sequester (which is now refuted by the OCO-2 data). Our models assume something has altered the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle system.
Some processes of the carbon cycle system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to a new equilibrium. The observed rise in atmospheric CO2 is easily modeled as being continuing slow adjustment towards an altered equilibrium.
This raises the question as to what may have altered the equilbrium.
One possibility is the anthropogenic CO2 emission. In our models the short term sequestration processes can easily adapt to sequester the anthropogenic emission in a year (which is now confirmed by the OCO-2 data). But, according to our models, the total emission of that year affects the equilibrium state of the entire system with resulting rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration as is observed. This possibility is real but unlikely.
Natural factors are more likely to have caused the alteration to the equilibrium of the carbon cycle system. Of these, the most likely cause is the centuries-long rise in global temperature which is recovery from the Little Ice Age.
I hope the matter is now clear.
Richard
richardscourtney;
“If the anthropogenic CO2 emissions were in excess of what nature can sequester then the excess CO2 would be seen as high CO2 concentration over the regions where the major anthropogenic CO2 emissions are added to the atmosphere.”
No they wouldn’t – the atmosphere in the NH influenced by the PJS is powerfully turbulent/mixing, such that a local CO2 source would soon have dispersed – that is why we see the response we do at the even at the SP with a (6 month lag). That is what is meant by well-mixed. It is like adding a drop of dye to a cup of water and stirring it briefly. It is almost that efficient. You must consider the dynamics of the atmosphere. The tropics (30deg N to 30deg S) carries it’s surface air powerfully aloft via convection but does not have a jet-stream above to mix it so quickly horizontally – so that is an addition factor in seeing greater concentration far more easily. Meteorology.
“What is seen is that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are low over almost all regions of major anthropogenic CO2 emission. This indicates that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are NOT in excess of what nature can sequester: it is sequestered in ‘sinks’ near its emission sources.”
You must also consider the specific dynamics (winds) that pertained at the time (1 Oct to 11 Nov ) for the CO2 concentration to be accounted for on that sat image. Autumn in the NH – stonger surface/jet-stream winds. Not so over China.
Also anthro CO2 vs natural is ~29 vs 750 Gt (say 3%).
Would you (really) expect to distinguish that on an image of that resolution?
You yourself say in fact:
“This is not surprising because anthropogenic CO2 emission is less than 3% of total CO2 emission. Such a small variation is a trivial variation.”
So why try at eye-ball pick it out on that image – the natural co2 return swamps it ….. apart from the large source that is China over what is probably a slack wind regime period.
Again: the 3% is not trivial because it is in excess of what natural sinks can take up (around half of it only is absorbed).
This should be no surprise because the Earth’s bio-system naturally evolves to be in balance and it adjusts itself between source/sink/temp determined by orbital forcing.
“The OCO-2 data does disprove the claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are overloading the ‘sinks’ for CO2.”
I disagree as observation (not models?) shows:
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising – so by logic we b(or something) is overloading the Earth’s sinks.
And we know that the ~40% rise of 280 > 400ppm is anthro via 12C v 13C ratio.
Here shows the heavier isotope’s concentration declining…..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/iso-sio/graphics/isomlogr.jpg
I assume you know the significance?
But for others…
“CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.”
I hope the matter is now clear.
Toneb:
I took the trouble to explain the matter for you and you have replied with nonsense.
Your reply says
That illogical straw is not sufficient to stop you sinking.
If the anthropogenic emissions were being removed from their emission sites that quick then so would the natural emissions. “Meteorology” does not know which CO2 molecules were emitted by human activities. The ‘high’ levels of CO2 are over regions of natural emission and – with one exception – are not over sites of anthropogenic emission.
And your only justification is this irrational belief
NO! That is not “logic”: it is an assumption.
And I explained to you that we have demonstrated a different assumption provides much better agreement with the data.
And you demonstrate that you know you are spouting twaddle by changing the subject to the isotope data; i.e. the change in the ratio of C12 to C13 isotopes in the atmosphere.
The C12:C13 ratio change is in the direction expected by accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 but its magnitude is wrong by a factor of 3. Thus the direct indication of the isotope change is that the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration is mostly or all natural (n.b. NOT anthropogenic).
Indeed, in the graph of Mauna Loa data you present, the magnitude of the ‘seasonal variation’ in the C13 is only explicable by it being mostly from natural sources because there is insufficient emission from human sources.
However, these direct indications of the isotope ratio changes may be misleading because the indications may have been affected by ‘dilution’. Therefore, the most that can be said of the isotope ratio data is that it is not sufficient to disprove an anthropogenic cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Richard
richardmcourtney;
“I took the trouble to explain the matter for you and you have replied with nonsense.”
On the contrary my friend:
I took the trouble to explain the matter for you and you have replied with nonsense.
I replied with science with links.
You did not. Merely hand-waving.
“If the anthropogenic emissions were being removed from their emission sites that quick then so would the natural emissions. “Meteorology” does not know which CO2 molecules were emitted by human activities. The ‘high’ levels of CO2 are over regions of natural emission and – with one exception – are not over sites of anthropogenic emission.”
“That illogical straw is not sufficient to stop you sinking.”
My friend – it would only be illogical if i were sinking, and I’m not.
Why? because I have shown the science with links (this “conversation” started with my refutation of Dr Balls’ ” CO2 varies considerably spatially and temporally” – which I note you accepted).
You? Just hand hand-waving and borderline arrogance.
Try understanding what I said:
I differentiated the MAJOR SOURCE of natural CO2 as being from the Tropics which disperse more slowly and that the major industrial zones in the NH more quickly. But not China. Basic meteorology.
Obviously winds don’t discriminate, but the sources are in different climatic zones to a large part. Though we still see the major polluter, China, sticking out.
That is irrelevant anyway as atmos CO2 is increasing and we know it comes from fossil (link provided).
It is also patently obvious that the *3%* anthro CO2 present in that sat image cannot possibly be differentiated by eye for the most part from natural and so your assertion that “which shows emissions of CO2 from human activities are insignificant with industrial regions having lowest CO2 concentrations” is beyond my comprehension.
“And you demonstrate that you know you are spouting twaddle by changing the subject to the isotope data; i.e. the change in the ratio of C12 to C13 isotopes in the atmosphere.”
it was not a “change of subject” at all – it was evidence of the the increasing 13v12 of C isotopes that relates crucially to rising CO2 concentration.
Do you dispute it is rising?
If not from mankind then from where?
You do realise the necessity that the biosphere be in harmony (else the world would be too chaotic to sustain prolonged species).
Also, please do not use phrases such as “And your only justification is this irrational belief” and “spouting twaddle”
FYI: that paragraph was far from “my only”.
And I am not spouting “twaddle”.
At least it is not “my” twaddle. Yours appears to be.
You would not accept me saying such to you, I suspect, and I do not of you.
Tony
Toneb:
From behind a screen of anonymity you spout soundbites picked up from climate porn sites and get ruffled when someone who has studied the subject for decades tells you about his published research.
I don’t have to assist in removing your ignorance: I am doing you a favour. And your attempts to ‘tell grandmother how to suck eggs’ do not encourage me to continue helping you. My annoyance is increased by your writing this to me
You cannot learn until you understand that the twaddle you are copying from climate porn sites is ludicrous nonsense.
Try thinking for yourself unless, of course, you are being employed to promote nonsense.
Having got that out of the way: READ WHAT I WROTE FOR YOU. AND TRY TO LEARN.
Richard
richardscourtney;
“From behind a screen of anonymity you spout soundbites picked up from climate porn sites and get ruffled when someone who has studied the subject for decades tells you about his published research.”
No. I simply point out arrogance and borderline hostility. I don’t get “ruffled”. I simply point out scientific evidence.
If you have indeed “studied the subject for decades tells you about his published research”
I would be grateful if you would point it out to me in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.
“You cannot learn until you understand that the twaddle you are copying from climate porn sites is ludicrous nonsense.”
Again you use condescending language that is always the clear sign of someone who is rather *taken* with himself. OK, you think you are superior. I buy that – it comes across – but only in the attitude you display.
I do not copy from “climate porn” sites – I link to peer-reviewed science.
AND I am still waiting for yours.
“Try thinking for yourself unless, of course, you are being employed to promote nonsense.”
Richard – you have not the slightest idea of my background and expertise in the subject. Instead you fall back on the usual get-out-of-jail-free meme on here. I’m anonymous. Yes, like the vast majority here.
I have forgotten more about meteorology, my friend, than you have shown to be knowledgeable of with you hand-waving “twaddle” comment.
No, I am employing myself to deny ignorance my friend, that is all.
Stop being ignorant, and may I say arrogant.
You can at least remedy the first but the second *may* be beyond you.
“Having got that out of the way: READ WHAT I WROTE FOR YOU. AND TRY TO LEARN.”.
Yes, I think you should:
Go and find a basic meteorology text book and read it for starters.
You do not earn the right to be superior by asserting things on here. It takes a body of your peers (assuming you have a scientific qualification and any peer-reviewed work) in order for that honour to be earned.
You have neither done so with your *science”, nor with your attitude.
Here – more science….
http://global.jaxa.jp/press/2014/12/20141205_ibuki.html
http://content.science20.com/files/ESA%20co2_eur_scia_english_H.jpg
Now you learn … from science.
And not from the standpoint of your confirmation bias.
Tony
Toneb:
Among your additional collection of falsehoods you assert
I have contempt for you and not “arrogance and borderline hostility”.
You have earned my contempt by pretending to “point out scientific evidence” by copying stuff you don’t understand from climate porn sites, and by resorting to abuse when your errors are pointed out.
YOU presented OCO-2 data for one month. That data indicates anthropogenic CO2 emissions are NOT overloading the CO2 sinks as you claim (I also linked to annual OCO-2 data which provides a less-clear indication because in science we don’t ‘cherry pick’ for evidence most supportive of a case). Your response to that was two-fold.
Firstly, you made the superstitious assertion that “meteorology” disperses ‘anthropogenic’ CO2 emissions differently from ‘natural’ CO2 emissions. Hence, you implied the OCO-2 data YOU provided is misleading .
Secondly, you claimed carbon isotope ratio changes in the atmosphere indicate that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are overloading the CO2 sinks to provide the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. I pointed out that the direct indication of the isotope changes is that the anthropogenic emissions are NOT the cause of most or all of the atmospheric CO2 increase, the possibility of ‘dilution’ makes this direct indication uncertain. And I pointed out that the seasonal variation in the MLO C13 data YOU presented cannot be caused by anthropogenic emissions. Your only response was to claim the facts I provided are “arm waving”.
YOU claimed that
although I had already explained the purported “overloading” is an assumption – n.b. not “logic” – and that some of our published research demonstrates an alternative assumption provides much better agreement with the empirical data. Your response to that was to assert without any reason argument or evidence that our research I referenced is “confirmation bias” which you implied is not “published in a reputable peer reviewed journal”.
There was no such “bias” which is why you state none. And our paper in question is as I referenced
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
that was published in the very reputable peer reviewed journal ‘Energy & Environment’ which is indexed in the ISI and is cited 28 times in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports .
Anyway, if you knew anything about science then you would know the value of work is not indicated by where it is published. For example, the worth of the seminal work on avionics by the Wright brothers is demonstrated by the existence of the aviation industry and not by the fact that it was published in a magazine about bee-keeping.
I could continue pointing out your errors and misdemeanours, but you and your pot-shots from behind the coward’s screen of anonymity are not worth the bother.
Your arrogance, your ignorance and your abusiveness have earned my contempt, and my only regret is that I lack sufficient language to express the degree of my contempt for you and your behaviour.
Richard
richardscourtney;
“You have earned my contempt by pretending to “point out scientific evidence” by copying stuff you don’t understand from climate porn sites, and by resorting to abuse when your errors are pointed out.”
And you have earned my contempt by responding to requests for science-based evidence with said arrogance and condescension. That is not an adequate response my friend.
Climate “porn sites” – Mmm, by that I assume you mean those pages accessible via Google scholar? You do you mean pages that are not from the likes of WUWT, CE, Roy Spencer et al.
No, I don’t think so. They are called “Peer-reviewed” papers. – if you were to look at all you would find that they include and link said “peer-reviewed” papers. You may not like it (that is your problem and I care not a jot) but that is the way science proceeds). Experts in their field researching stuff – because they want to discover things about the world and NOT merely to confirm their world-view – writing a paper and then other similarly EXPERT people critiquing it.
Doing your own paper (and effectively self-publishing) does not constitute science – particularly so if you approach it from a biased position – which self-evidently you do, judging by the “porn” comment.
“Firstly, you made the superstitious assertion that “meteorology” disperses ‘anthropogenic’ CO2 emissions differently from ‘natural’ CO2 emissions. Hence, you implied the OCO-2 data YOU provided is misleading .”
No – I provided the image as it showed that CO2 emission could be clearly seen from space and in no way intended it to show as you say. And study some basic meteorology will you – I should have thought it rather important in the role of anthro CO2 dispersal.
Richard – please don’t confound your position.
It’s simple – anthro CO2 is overloading the biosphere. It cannot be easily picked out at a global resolution as it is just 3% of the total – but zoom in (provided) and you can. Further isotopic analysis shows that fossil produced carbon is increasing ALONG with the total.
“And I pointed out that the seasonal variation in the MLO C13 data YOU presented cannot be caused by anthropogenic emissions. Your only response was to claim the facts I provided are “arm waving”.”
I did indeed – and I do so again in light of discovering the nature of your “journal”. It is not a peer-reviewed and therefore not a reputable one my friend…
http://www.desmogblog.com/energy-and-environment
“According to the journal’s mission statement, “E&E has consistently striven to publish many ‘voices’ and to challenge conventional wisdoms. Perhaps more so than other European energy journal, the editor has made E&E a forum for more sceptical analyses of ‘climate change’ and the advocated solutions. We look for contributions that make energy technology a contributor to improving social and environmental conditions where this is most needed.”
“Many voices” is code for not peer-reviewed.
So therefor you do indeed have a “bias” as would have been in one.
Science is NOT just a platform for your views – we can all go to Doug Cotton’s “papers” at PSI to see his views but they are potty beyond belief and publishing there does not substantiate them.
So it boils down to you saying I am to take you on authority? Really?
“work on avionics by the Wright brothers is demonstrated by the existence of the aviation industry and not by the fact that it was published in a magazine about bee-keeping.”
Richard, that may well be true – however the world has moved on a tad in the more than 100 years since.
We have armies of experts in climate and other earth sciences and expensive technological aids to make it impossible that that happen now – not to mention the ~150 years of empirical (as in not found wanting despite rigourous and repeated testing) science.
“…. continue pointing out your errors and misdemeanours, but you and your pot-shots from behind the coward’s screen of anonymity are not worth the bother.”
My thoughts of you Richard – and my anonymity is my own prerogative not yours or WUWT’s.
“Your arrogance, your ignorance and your abusiveness have earned my contempt, and my only regret is that I lack sufficient language to express the degree of my contempt for you and your behaviour.”
Just one thing there Richard:
I was following your lead my friend. You rebut the science and therefor do not properly investigate what it is saying – that is bias confirmation. I always know that it is futile talking to denizens on here but, well you know – it’s sometimes “revealing”. And one day it may be possible for them to realise that by merely sticking politely to science that one is not being abusive – and then get the above in as a 360 twist in things.
No, the NEUTRALS (where are the attack-dogs?) on here will plainly see on reading our thread that it is you that have bristled and been contemptuous of me and I have merely called you out for it.
It is the response of someone who has his perceived authority challenged.
Oh, and by the way – I have been studying climate science for ~45 years, since I before I joined the UKMO.
And as I said up-thread. I’ve forgotten more than you know.
That was MEANT to be insulting BTW.
TA tA and see you on another thread.
Tony
Toneb:
You provide another set of rambling excuses for your arrogant nonsense based on your copying to here soundbites you don’t understand. I am not surprised that you end it saying
Anybody would run after the trouncing you have been given mostly by yourself.
For example, you write to me
Well, that makes some sort of sense; i.e. you are claiming the reason you have misunderstood everything you have copied to here is that you have forgotten everything you once knew about climate.
And I don’t think ~45 years sweeping floors at Bracknell and Exeter means much.
That was MEANT to be flattering BTW.
And having claimed you once did know something about climate you display unwillingness to now learn when you write
Yes, your untrue assertions are “simple”.
1.
The hypothesis that “anthro CO2 is overloading the biosphere” may be correct but – as I have explained to you – there are other hypotheses which better match observations.
2.
I – not you – first said in this thread that natural emission is ~97% of total when I wrote
3.
Contrary to your unsubstantiated and untrue assertion, the anthropogenic CO2 emission cannot be discerned in the OCO-2 data as anybody can see with a glance at the OCO-2 plots. Indeed, you agreed it could not to emsnews when he pointed it out it could not be discerned. Indeed, this is not surprising when anthropogenic CO2 emission is a trivially small alteration to the total.
4.
Your assertion that “isotopic analysis shows that fossil produced carbon is increasing ALONG with the total” is weasel words. Yes, both are increasing but not in agreement with an assertion that this is evidence for the anthropogenic CO2 emission causing the rise in atmospheric CO2. Only your refusal to learn what you claim to have forgotten would have enabled your weasel words when I had pointed out to you
That paragraph of yours does not contain all your falsehoods because your diatribe is riddled with them. Indeed, you seem to enjoy spouting deliberate falsehoods. For example, E&E is both a peer reviewed journal and is highly respectable: is your problem that E&E rejected something you submitted for publication perhaps because you had forgotten something important?
I could go on but there is no point. You have done more than enough to discredit yourself, and I have written enough to show that you are a contemptible, anonymous popup who posts ridiculous nonsense that he/she/they/it lacks enough knowledge to understand.
Richard
Wow. Those factories and huge cities in the Amazon Jungle and on game reserves in Africa are pumping out lots of CO2! 🙂
emsnews:
I understand and agree the point you are making.
However, for benefit of newcomers to the information I think it right to point out that you are commenting on data from one month and your point is more validly made by consideration of the annual OCO-2 data.
Richard
“Wow. Those factories and huge cities in the Amazon Jungle and on game reserves in Africa are pumping out lots of CO2! :)”
Yes they do – and it’s a well known fact that ~97% of CO2 entering/leaving the atmosphere is natural.
If you do – why would you think otherwise?
Toneb:
Yes “it’s a well known fact that ~97% of CO2 entering/leaving the atmosphere is natural”. But, as is every “well known fact”which you collect from climate porn sites, that is not relevant.
The scientific observation from the OCO-2 plot is that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are NOT overloading the sinks for CO2.
This is also indicated by other scientific evidence. Indeed, you posted one of these additional pieces of evidence that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are NOT overloading the sinks for CO2 when you plotted MLO data for seasonal variation and annual declines of C13 ratio.
I explained to you that the direct indication of the isotope data you posted is that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is mostly or entirely natural, but the possibility of ‘dilution’ meant the direct indication is not certain: you replied by blathering that I was “arm waving” (i.e. you replied with yet another indication that you don’t understand the stuff you gather from climate porn sites).
Richard
Toneb:
Yes “it’s a well known fact that ~97% of CO2 entering/leaving the atmosphere is natural”. But, as is every “well known fact” which you collect from climate porn sites, that is not relevant.
The scientific observation from the OCO-2 plot is that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are NOT overloading the sinks for CO2.
I explained this to you but you replied by waffling nonsense about “meteorology” dispersing anthropogenic but not natural CO2.
This indication of OCO-2 is also indicated by other scientific evidence. Indeed, you posted one of these additional pieces of evidence that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are NOT overloading the sinks for CO2 when you plotted MLO data for seasonal variation and annual declines of C13 ratio.
I explained to you that the direct indication of the isotope data you posted is that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is mostly or entirely natural, but the possibility of ‘dilution’ meant the direct indication is not certain: you replied by blathering that I was “arm waving” (i.e. you replied with yet another indication that you don’t understand the stuff you gather from climate porn sites).
Richard
I remember a trick we used to play at parties. a number of matches were placed on a table in changing configurations. Onlookers were told that each combination represented a number and that “all the evidence was on the table”. The studious intellectual types would pour over it determined to crack the problem. The first to crack it was inevitably the girlfriend hanging on a shoulder or a Mum washing the dishes. Change the pile and ‘bang’ they had the answer immediately. Meantime the scientists would get increasingly frustrated and even angry. The truth was that the convener was placing x number of fingers on the table that equaled the answer and even hammering them down repeating ” the answer is on the table!”.
So many scientists get besotted with their own field and never stand back to define the big picture. Start with the big picture and define what is important. I struck it at university when interpreting seismic profiles in relation to sequence stratigraphy. Too many students had their nose on the map whilst the important patterns could only be seen by standing back to allow the dominating profiles to emerge. All the rest was just noise and useless
“There is little doubt that the variation in atmospheric water vapor and the error in the estimates alone exceeds the 2.29 W m-2 attributed to human CO2. It is also true for most variables, especially those omitted by the IPCC.”
As far as I understand the net anthropogenic radiative forcing 2.29 W m-2 isn´t the net value. One has to take into account an increase in outgoing radiation inferred from changes in the global mean surface temperature. (See: UN IPCC; WGI; AR5; TFE.4, Figure 1; Page 67.)
I believe that the net effect is in the neighborhood of 0.5 to 1 W m-2. Based on the reported warming of the oceans from 0 – 2000 m from 2005 to 2015 I estimated the outgoing radiation to be 1.7 W m-2 and the net effect from anthropogenic forcing to be 0.6 W m-2. (IPCC seems to have all bets covered.) Full post here:
IPCC would be spot on for any ocean warming!
A current net effect from anthropogenic forcing around 0.6 W m-2 opens up for many alternative hypothesis.
One amazing thing I discovered is that the net effect I found (0.6 W m-2) is exactly the same size as the cloud feed-back parameter. (IPCC reports that the surface temperature is 0.85 DegC above preindustrial times – hence the cloud feedback parameter in this figure will have to be multiplied with 0.85 DegC to find the current cloud feedback parameter.)
Figure 7.10 | Cloud feedback parameters as predicted by GCMs for responses to CO2 increase including rapid adjustments. Total feedback shown at left, with centre light- shaded section showing components attributable to clouds in specific height ranges (see Section 7.2.1.1), and right dark-shaded panel those attributable to specific cloud property changes where available. The net feedback parameters are broken down in their longwave (LW) and shortwave (SW) components. Type attribution reported for CMIP3 does not conform exactly to the definition used in the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) but is shown for comparison, with their ‘mixed’ category assigned to middle cloud.
Ref: UN IPCC; AR5; WGI; Page 588.
It turns out that my estimate ( 0.63 W/m² to be precise) is corroborated by an estimate I just found in Wikipedia. (Not bad for an amateur):
Earth’s energy budget
“Earth’s energy imbalance
If the incoming energy flux is not equal to the outgoing thermal radiation, the result is an energy imbalance, resulting in net heat added to or lost by the planet (if the incoming flux is larger or smaller than the outgoing). Earth’s energy imbalance measurements provided by Argo floats detected accumulation of ocean heat content (OHC). The estimated imbalance was measured during a deep solar minimum of 2005-2010 at 0.58 ± 0.15 W/m².[11] Later research estimated the surface energy imbalance to be 0.60 ± 0.17 W/m².[12] ”
This seems to support that the “energy imbalance” is currently around 0.6 W/m² and not 2.29 W/m².
(There might still be correlated errors).
Also Dr Ball:
“The temperature range in this period is approximately 3.75°C (28.75 to 32.5°C) but is above the current annual average global temperature for most of the 10,000 years. Just put the approximately 120-years of instrumental record in any segment of the graph and you see how it is cooler than most of the period and well within natural variability.”
This refers to Fig 3
That graph ends in 1855 (before modern warming).
Easterbooks graph (which this is – from Richard Allen) has the present wrongly labeled as 2000 – it is actually 1950 and “Years before present” ends at -95. This when the first usable layer of that core sample starts at.
The top layers (after 1855) are not usable because there has not been enough time for the snow to become ice.
1950 is the convention for present as after then nuclear bomb carbon corrupts data.
For confirmation of the above and further explanation see this post by Richard C (NZ) January 26, 2011 at 12:11 pm
At:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/easterbrook-on-the-magnitude-of-greenland-gisp2-ice-core-data/
Further this specific incorrectly labeled/interpreted graph is the subject of this article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/
Currently the sample size is one … one earth.
On the contrary, we know that the polar ice on Mars has changed over time, growing bigger and smaller depending on solar energy output melting or not melting the ice there. This is why it is so frustrating watching people debate this or that while claiming the sun isn’t the major driver of all climate.
The climate system is nonlinear. Use of the term and concept “forcing” assumes linearity. Any discussion of climate centred around “forcing” has failed before it even starts.
What signature in a time-inclusive phase space do chaotic systems leave? Yes – a fractal pattern. A fractal pattern is the same on all time scales. So the sampling period is not so important. If it looks different, tweak the gain or amplitude and it will look the same.
Dr Ball, ( or anyone for that matter that can help me out), this maybe of topic. You think that this sample in your article is a wart on a skin. I am just wondering how they can find proof with this following kind of nonsense:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35499520.
Personally I have always been under the impression that tectonic plate movement over the past 3-5 million years and a cooling event even 14 million years ago prior to that would have wiped out anything in Australia by now? Am I wrong ? If so I need to be pointed in the right direction, Thanks.( and btw the paragraph towards the end in the article said this) :
“Some people have assumed it was a steady shift toward the ice ages, but the early Pliocene represents a mysterious reversal in this global movement. All of a sudden there was a moment when it was brilliant. The trees blossomed and spread, the possums smiled, and it was a wonderful time.
For a second I thought they were going to say “unicorns”.instead of possums.
The instrument record covers 25% of the globe, but less than 1/4th of that is covered anywhere close to adequately.
Earth’s surface is 197 million square miles.
For surface measurements of the “accuracy” claimed by NOAA (+/-0.1 degrees C.), I believe you would need at least 1.97 million sensors, each one more accurate than sensors in use today.
Dr. Ball, this is a very good essay. Very thought provoking as is evidenced by the comments.
Good question! Currently the sample size (the count of the sampling units underlying the modern theory of global warming) is nil. For a non-nil sample size climatologists and policy makers must make decisions that they have not yet made. Currently climatologists are unaware of the need for a non-nil sample size if global warming outcomes are to be predicted thus they feel under no pressure to make these decisions.
Experience with construction of mid- to long-range weather forecasting models suggests that the minimum sample size for statistically significant predictions would be about 150. That the sample size is nil is not a problem for present day climate models as they do not make predictions. That they do not make them has the consequence that the climate system cannot be controlled. Being unaware of this important fact, politicians persist in attempts at control.