Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Thanks to an alert commenter, half of my last post was shown to be in error. Like most folks, I really, really hate to be publicly wrong, and of course I do my utmost to avoid it. But sometimes I overlook something, or my logical staircase is missing some steps, and there I am. Wrong. In public. Again. Not pretty.
However, when I regained some semblance of detachment I realized once again that speed in finding my own errors is the most valuable part of writing for the web. Rather than spending months going down some error-lined rabbit-hole, I’m handed my head on a platter right away, so I can fix what I did wrong and move on. That’s the good part of putting it all on the line in public—my illusions don’t last long.
In this case, I’d misunderestimated the effect of the movement of heat from the tropics to the poles. Horizontal movement of heat is called “advection”. Let me start with the solar input, the only input I considered in my previous post:
Figure 1. 15-year average, solar energy input. CERES data, Mar 2000 – Feb 1015. Gray lines show the latitudes receiving the global average of 340 W/m2. All graphics show 1°x1° gridcell data.
From the tropics to the poles, there is a gradient of about 250 W/m2. However, the incoming solar is not the only energy involved. We also have the energy that is constantly being advected from the tropics to the poles. Figure 2 shows where that advected energy comes from and goes to.
Figure 2. Amount of energy either exported (red/yellow) or imported (green/blue) by each gridcell.
As you would expect, in general the areas receiving more than the average amount of solar energy export some of it, while those receiving less than the average receive some of that exported energy … but there are notable exceptions in the desert areas. You can see that the entire Sahara/Sahel/Arabian Peninsula is a net importer of energy. I ascribe this to the lack of water. Having ample water allows for the movement of latent heat, which in turn enables the entire hydrological cycle. But I digress.
Over the orange/red area the earth receives about 112 petawatts of energy. The two poles combined, on the other hand, only receive about half of that, 63 petawatts. And there are about 12 petawatts of energy constantly being moved polewards from the tropics to the two poles. By comparison, the total energy used by humans is about 12 terawatts … about a thousandth of the amount of energy exported from the tropics to the poles … but I digress.
The important issue here is that I was wrong to use just the solar input to estimate the net energy coming into each gridcell. In addition, I needed to include the advected energy shown in Figure 2.
To show the distribution of this net gridcell energy input, in Figure 3, I’ve subtracted the advected energy (Figure 2) from the solar energy (Figure 1). This give us the net energy being added to each gridcell, after advection.
Figure 3. Net amount of energy (solar ± advection) entering each gridcell.
Now, this is most interesting. I would never have guessed that the location on the planet that receives the most net energy is the North African desert. And of course including the advected energy has the effect of reducing the tropical/polar inequality. After advection the 250 W/m2 difference drops to about 200 W/m2 from the tropics to the poles.
Note also that the poles get a significant boost from advection, a difference of about a hundred more watts per square metre. However, the subtraction of the advection from the incoming solar has left one thing unchanged—the overall average. This is what we’d expect, since the system hasn’t added or subtracted any energy, just moved it around.
So I think that now we’re ready to compare Figure 3, the net gridcell energy input, with the surface temperature. In order to adjust for the effect of altitude, I have used the “potential temperature”, which is the observed gridcell temperature adjusted for the average altitude of the gridcell. Of course, for the ocean the potential temperature is equal to the observed temperature.
Figure 4 shows a scatterplot of potential temperature versus the net amount of energy entering each gridcell. As is my usual custom, one of the first things that I do is to calculate the Gaussian average to see what is happening with the data.
Figure 4. Scatterplot, net gridcell energy input (top-of-atmosphere solar plus/minus advection) versus surface potential temperature (observed temperature adjusted for altitude).
Now, I’m not much of a fan of straight-line trends. But I have to follow the data where it leads, and in this case the Gaussian average shows the underlying straight-line nature of these particular trends. So in Figure 5, I’ve added those trends.
Figure 5. Scatterplot, net gridcell energy input (top-of-atmosphere solar plus/minus advection) versus surface potential temperature (observed temperature adjusted for altitude).
I found this chart most fascinating. The area at the far left with the dark blue trendline is mostly Antarctica, where it is high, cold, and dry. It appears that the Antarctic Plateau stays cold pretty much regardless of the variations in incoming energy. This may relate to the peculiar nature of the South Polar vortex, which keeps it somewhat isolated from the rest of the climate system.
Of particular interest is the “knuckle” at ~ 342 W/m2. This value is quite close to the global average of 340 W/m2. So it appears that areas which have below-average total incoming energy warm quite a bit with increasing energy … but in areas receiving more than the average level of incoming energy, the observations show that the response to increasing incoming energy goes nearly flat.
Now, some may recall my oft-repeated description of the nature of temperature regulation by emergent phenomena. The short version is that above some thermal threshold, phenomena such as cumulus clouds and thunderstorms emerge to cool the surface. These act so effectively that they damp the temperature increase down to almost nothing.
And indeed, this is what we see in Figure 5. Below a certain threshold, we don’t get things like dust devils and thermal cumulus and tropical thunderstorms and the like, so the sun is free to warm the earth without opposition. In that section of the planet, between about three hundred and three hundred forty W/m2 of incoming energy, the temperature does indeed rise rapidly. In fact, it rises at a rate of about 3°C per doubling of CO2 (using the IPCC value of 3.7 W/m2 per doubling), which is the classic estimate of the “climate sensitivity”.
But above that threshold, we get one or more of the variety of thermoregulating phenomena that emerge to cool the surface … let me suggest that this is the reason that the so-called “climate sensitivity” has proven to be so hard to pin down—because as I have argued for over a decade now, “climate sensitivity” is not a constant. Instead the “climate sensitivity” differs in different situations, and as a result, the idea that we can push a straight-line trend through the differences is a simplistic view of a complex reality.
Anyhow … that’s what came of the most recent case of my being shown to be wrong …
w.
My Usual Request: Misunderstanding is far too common, particularly on the web, but we can minimize it by being specific about our differences. If you disagree with me or anyone, please quote the exact words you disagree with, so we can all understand the exact nature of your objections. I can defend my own words. I cannot defend someone else’s interpretation of some unidentified words of mine.
My Other Request: If you believe that e.g. I’m using the wrong method or the wrong dataset, please educate me and others by demonstrating the proper use of the right method or identifying the right dataset. While demonstrating that I’m wrong about methods or data is valuable, it doesn’t advance the discussion as much as if you can point us to the right way to do it.
Unlike you, Nature trickster Michael Mann considers that he is never wrong.
And never admits he is, even when upside down.
@Willis
Think of how much better the sciences would work if all academic research papers were available under open access, and each had a comments section where readers could point out errors.
Another useful reform would be to require publication of all the anonymous reviewers’ comments during the process, to allow outsiders to discuss the validity of their reviews. Getting nailed for shoddy reviews should subsequently lead to better quality.
Transparency could be a wonderful antiseptic.
+1
The two legs of science: Openness and scrutiny – the more the better.
If the results aren’t repeatable, it’s not science.
If the supposed hypothesis can’t be tested in such a way as to be capable of being found false, it’s not science.
+2
Gabro;
“If the results aren’t repeatable, it’s not science.
If the supposed hypothesis can’t be tested in such a way as to be capable of being found false, it’s not science.”
(Please be patient topic police ; )
Can you understand, given those statements, why I dispute that (Big E) Evolution theory is a truly scientific theory? . . (regardless of whether it actually happened or not) . . Consistency is ever so important in this realm, it seems to me. And, it seems to me that the attempted CAGW “hegemony” is in a sense an imitation/repetition of the successful Evolution “hegemony” drive . . .
Indeed, the stage was set for CAGW theory shenanigans, by successful Evolution theory shenanigans, I highly suspect. The cornerstone in a transition to; “What the experts declare true in a given realm of science, is to be treated as scientific fact” authority based newsciants.
Evolution is not only a testable, falsifiable hypothesis repeatedly confirmed, but an observation, ie a scientific fact.
Just because you’re not aware of these facts and want to remain willfully ignorant of them doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
Evolution is a repeatedly confirmed theory, same as the heliocentric theory of the solar system, theory of universal gravitation, atomic theory of matter, germ theory of disease, theory of general relativity and quantum theory.
It’s a fact, supported by all the evidence in the world, with none against it.
“If the results aren’t repeatable, it’s not science.”
Evolution (Big E, historical event) has not (and may not be possible, whether it happened or not) been repeated. Please try to distinguish what you can imagine, from what you can observe.
I, personally speaking, will not accept that in that case, the rules are optional.
The results of evolutionary experiments have always been found repeatable. For example:
Prediction: lobe-finned fish evolving wrists and digits to go with their limb bones should be found in Late Devonian rocks in the Canadian Arctic.
Result: lobe-finned fish evolving wrists and digits to go with their limb bones were looked for and found in Late Devonian rocks in the Canadian Arctic. Repeatedly.
Prediction: proto-mammals with both the “reptilian” and mammalian jaw joints should be found in Triassic rocks from around the world.
Result: proto-mammals with both the “reptilian” and mammalian jaw joints have been found in Triassic rocks from around the world. Repeatedly.
Prediction: fossil artiodactyls with definite whale-like traits should be found in Paleocene rocks in the Indian Subcontinent.
Result: fossil artiodactyls with definite whale-like traits have been found in Paleocene rocks in the Indian Subcontinent. Repeatedly.
You’re not getting it, Gabro . .
Lobe fined fish exist(ed), observable. Their fins are useful, no one is disputing that. Their fins gradually turned into feet? Imagined, not observed. Not scientifically factual therefore.
Now, you can say; But, there’s no other way those feet could have come into being, so we don’t actually need to observe the transformation itself . . But you and I are well aware of another theory about how those toes came to be, aren’t we? You might think it’s fine and dandy to just rule out a theory that predates Evolution theory, but that ain’t scientific either . .
Is it theoretically possible that one day humans will be able to “design” living things?
If so, how can we be sure that’s not how those toes we can see came to be?
You still don’t get it, because you don’t want to.
The evolution of lobe-finned fish fins into the arms, legs, wrists, ankles, fingers and toes of tetrapods has been repeatedly observed. It’s visible in fossils, in embryological development and in genetics.
Just because you refuse to credit the evidence and ignore it all doesn’t mean it isn’t factual.
The transition from lobe-finned fish to tetrapod has indeed been observed in detail from every possible line of evidence. And each year more observations emerge, all confirming the fact that we tetrapods are specialized lobe-finned fish (besides us, only lungfish and coelacanths remain); that mammals descend from creatures which used, like fish, amphibians and “reptiles”, including birds, to have more than one lower jaw bone, and that whales descend from artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates, like pigs, cattle, sheep, antelope, camels, etc).
Those are scientific facts.
And yes, we will be able to control evolution even more than we do already and have done for thousands of years.
Transition from fish to tetrapod:
What this newsciants amounts to, as I see it, was demonstrated here not long ago, when CAGW proponents declared that the “pause” can be explained by natural variation masking AGW for couple decades . . (Even had a model run that produced such a “pause”)
They have an explanation for the unobserved, and act as though that explanation shifts the burden of proof onto skeptics . . And so too with Evolution theory, as I see it. Explanations fill in the “gaps” in what can be observed (the unobserved), and Evolutionists then act like the burden of proof is shifted to skeptics . .
John,
Imaginary gaps are constantly being filled by new discoveries, which process has been ongoing for about 200 years.
There is no burden of proof in science. There is a burden of falsification. Creationism has been show false in every possible way. Evolution has always been confirmed.
Gabro,
There are truly vast numbers of differing sorts of living things on Earth, so it is always going to be possible to speak of this or that sort having gradually morphed into that or this sort. Always. But, there is not (I hope you would agree) such a vast number of ways that living things could move about (successfully enough to survive). Therefore, it is logical to expect to see a great many similarities in the way (including “equipment”) the creatures move about, regardless of whether they come from one another or not. It just has to be that way . .
John,
The vast numbers of living things can be and are organized based upon their relatedness, ie how closely related they are from their last common ancestor.
The fact is that whether you look at fossils, bones, other tissue, metabolism, embryology, genetics or any other factor, the inescapable conclusion is that we tetrapods are lobe-finned fish.
Our closest relatives are lungfish, by whatever metric you chose. The skull bones of the first tetrapods match one for one with those of our Late Devonian lobe-finned fish ancestors. Their limb bones are the same as ours.
In mammals the bones at the back of the lower jaw in other vertebrates moved into the skull to become the middle ear bones. Creationists used to scoff, saying, well, then where are the proto-mammals with both jaw joints? No sooner asked than found. Already in Triassic proto-mammals the older jaw joint has been coopted for hearing, but both joints are present, as in Morganucodon.
A characteristic of the whale ear is already found in their distant, land-dwelling artiodactyl ancestors.
Not just fossils, but every other possible line of evidence shows the fact of evolution of new species, genera, families, orders and classes from existing ones. It is an observation, that is, a scientific fact.
Gabro,
Please show us the actual fossils from a particular classified species, from which it can be demonstrated Tiktaalik evolved . . and, of some actual particular classified species it evolved into.
Or, please stop speaking of the gaps being imaginary.
John, you seem to be indulging in the ancient “Achilles and the Tortise” paradox, where motion is defined as moving in steps halfway to the end point. Of course, if one uses that flawed definition, motion to anywhere is impossible. Gaps are due to sampling, and that sampling will show gaps, especially as many researchers tend towards being “lumpers” in classification.
One can imagine space aliens coming upon the Earth in a billion years, and finding traces of a variety of cars and trucks and buses . . and interpreting the similarities as signs of them having evolved from one another . . and trying figure out which evolved from which . .
Living things are far more complex, and varied, than the vehicles we design . .
John,
Do you seriously imagine that we need every single intermediate species?
But it so happens that in the case of stegocephalian, tetrapodomorph lobe-finned fish, we now have an embarrassment of riches. The issue in tetrapodomorph evolution now is whether Tiktaalik-grade stegocephalians are on the main line to modern tetrapods, or a sideline. Evolution toward fingers from fin rays happened in a number of tetrapodomorph lines at the same time, thanks to similar conditions in shallow water.
But the fact that stegocephalians are ancestral to tetrapods is not in doubt.
Nor is the more general fact that tetrapods are descended from lobe-finned fish. As I’ve showed you before, our fishy ancestry is not in doubt. Fish gonads lie near what would be their arms. In tetrapods, they descend during embryological development to the region of their legs. In cold-blooded tetrapods, this isn’t a problem. But in warm bloods, such as us, it is. The male gonads need to pass outside the body, so as not to kill the sperm from our high body heat. This produces the risk of dangerous hernias. What Intelligent Designer would engineer this stupid development?
John,
Aliens would not find in cars, anything like what we find in organisms, since cars don’t reproduce. Evolution is a consequence of reproduction. And in populations, not just individuals, as in cars.
Only blinkered religious belief can blind one to what is obvious from a disinterested observation of nature.
Where’s the sequence that demonstrates the gaps are imaginary, Gabro?
You have none, as far as I am aware. All creature lines enter and exit (if they are not extant) the fossil record, “unevolved”. All the evolution happens “off stage” so to speak. On stage, in tangible-land, there is no significant changing observed in any creature line. A fish species thought extinct for a hundred million years (the very lobe-fin used in many evolution of evolution), is found essentially unchanged in the ocean today. So too with all creature lines we have clear evidence of, as far as I can determine.
The “prima facie” case for Evolution does not actually exist, it seems to me. Just the vast array of life . . dot-connected if one is bound and determined to connect the dots.
John, you seem to have the impression that all members of a species undergo change, not the probable mechanism that a small population splits off and forms a new species. That splitting does not imply the parent species becomes extinct, either.
Consider the recent thread in this blog on wolves, coyotes, and dogs. There is a great difficulty in defining those as separate species by some definitions, but all three are definable except at the overlaps. Foxes are clearly related to wolves, but more a species as there is no interfertility. Working with fossils makes the whole enterprise even more difficult, as one has to work with only hard parts.
John,
Why do you keep asserting gross falsehoods out of total ignorance? That is, lying, without even bothering to check.
There are many instances of species-species transitions. Human evolution is a good example. We have not only the old and new species, but have identified the single mutations responsible for the changes.
Two important transitions in the human line are well recorded both in fossils and in our genes, ie the transition to upright walking, associated with the fusion of two standard ape chromosomes into human #2 around six million years ago, and brain expansion, associated with a single growth mutation about 2.7 million years ago, much better constrained than the prior gross chromosomal mutation.
Many other transition series are well documented, such as among horses, and, increasingly whales. The depositional environment for grasslands and shallow coastal seas have made for a good record. As you may know, horses started out as small forest creatures, which became increasingly well adapted to grasslands, which spread as climate cooled during the Miocene.
Tom, sorry if I gave the impression that I think all members of a species need to change . . I don’t know exactly what gave you that impression, but it’s not true. Perhaps that I gave any example of one that didn’t . . which if “ruled out” because it’s not necessarily indicative of the fate of all members of the species, sorta rules out all examples I could possible give, ya know?
“Consider the recent thread in this blog on wolves, coyotes, and dogs. There is a great difficulty in defining those as separate species by some definitions, but all three are definable except at the overlaps.”
Sure, and I can believe they all descended from a common ancestor (in Book speak; Kind ; ) but no changes of the sort that would demonstrate large quantities of brand spanking new genetic coding was coming into existence along the way, appear. As with domestic dogs, a great deal of potential variety exists within the basic critter. Highly specialized versions, like pugs, have lost variations in their genetic coding, not gained any, from what I’ve read.
John’s correct. Gabro’s wrong.
Why? Because John draws attention to what he doesn’t know. Gabro doggedly depends on what he does.
John,
“Min”, the Hebrew word translated as “kind” in the OT, clearly means “species” in most cases. Folk classification is practically as precise as scientific.
There is no genetic mechanism that stops a fish from becoming a tetrapod. So-called macroevolution is just the same processes as microevolution given more time or resulting from more far-reaching mutations.
The ancestors of bears and dogs gave rise to those two groups. The last common ancestor of seals, mustelids (weasel kin), bears, dogs and all the Carnivora on the canid side rather than the felid (cat) side gave rise to all those groups.
Not only the fossil and anatomical evidence but genetics and embryology show this to be the case.
As I said, there is all the evidence in the world in favor of the fact of evolution, and none whatsoever against it.
Bartleby
August 20, 2016 at 7:20 pm
Science is based upon what can be observed. Religion is based upon what cannot be observed, but only imagined.
Hence, John is wrong. Evolution is an observed fact.
(I’m sorta through with you,. Gabro . . for now anyway. If you can’t tell I’m sincere and serious, you need a bit more . . evolving before I feel I can reason with you ; )
My point is, that the CAGW has a very similar; *You can’t prove it’s not true, and I can keep explaining things that don’t appear, which would prove it’s true, indefinitely* useful quality about it. And the degreed “expert” like Gabro, can brow beat and accuse those who remain skeptical, while spouting oodles of tangential new factoids, of being ignorant deniers of “the science”.
And thus the ostensible “hegemony” maintained in the eyes of the “masses”.
Bartelby,
So Flat Earthers who reject the spheroid earth are right because they are unaware of the evidence in favor of a globe?
Interesting.
Gabro has inadvertently demonstrated what I’m trying to point out, I feel;
“Religion is based upon what cannot be observed, but only imagined.”
He can’t possibly know that all religion is based on things that were not observed. He can only imagine that is true, and treat the imagined as if an observation . .
(The opposite? Could a person actually observe clear indications of supernatural things existing? Of course, it they do . . )
John,
Please name those religions not based upon mythical beings which have not been observed.
When was the last time anyone saw “God”? He drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden in human form, and walked with Abraham, but since then has only been seen, allegedly, as burning vegetation or storm clouds. His alleged “son” Jesus was last seen displaying His wounds about 2000 years ago.
Other religions have deity sightings even more distantly removed, although the Mormons think Jesus appeared in North America more recently than 2000 years.
John,
You have no scientific basis for “skepticism” regarding the fact of evolution, only religious, supernatural, mystical objections.
I’m not only an expert, but factually correct. Against which facts you have nothing but blind faith and total ignorance.
(Why, one asks, does Gabro not realize that what he wrote is not knowable?
I can’t be sure, but I suspect God devised an IQ test of sorts . . and those who treat the mere imagined, as if the observed (when given clear grounds for departing from this practice) . . fail the test. To run the test, He had to make Himself . . scarce, so to speak ; )
John,
I write only of what is known, that is, observed.
You, OTOH, prate of what cannot be known, never has been known and never will be known, it imaginary spirits.
“Religion is based upon what cannot be observed, but only imagined.”
“I write only of what is known, that is, observed.”
Those do not . . fit together, in wee my brain, anyway ; )
Gabro/John – I, for one, really enjoyed your conversation. You have demonstrated it is possible to discuss a sensitive subject intelligently. GK
It is interesting that in the early days of the Royal Society, scientists brought in their new discoveries (microscope, fossils) and demonstrated their experiments on the table top. Of course now that is pretty difficult to do, but talk about “open access”!!
G. Karst,
Thank you and John.
But there is no scientific argument against the fact of evolution. As with gravitation and other major theories, details are always to be further worked out, but evolution is no more conjectural than the germ theory of disease, atomic theory of matter or heliocentric theory of the solar system.
We mammals, for instance, all share derived traits inherited from ancestral organisms, such as hair, milk, a single lower jaw bone per side and middle ear bones derived from the former jaw bones that used to form a joint with the skull. Both fossils and embryological development show this transition.
Within Order Mammalia, we apes also share further derived traits, such as nails rather than claws, inability to make Vitamin C (along with monkeys and tarsiers, but not lorises and lemurs), lack of tails, characteristic molar structure and shoulder blades on our backs instead of our sides, the better to swing through trees.
Craig,
And a lot of early RS members hated each others’ guts and did all they could to torpedo each other. Newton might have been the worst offender.
Oops!
Meant Class Mammalia and Order Primates.
Also forgot to mention another mammalian trait that becomes ever more mammal-like in the evolution of our Paleozoic and Triassic synapsid ancestors and relatives, like Dimetrodon, is increasingly complex teeth, which survive and fossilize well.
Gabro,
You can tell pat little stories, that make it all seem so simple, like this;
” Fish gonads lie near what would be their arms. In tetrapods, they descend during embryological development to the region of their legs. In cold-blooded tetrapods, this isn’t a problem. But in warm bloods, such as us, it is. The male gonads need to pass outside the body, so as not to kill the sperm from our high body heat.”
But, you don’t seem to realize that in scientific style thinking, it only takes one example that does not conform to the supposed “need” you speak of, to demonstrate it’s not really a need at all. Whales have gonads deep inside their (warmer than human) bodies, for instance.
Now what? Do you accept that the story you told was defective in some fundamental sense? Or does it simply get replaced by an amended story . . like the CAGW pushers explaining away the deceleration of global warming as CO2 levels continued to rise, by invoking the very natural variation they “ruled out” as potentially accounting for the warming in the first place?
It’s the “flexibility” such story telling based “science” permits, that I am trying to suggest was intentionally championed (successfully) in the Evolution realm, so as to “legitimize” the approach for something like the CAGW, so as to render “consensus science” more or less business as usual. (regardless of whether or not Evolution really happened as the story tellers claim).
You, apparently want the story telling approach to be “valid” in one scientific realm (by consensus among experts), but invalid in another realm . . and I am suggesting that’s a bargain with the devil, so to speak . . which does not end well for science or society. Unless you feel being told what is scientifically factual by whatever group has the biggest microphones, metaphorically speaking, is a good thing . .
Solution; Don’t take the bait.
John,
I would ask that you be open to the idea that you are wrong, just be open to it. That is the greatest gift any of us can give our self. The theory of evolution has been confirmed across many sciences. There have been and are thousands upon thousands of scientists over many years working and refining the theory of evolution. You are ignoring their work without understanding it. Am I open to the idea that evolution is incorrect? Of course! All we need is one piece of solid evidence to over turn it, but none has been discovered thus far. If you are interested in the answers to your questions, the information is out there and what hasn’t been figured out is being worked on.
I got your gaps right here:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
John Knight:
With all due respect, every argument you make has been refuted. As I previously pointed out to you, the book “The Greatest Show on Earth” does an excellent, thorough and enjoyable job of laying out the evidence of evolution provided by many scientific disciplines.
In short: the Theory of Evolution has never been falsified, even though it is falsifiable. (The Catholic Church even acknowledges that Evolution is a fact, for Pete’s sake!)
To take just one of your arguments: gaps in the fossil record… The beautiful thing is that even if there were NO fossils of any kind, evolution would still be a fully accepted fact, because of the myriad other scientific ways it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Why do you willfully choose to ignore a cogent and thorough presentation of the evidence? Why speak from ignorance when the truth is so readily available? Do you know how bad it looks for you to refuse knowledge? To trot out long-ago-refuted arguments, even when you’ve been told where to go find proof that they’re not valid?
Just read the book.
Regards.
JGrizz,
I appreciate your suggestion, and get where you are coming from, but, I believed in the Evolution theory from early childhood, and would bet a dollar to a doughnut hole (updated version of an expression then common ; ) that I could generate better arguments for it than Gabro can.
In fact, I continued to believe it, even after I witnessed things (in my early forties) that convinced me God does exist, and that a certain Book is a communication from that God . . until, in an online discussion, I assured a fellow “Believer” that Evolution was true, and that the Book could be interpreted in such a way as to render it’s words compatible with the theory . . and went off to get the compelling evidence I was sure I could provide to substantiate a appeal similar to yours, I made to her.
But I never did find any . . instead I found all manner of evidence that amounted to circular reasoning, for the most part. Layers of rock dated by the fossils they contained, and fossils dated by the layers of rock they were found in, for example. All based on the idea of an immensely long steady state world (that resulted in a distinct “geologic column” effect once thought ubiquitous), which now is considered to never actually have happened . . and which distinct column does not actually exist anywhere in the world. Again, for example.
Once the Evolution theory got a firm foothold, all sorts of ideas were advanced by those eager for it to become “settled science” (including quite a bit of outright fraud), which today appears as a great mass of corroborating evidence, to those eager for it to be “settled science”, anyway . . but none of it I am aware of stands alone, without “explanations” that patch the holes in each supposed realm of support. Like hypothetical “dark matter/energy” for instance, being required to account for why spiral galaxies ostensibly many billions of years old, still exhibit the form one would otherwise expect to have been “washed out” after just a few million years at most . . Again, just for example.
In short, I haven’t ruled out the general idea . . I just can’t rule it in ; )
takebackthegreen,
“John Knight:
With all due respect, every argument you make has been refuted.”
And that means? People can’t be wrong when they make refutations?
Bring it on, I’m willing to discuss . . but not to simply believe because you do . . I’m a scientific minded person ; )
“To take just one of your arguments: gaps in the fossil record… The beautiful thing is that even if there were NO fossils of any kind, evolution would still be a fully accepted fact, because of the myriad other scientific ways it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.”
Not what I consider a really strong argument . . but to each his own, I suppose.
PS~
“(The Catholic Church even acknowledges that Evolution is a fact, for Pete’s sake!)
So to the CAGW . . How convincing is that to you?
Most here can see a great deception being perpetrated, and can perhaps imagine the position young folks are in with regard to the “fact” of CAGW . . What I’m suggesting amounts to this not being the first generation hit with heavy duty propaganda storms involving science and the scientific method, basically . . That something theoretical, was promoted to something scientifically “factual”, to pave the way for the “pirating” of science itself.
This, regardless of whether or not Evolution is what really happened . . and the acceptance of the promotion to “scientific fact”, is biting yall in the ass as we speak . . What’s really weird to me, is that the theory of Evolution is utterly unproductive, and amounts to nothing more than a philosophical matter, in reality-land. Allowing it to return to hypothesis status, would have no real world effects at all in terms of science/technology, that I am aware of.
Why so tense? ; )
JohnKnight:
This is my last attempt to help you.
Are you afraid to read facts that contradict your world view? Are you afraid that your mind might change? That your knowledge of science might be expanded?
Read the book.
I don’t think anyone here is tense; it is just sad to see someone so committed to remaining ignorant. You refuse to be educated on this subject. Therefore, when you raise the same old tired disproved arguments, you are utterly wrong and don’t even know it.
Read the book.
We don’t need to provide you with proof. It has been done.
READ THE BOOK.
John,
Your anti-science mindset (and those like you) endangers our world and people’s lives.
John,
Since you have obviously never taken even a beginning college course in basic biology, let alone embryology, genetics, biogeography, paleontology or any other relevant discipline, I guarantee you that your claim to be able to explain evolution better than I is ludicrously ignorant megalomania, demonstrating that the last thing in the world you are is a Christian, for whom humility is a virtue and totally baseless pride a sin.
takebackthegreen
August 22, 2016 at 2:35 am
Clearly John is afraid to read a book on evolution, preferring willful ignorance.
He also apparently is also afraid to read, study and learn what the Bible really says, preferring to believe uncritically what he has been told it says by false prophets who for profit knowing lie, committing the blasphemy of bibliolatry, putting their erroneous interpretation of the alleged Word of God over the incontrovertible physical evidence of His World.
All the evidence on Earth demonstrates the fact of evolution and not a shred of evidence can be found against it. Only willful blindness to reality can account for not seeing this truth.
TBTG,
“This is my last attempt to help you.”
Help me? Help me what? Agree with you?
How does it help you, to believe this particular hypothesis is a fact?
The only produce resulting from it being treated as a fact that I am aware of, is stuff like eugenics and genocides and “moral relativism”, and indoctrination of children, and Social Justice Warriors crawling all over the joint demanding everyone behave as they wish . . etc, etc . . and the general acceptance of “consensus science”.
I dont see any of that as helpful, frankly.
If you think it helped you to understand these matters better than I, fire away, lets see how much help you’ve gotten . .
Gabro the heart-knower ; )
“Clearly John is afraid to read a book on evolution, preferring willful ignorance.”
Afraid of not being insulted and accused of endangering people? Trust me on this one, it’s not a frightening prospect.
If you are right about Evolution/Atheism, we both leave this life totally unaware of having been right or wrong about anything at all . . Not at all frightening . . If I am right about a certain Creator God . . Oh my, you are in for a very unpleasant surprise, indeed a terrifying prospect if ever there was one.
I want you to be pleasantly surprised, Gabro, and to live with me and many others, including the Creator God, for a very very long time. Honest I do. Please don’t despise my for that concern about you . .
Johnn,
For the umpteenth time, evolution is not an hypothesis. It is an observation, ie a scientific fact. Even back when it was “just” a well-supported theory, it was more than an hypothesis. And, while it took until the 18th and 19th century for key aspects of Copernicus’ 16th century heliocentric theory to be shown objectively true, it took much less than a century for the theory of evolution to be observed while it was happening as well as theorized.
Just as the heliocentric, gravitational, atomic, germ, relativity and quantum theories are still being refined, so are the details of evolutionary theory. The fact of evolution is no more in doubt than is universal gravitation.
Since you refuse to read a book on the subject which you imagine yourself qualified to comment upon, how about a short article? I chose this one because you still refuse to state why you suppose that a Designer (obviously Stupid) would cause the gonads of tetrapods to start out in their embryos in the same place as they do in fish, then have to migrate out of the chest into the abdomen in amphibians and reptiles and out of the belly altogether in male mammals, which makes us at risk of hernias. Please open your closed mind and try to see the world as it really is.
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/04971/fish-out-of-water
Why in your alternative universe do you imagine that human and other ape embryos grow tails, only to the resorb them? Why do you suppose that bird embryos grow teeth and long, bony tails, only likewise to resorb these structures inherited from their dinosaur ancestors?
How do you explain the fact that the “higher” primates, ie tarsiers, monkeys and apes, all have inherited the Vitamin C gene broken in the same way, while “lower” primates, ie lorises and lemurs, can make the enzyme? Why is the Vitamin C gene of the Indian fruit-eating bat and the guinea pig broken in different places, but other mammals can make their own?
How do you explain, if not via evolution, the fact that human chromosome #2 results from the fusion of two smaller, standard ape chromosomes, so that we have 23 instead of 24 pairs? Why are our feet so poorly “designed” for the task of walking upright that many of us even after six million years still have flat feet and fallen arches?
How do account for the fact that a single point mutation turns sugar-eating bacteria into nylon-eaters?
The God conjecture isn’t a scientific hypothesis because it explains nothing and can’t make falsifiable predictions. All predictions by creationists are always shown false, by contrast.
So please recognize that there is no scientific basis for objecting to the reality of evolution. You’re free to believe whatever nonsense you want out of blind faith, but there are no arguments in favor of creationism, aka Idiotic Design.
John,
You’re the one in for an unpleasant surprise. You have been seduced into a blasphemous cult by professional liars.
You look at creation and imagine that you know better than its Creator, whom by your lights is unspeakably cruel and incompetent.
And, I should add, that your blasphemous libel against the Creator also makes Him/Her/It deceptive, for causing the universe falsely to appear to be 13.7 billion years old, earth 4.55 billion years and evolution to have occurred.
Shame on you. Here’s hoping you don’t roast deep in Hell with the other blasphemers. If I recall Dante correctly, that would be pretty low down, around Circle 7.
Gabro the Judge of Gods ; )
Of what do you accuse our potential Maker? Giving you life? Offering you eternal life? . . Not a big fan of life, eh? ; )
Honest, I’m well aware of those compelling images and ideas that spring into one’s mind when considering Evolution as being true, I experienced them for decades. Very seductive to believe all that “viewing” of things evolving is indicative of one’s ability to know they did, no doubt about it, I say. Hard habit for me to break . . but the scientific approach essentially demands one break it, in order to alleviate accumulated bias and long forgotten underlying logic and presumptions…
” it took much less than a century for the theory of evolution to be observed while it was happening as well as theorized.”
Strange the way you inserted the word ‘theory’ into that declaration . . the theory was observed from the moment it came into being, naturally. What you can’t say of course, is that Evolution (the big E, new genetic coding generating new critters, sort) has ever been observed. It can’t be according to the theory, since it takes vast amounts of time to happen. So, the declaration is actually paying homage to “consensus science” it seems to me. (and the CAGW is even more praiseworthy by that measure)
Ah, double-think at it’s finest ; )
“And, I should add, that your blasphemous libel against the Creator also makes Him/Her/It deceptive, for causing the universe falsely to appear to be 13.7 billion years old, earth 4.55 billion years and evolution to have occurred.”
He did none of that, humans did. People did not see the world/universe as immensely old till humans generated the idea that make it out to be so. How could you forget something so obvious and easily demonstrated?
“Shame on you. Here’s hoping you don’t roast deep in Hell with the other blasphemers. If I recall Dante correctly, that would be pretty low down, around Circle 7.”
Dante is just a man to me . . Is he a Prophet of some sort in your eyes? I’m rather sure he’s not in the Book I spoke of . . though of course I might have forgotten ; )
“Help me what?”
Sound less ignorant. Stop giving the rest of us CAGW skeptics a bad name.
It can’t be according to the theory, since it takes vast amounts of time to happen.
Wrong again.
You don’t even understand what Evolution IS, or know what Darwin’s Theory states,
Wolves to dogs. Drug resistant bacteria. Roses… Observable evolution is everywhere, including right under the nose it gave you.
John,
The physical laws which govern the universe show that it is 13.7 billion years old. Humans have observed those laws, but we didn’t invent them. Your deceptive, stupid, cruel deity did, according to you.
Why the moderators of this supposed science blog allow anti-scientific drivel such as yours to pass as comments, I don’t know. It only supports the Warmunista contention that skeptics are anti-science.
Dante invented the details of the 7th Circle of Hell, but the fact that blasphemers like you will be condemned to Hell is not his idea. Blasphemers are in the third ring of the 7th circle, which is for the violent, and the 3rd ring is reserved for those violent against God.
You should tremble when considering that God is just and vengeful. You will burn, if there is such a thing as your deity.
Logical “translation” of Gabro’s accusation, it seems to me;
*“And, I should add, that your blasphemous libel against the Creator also makes Him/Her/It deceptive, for causing the universe falsely to appear TO ME to be 13.7 billion years old, earth 4.55 billion years and evolution to have occurred.*
I tried to tell him about the pitfalls of treating imagination as if observation . . it’s in the public record so to speak . . but he no wanna leesen ; )
The sheer ignorance about Evolution (big E sort) is stunning to me at time;
“Wolves to dogs. Drug resistant bacteria. Roses… Observable evolution is everywhere, including right under the nose it gave you.”
None of that demonstrates anything more than variations in offspring . . something utterly obvious to people from the beginning. But this indoctrinated person actually believes that variation among offspring IS what we are discussing, with me denying that happens, apparently.
Amazing . . .
Yo, Gabro, could you straighten TBTG out about what we’re discussing here. please? I’d really appreciate it . .
John,
It is you who need straightened out.
That a simple, RNA protocell over four billion years evolved into all the organisms which we see today is what he and I are talking about. The evolution of new domains, phyla, classes, orders, families, genera and species of living things from previous ones is an observed fact.
Your false religious beliefs taken on blind faith without any scientific basis d@ny not only the discoveries of biology, but every other science, to include astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, anthropology, medicine, you name it.
Your chutzpah is staggering. Without ever studying any science, you presume to tell us real scientists where we have it all wrong. If your deity exist, It will surely punish you sorely. For eternity in the burning sands of the 3rd ring of the 7th circle of Hell.
No, it has never been observed. They are here, are here now, but the transition has never been observed.
And the time available for random single-generation evolution is not 4 billion years, but “only” some 600 million years.
It is like those 10^57 atoms and isotopes that needed to be created by multiple supernovas and long interstellar passages at some low fraction of the speed of light. For the earth to be stable for 4 billion years, all of those supernovas needed to gather into dust clouds, transition and condense from dust cloud to star to supernova to the next dust cloud, in only 9.7 billion years. 305 x10^15 seconds. 10^57 isotopes/305 x 10^15 seconds = … So, how many supernovas per second are needed to form our solar system as we know it exists? (Please assume one supernova can generate many multiples of isotopes per supernova of course, and each supernbova will generate many billions of tones of isotopes. But then again, each supernova spreads its newly generated isotopes randomly about a 3d expanding universe. Any isotope formed early in the chain that falls into a regular star, or into a black hole, or just into the interstellar void as uncaptured particles lost in space.
No, you must show how the atoms we know are here got here. In only 13.7 billion years.
He actually doesn’t HAVE to prove anything. Every issue you and JohnKnight raise has already been negated elsewhere.
Something in the tone of your and JohnKnight’s comments makes me suspect you are just trolling us? If you are, it isn’t entertaining. it’s a distraction from the real subject of this site.
If you aren’t trolling, i suggest you at least go learn what Evolution actually IS. Your current notion is demonstrably wrong. And that isn’t debatable. It isn’t even an issue of science. It’s an issue of being able to read and comprehend English.
———————————-
PS– I, for one, don’t reply to inaccurate information for the benefit of the inaccurate informer, since it is a well-known cognitive bias that people with erroneous beliefs, when confronted with evidence of their error, will believe even more strongly in the falsehood. I reply for any other person who might read the false information and be misled.
takebackthegreen
August 22, 2016 at 6:06 pm
John is so ignorant that the dude doesn’t even know that he has been totally owned by his intellectual betters.
You guys not only know the science about which the religious fanatic is completely clueless, but it looks like the religion to boot.
He doesn’t get your point that the same processes that produce observable adaptation and evolution also cause the bigger transitions, as from single-celled organisms to multicellular, from sponges to bilaterians, from sea squirt larvae to fish, from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles and mammals, from egg-laying mammals to marsupials and placentals, etc. There is no magic cutoff beyond which evolutionary processes stop working.
Give it up, John Boy. You lose. Your presumptuousness is staggering. You’re like a dead end kid sand lot pick up stick ball player against the 1939 Yankees.
I have seen a whole lot of faith here . . in an idea. Go for it, devout believers, but honest, I’m not at all embarrassed for not treating that as proof of Evolution.
~ And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?
They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. ~
John Knight,
No faith required. Not an idea.
It’s being convinced by the overwhelming and never contradicted evidence.
Why is that hard for you to understand?
You OTOH have blind faith in a load of mythical gibberish without even a hint of evidence, all contradicted by all of reality.
John,
I don’t think anything like your imaginary God exists. But I am far more familiar with the Bible and with Protestant sect theology than you are, who imagine you understand evolution better than I, who have made my living from practicing biology and saving lives thereby for over forty years.
I’m not judging you myself, just trying to wake you up to the fact that your cult is blasphemous, idolatrous and libels the deity you suppose that you worship.
Your false interpretation of the alleged Word of this Being contradicts the fact of Its Works, if you suppose the universe to be Its creation.
Wise up before it’s too late.
Oh, so you imagine . . interesting, but not all that, really.
John,
It doesn’t take vast amounts of time for evolution to happen. As I’ve tried to school you, it can and does happen in a single generation.
I don’t judge your deity. I point out that your conception of this entity is sadistic, incompetent and deceptive. It’s a hideous, repulsive monster, not worthy of worship.
Since you imagine that it makes everything, then it made the ichneumon wasp, which lays its eggs in other insects, so that they are eaten alive from the inside. It wants babies born only to suffer excruciatingly (!), then die. The OT itself admits that God created evil.
It’s obviously incompetent, since living things are so stupidly designed.
It’s deceptive because it makes the universe look over ten billion years old, the earth over four and has planted fossils and made our molecular biology look as if it evolved.
But if that’s the kind of deity you want to worship, go for it. But real Christians will rightly accuse you of foul blasphemy against the God they worship.
Gabro,
“It doesn’t take vast amounts of time for evolution to happen. As I’ve tried to school you, it can and does happen in a single generation.”
Strange you didn’t point out any examples when I asked for some . ..
Thing is, I don’t believe you, I think you’re just starting another rabbit hole dead end, with something like maybe a new bit of coding came into existence, maybe, according to somebody, and you acting like that proves Evolution. Mutations occur, I’ll grant that obvious truth and spare us both some typing . . this is getting ridiculous.
“I don’t judge your deity. I point out that your conception of this entity is sadistic, incompetent and deceptive. It’s a hideous, repulsive monster, not worthy of worship”
(Imagination can be a wonderful thing . . but it can drive you crazy I fear ; )
How exactly do you know my what “conception” of God is? You really do seem to me to think that what you imagine, is observation of what you are imagining about, sir . . really. I’m not at all confident that you can distinguish between imagined and observed . .
“It’s obviously incompetent, since living things are so stupidly designed.”
How ’bout you demonstrate that by designing a few smartly, big guy?
(I don’t mean imagine some, just in case your affliction flares up ; )
The man who never made a mistake….
Be bit more precise. Watts in power, not energy. Watts over a period of time [say one hour] becomes energy input during thst time. It is sometimes OK to be a bit loose about this, as long as you know you are.
Cavalier attitude towards the units for power and energy is disturbingly common. It raises the question of whether the writer or speaker actually understands the difference.
This error in elementary physics is, as you say, disturbingly common, and perhaps less serious of a mistake than the oversight in Willis’ original post.
IMO all here know what he meant to say, and most likely so did he.
Agreed, it’s usually a fairly good litmus test of whether the writer has the first idea about basic physics.
Use of the term energy budget is fine ( budget means a change over a certain period is often actually a power calculation ). As long at the terms and units are correctly used in the detail.
I recall a rather heated discussion with someone on this forum who got it all badly mixed up and argued blue in the face that he had not made a mistake. Some do not have Willis humility and integrity when it comes to fessing up on an error.
California mandates the energy storage in megawatts. That’s the law, stupid.
Willis, thanks for your work. Do you know who never makes mistakes?
What are they mandating? Total energy storage or maximum power delivery of the storage medium? It is usually the peak power delivery which is critical for utilities. ( Though that probably means that it is the last thing any idiot bureaucrat would actually specify when drafting a law ).
So, now the Undemocratic Peoples’ Republic of California is the final arbiter of scientific terminology?
Interesting. I missed the memo that Jerry Brown has been internationally recognized as the Ayatollah of Physical Science.
I know it does not make sense to an engineer. It is a law written by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers.
The UK used to have energy targets in Watts. Decision makers still do not understand it, and I’ve repeatedly pointed this out to them, but as they have no scientific knowledge, it is a hard task trying to get them to understand. It is no wonder the country’s energy policy has beenn and continues to be, a mess.
A tank of fossil fuels holds a budget of energy an automotor turns to power.
And the body turns some of the energy brought by a steak with fries into muscle mass, another amount of that energy is used to power that muscles.
In both cases a higher order of matter goes the way of entropy.
We’re lucky having science giving us that useful basic definitions.
You vexatious person.
It is sometimes just that the nature of language prevents from using it similarly in different contexts. Banks do data transfer in a proprietary binary form, and what they call it? Machine language.
So don’t mix energy policy with power policy.
Sometimes energy, or more accurately, the speed at which energy is being used is measured in megawatts. This is not to say there are some politicians or journalists who really do not know a difference between a joule and a watt, and let that error reflect in what they say and write.
It’s obvious to me that he was clear and careful (not loose and cavalier) in his description. Power is the flow (“input” etc.) of energy …
… just as payment is the flow of money. In a worldly discussion, nobody uses Joules; electrical energy is presented as kilowatt-hours. On the other hand, financial transfers are given in [dollars], whether they are cumulative or a rate over time.
Considering the political definitions of “power” and “payment”, it would be … distracting … to use them as technical terms in such a context, as Curious George so politely pointed out.
It seems like three important parts are the total area in the upper slope, area near the top of the middle slope and area near the end of the first slope. That might give a sense of total system stability.
Thanks Todd. I agree, that an area interpretation of the three regions on the graph would give us attributes of the total system.
OMG! Someone publicly accepting responsibility for making a science related mistake? Unbelievable! If only people who earn their living in the sciences fields were as honest, and forthcoming.
Or political fields. I believe that Gary Johnson is an honest candidate for President.
Is not the watts per M2 the solar energy as if it were a disc rather than a sphere. It seems hard to believe to me that an area like the arctic which receives near zero solar insolation for 6 months can be on average quiet close to the equator plus or minus 40%.
Typo “misunderestimated” at the start of the 3rd paragraph.
“Misunderestimated” is a quote from George Bush, potus 43. He used it to humorously illustrate a mistake while calling attention to it. The left didn’t get it then either.
Misunderestimated = estimated correctly… so what are you really trying to say? Is it like a 360-degree change of direction?
The left didn’t think it was funny because he really thought it was a word, despite subsequent protestations by him to the contrary. He was infamous for his malaprops.
Well, not really. Misunderestimated could mean it was over under-estimed , or under-under-estimated or should have been over-estimated but was in fact under-estimed. It’s a bit like the know unkowns etc.
I don’t see that it is the same as getting something right since estimating the value of something is not a binary choice. It’s not like Saddam has WMD. That’s a binary.
GW was as dumb as a box of rocks, so I doubt he was doing anything more intellectually challenging that trying to avoid admitting he wrong.
Bush knew exactly what he was doing and saying.
Same with “strategery”. His IQ, at 125 (as derived from his Air Force exam), while not stratospheric, is higher than fellow Ivy Leaguers Gore, Kerry and Obama’s. Also JFK (117) and LBJ (less). Maybe not Carter or Clinton, whose I’ve not seen reliably quoted. Ford and Reagan, also dunno. Ike and Nixon probably higher.
Oboma’s SAT test scores, high school scores, college applications, college transcripts, Columbia applications, Columbia transcripts, law school applications, law school transcripts, law school scores, and everything else … are secured, are more thoroughly guarded against release than Hillery’s deleted emails. We are not permitted to know ANYTHING about him, nor what he (claims to have done), nor why his Illinois law license was revoked.
(Notice that Oboma’s OPPONENTS’ private and sealed divorce records WERE “leaked” to the press just before every one of his Illinois elections. )
RACook,
All true.
Along with much else of interest and relevance, such as his actual birth certificate and passport records.
“Misunderestimated” is a combination of the words misunderstood and underestimated, something the left constantly did, and still does where 43 is concerned. The media (left) assumed he lacked intelligence (as they always do when someone disagrees with them) particularly for the way he pronounced the word ‘nuclear’. He realized the advantage of giving them a red herring to chase while he got on with the real work, and every so often gave them one. It’s still working.
For those who still don’t get it, like the commenter above has often shown, George Bush was an F-102 Delta Dagger pilot. His job was to constantly be ready to go into supersonic combat against soviet nuclear bombers, and possibly any escorting fighters, in defense of our country and it’s citizens. The USAF does not put people who are “dumb as a box of rocks” in that kind of a position of responsibility.
I think he made mistakes while in office, to be sure, but I believe they were honest ones. The malaprops, though, were a tactical device that he employed masterfully, as were the attempts to “correct” them. It was ridiculously easy and he didn’t care what the left thought of him.
I know, the lefties will continue to argue the point. I don’t care. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that it is virtually impossible to change the mind of a lefty so I’m not going to spend any more time on it.
Bush never used the non-word ‘Strategery’. It was coined by his Saturday Night Live doppleganger, Will Ferrell, and subsequently ascribed to Bush.
Bill,
True, written by James Downey.
I’m curious, Willis. Can you tell us what data lies behind your Figure 2 and how you calculated those values? What do they actually represent? You call it “advection”. But, for instance, the energy along the equator hardly escapes horizontally to the north and south (rather the opposite), it escapes vertically via (deep moist) convection. And where does the Sahara get its advected energy from? The equator? The Mediterranean? The tropopause above?
Good question, Kristian. The data behind Figure 2 is the top-of-atmosphere radiation imbalance. If a location is radiating less than it is receiving (on average) it must be doing something with the energy, and the “something” is advecting it. As you point out, in the atmosphere the initial movement is vertical, from the surface to the upper troposphere. From there, however, it moves polewards.
Best regards,
w.
Where’s the top of the atmosphere Willis?
TOA , in this case is where the satellite is.
Hi Willis I presume your advection includes ocean thermal flows and ice flows?
Thanks for answering that Willis. That was my main question on reading the article.
It seems that you have gone from one extreme to the other. Initially is was all heating now you are calling it all advection ( if I am understanding your explanation ).
There is part of the energy imbalance which goes into regional heating mainly OHC; and latent heat of fusion of ice. A lot of ice was lost during the period of that data. The rest goes mainly into interregional transport or advection.
So that does not seem to be an adequate summary of the situation. Maybe you are making some simplifying assumption which you are not stating here.
Let me recap: TOA = SW_in – SW_reflected – LW_out + LW_in
Maybe it would be helpful if you stated explicitly was CESES fields you are using in each case. Like others, I was a little confused by the amount of solar making it into polar regions. Maybe this is just a result of not really knowing what data is being presented.
The three regimes shown in the plot are only surprising in how linear and well defined they appear. I showed in my volcano stack analysis a few years back that the tropics were much less sensitive than extra-tropical regions. The latter are stabilised by heat exchange in both directions carried by the major ocean gyres.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/hadsst3-_stack_cdf_sh_zeroed-2/
Assuming there are not significant errors in this derivation ( of which I’m not entirely convinced yet ) this will give a good means of quantifying the sensitivity of those regions. Looks promising.
A very interesting part of that volcano stack was that the tropics seemed not only very insensitive to radiative forcing but even seemed to recover the cumulative sum of degree days, within a few years. That cannot be explained by any degree of linear feedbacks or climate sensitivity, it requires a non linear recovery mechanism that induces an equally long warmer than average period after a forced cooling.
Thanks, Willis.
“I would never have guessed that the location on the planet that receives the most net energy is the North African desert”
And of course that energy flows west out into the Atlantic as tropical waves where they can turn into tropical cyclones.
Willis Eschenbach:
Another good post. With your figure 5, what happens if that is split into NH and SH? Antarctica appears to follow a script of being less sensitive. However the Arctic was said to have warmed more. Could it be that Antarcitica is just so darn cold and isn’t affected by open water so much as would be expected in the Arctic?
Interesting curves. It does seem counterproductive to fit a straight line to something of an S curve.
Thanks Willis.
It’s been understood since shortly after people started analyzing ERBS data (late 1980s?) that the Sahara is a net radiative energy sink…it loses more IR energy than it absorbs in solar energy. The energy deficit is made up by subsidence of the stable troposphere, forced by moist convective ascent elsewhere. This makes the Sahara one of the Earth’s radiative “exhaust ports”.
Thanks, Roy, for the clear explanation of what is shown in Figure 3 regarding the Sahara.
w.
Does that imply that if the Sahara is “greening” then the “exhaust port” will be shrinking?
Now that would be ironic. Increased co2 -> greening of deserts -> reduction of earth’s energy exhaust -> higher temperatures.
thousands of years ago, when the Sahara desert was green, Earth had a higher average temperature.
Hippos in Sahara:
http://www.livescience.com/28493-when-sahara-desert-formed.html
Re greening of the Sahara
There seems to be a positive feedback at work involving water vapour, trapping heat. As the desert greens because of changing air currents, higher CO2 and seasonal temperature variations there is a ‘permanent’ shift in the water vapour concentration. This should be visible in the total water column numbers.
Skipping all the bits in between, if the water column numbers for the Sahara show a change that matches a temperature change, we are onto something.
How can a tropical desert lose more heat that it receives? How can the grasslands that used to exist be reestablished? Well, a change in the water vapour could do that, as evidenced by a drop in the heat loss rate, caused by the GHG effect of water vapour.
Willis may have happened upon a way to prove that the regional effect of water vapour as a GHG overwhelms all others. Is it true that the total water in a column over the Sahara is less than somewhere at a similar latitude with a lower net heat loss rate? Is there a clear correlation between the heat loss rate and the water vapour level, keeping in mind that the altitude of the vapour affects how effective it is a a GHG?
I think everyone is surprised that there are huge tropical and subtropical heat vents. It is not necessary now, for example, to find ocean based mechanisms to explain how ‘so much’ heat leaves the planet via the polar regions. Some of it is gone long before it reaches the temperate zones.
This interestingly seems to apply to all deserts in the “Horse latitudes” (Atacama, Kalahari, Central Australia, Rub al Khali, Thar) but not to deserts at higher latitudes (American Southwest, Central Iran, Kyzyl Kum, Takla Makan, Gobi, Patagonia)
Dr Spencer, your said in one of your papers that untangling the direct effect of radiative forcing from the lagged ( orthogonal ) response was a major problem.
I think I have a method of doing that. At least a first estimation, assuming a linear system.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/on-determination-of-tropical-feedbacks/
Roy Spencer, you should tell your wuwt friends that they don’t have a clue what they speaking about. Maybe they will listen to you. They believe you’re good.
This post is terrible.
The previous one were even worst.
Spencer, you say:
How do you reckon this works? Are you saying that the surface of the Sahara somehow gains energy from the equator via subsiding air?
I think the process here is more straightforward than this. But you’re right about one thing, it’s all about atmospheric circulation. Compare this map …:
(Originally from here: http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2015-05/40_Lee_OLR_in_Tropical_Expansion_FULL.pdf )
… with this quote:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html
“Air convected to the top of the troposphere in the ITCZ [InterTropical Convergence Zone] has a very high potential temperature, due to latent heat release during ascent in hot towers. Air spreading out at higher levels also tends to have low relative humidity, because of moisture losses by precipitation. As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic process, involving exchanges of energy between the air mass and its environment). Decreasing potential temperature leads to an increase in density, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence. The subsiding air warms (as pressure increases towards lower levels), further lowering the relative humidity and maintaining clear-sky conditions. However, although the subsiding air warms, it does not do so at the dry adiabatic lapse rate. Continuing losses of longwave radiation (radiative cooling) means that the air warms at less than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (i.e. some of the adiabatic warming is offset by diabatic cooling).”
When looking at the map above, you get the impression that the equatorial band is unable to rid itself of a substantial portion of its energy, relative to its average temperature (and what it absorbs from the Sun), since the OLR at the ToA is so low. So you assume a “strong GHE”. Conversely, the subtropics appear to shed significantly more energy in the form of OLR at the ToA than what it gets in from the Sun, and so should really cool, if they didn’t get extra energy in from somewhere else. You seem to propose that this “extra energy” derives from subsiding air.
But what is really going on? Refer to the quote above. The equatorial band does indeed rid itself of its energy, probably even more than it gets in directly from the Sun. But it doesn’t happen via radiation through the equatorial ToA. And so there appears to be a strong “GHE”. The energy, however, is rather convected/advected away, first up to the tropopause, then north and south towards the subtropics. The excess energy, non-radiatively transported and held within the moist equatorial air, is then released to space via radiation, as the air subsides, warms and dries, between on average ~10 and ~30 degrees N and S.
IOW, the “radiative GHE” is effectively short-circuited. The radiative attempt at inhibiting the surface energy from escaping to space is bypassed. By atmospheric circulation.
So the subtropics SEEM to radiate a lot more energy to space than what they receive from the Sun. But much of the radiated energy making those subtropical bands look so fiery red, actually isn’t subtropical in origin at all, but is rather transported there from the equatorial band.
You can get an understanding of how this works when checking with the CERES data for the surface vs. the ToA. At the surface, the Sahara gains a LOT more energy from the Sun than what it is able to radiate away, so there’s a huge radiative surplus (on the order of +75%). At the ToA, however, considerably more radiation goes out than what comes in (about 4.5%).
Conversely, in the Congo, straddling the equator, the radiative ratio between incoming and outgoing (‘net SW’ / ‘net LW’) is ~3.5 : 1, an even much larger radiative surplus than in the Sahara, but while the strongly positive radiative imbalance at the surface is turned into a negative radiative imbalance at the ToA over the Sahara, the radiative imbalance is still massively positive at the ToA over the Congo (about 28%).
This reminds me of a chapter on basic global energy flows found in a text called “Handbook of Meteorology” published by McGraw-Hill in 1945.
Norman Beers and Carl Rossby would have been envious of that OLR chart, or even one satellite photo of global cloud patterns, but they still had a full understanding of global energy flows 70 years ago.
This & your response in your original post are masterclasses in handling fallibility.
If only all other scientists behaved similarly.
Willis,
An interesting post.
I have only one doubt. In areas with high net energy flux (solar less advection), the slope suggests higher total flux does not translate into much higher local temperatures. My doubt is whether that is because higher temperatures lead to net heat transport away from the warmer area to cooler areas, or because warmer temperatures lead to much greater loss of heat to space. Seems most likely that it is some of both, and figuring out the relative importance will not be simple. So I suspect the slope for high flux areas does not readily translate into an estimate of climate sensitivity, since if increased local temperature leads to increased advection to cooler regions, then you have to consider the change in temperature for both, not just the warm area, to make an estimate of sensitivity.
Your concern would be true for a dry atmosphere.
I can’t find the numbers but my impression is that most heat is moved from the equator to the poles as the latent heat of water vapor.
It is possible to move a huge amount of heat from one region to another with a surprisingly small difference in temperature. When compression and expansion are involved, it is possible to move energy from a cooler region to a warmer region. My airconditioner is doing that at this very moment. 🙂
The heat to deserts like Sahara is mostly sensible heat from the stable (descending) troposphere. Otherwise you are right.
And yes, compression is involved in this case. Also in Föhn effect where air descending from a glacier/icecap can actually warm an adjoining area.
I may be misinterpreting what you say but … I’ve lived in deserts. I would say that most of the heat is from the sun.
Great job, Willis. Thank you for proving this physical with real data. Energy moves from Earth’s equatorial regions to its poles at a rate far above the small energy anomalies that are suppose to bake the Earth in the climate models. This transfer system is the primary feedback path, in my opinion, that has controlled Earth’s temperature for several billion years within such a small range even while the Sun’s radiative power has increased 5%. Turbulence in this transfer system is probably far more likely to cause major temperature deviations over time than changes in CO2 alone.
The Earth is far hotter at the poles and cooler at the equator than it should be by radiative balance alone. That fact correlates with your model. Another interesting factor to consider is the role played by the Earth’s rotation. It forces alternating heating and cooling cycles at a constant frequency. For example, suppose the Earth rotated once a week instead of once a day. What would happen to the max/min of temperature each day? How would the advection to the poles change? What if a day were 12 hours? A year? Turns out the Earth’s rotation has changed little in eons. It seems to be “just right”. How?
If the climate is sensitive to CO2 then why did the previous inter-glacials end and temperatures drop while CO2 remained elevated? And why is CO2 considered the only horse in this race when water vapour is clearly the more important climate influencer simply because it is so much more than a trace gas?
Good on you! Too bad others cannot do the same. May your flies be good and the fish plenty!
Willis. I thought I made a mistake once but I was wrong 🙂
Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken….
Interesting analysis, thanks for the corrections.
Cheers, KevinK
The Antarctic ice-sheets have substantial elevation, i.e. mountains and ice-divides in their own right. The average elevation is about 2500 m, south pole is 2835 m and the highest glacial elevation occurs in the Australian Antarctic Territory, Dome Argus, at about 4100 m. The highest elevation occurs on Mt Vinson, Sentinel Range, at 4892 m.
Refs. http:// http://www.adventure-network.com/antarctic-environment
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Antarctica.svg
Next time anyone is in an aircraft lofting up above 2500 m to 3000 m check the outside temperature. It’s dang cold and snow, firn nor glacier ice will melt no matter how strong or long the sun is shining or how much soot on the surface.
🙂
Yea but if your climbing that glacier in that strong sunshine your exposed skin, lips, and especially eyes will feel like they’re melting if not protected. It would be hard to find a place on this earth where lip balm and glacier glasses are more appreciated than on a high alpine glacier during clear skies during the day light hours.
Worst sunburn I ever got was skiing the Lech-Surs circuit in Austria on a sunny March day. That DESPITE a liberal application of high SPF plus high SPF lip balm. Polarized sunglasses were ok though.
The snow and ice might not melt, but they do sublimate to some extent in “summer”.
Makes me wonder what the self reinforcing aspects of major glacial deposits are as a function of their thickness placing the surface at higher altitude. Presumably, the top of the Greenland ice sheet is colder than if it was half as thick. The Northern ice sheets of the last glaciation were very thick and therefore would have benefited from the lapse rate to stay frozen and accumulate more snow. It seems to me that this could be part of the reason the earth swings quite dramatically from glacial to interglacial conditions.
Also, kudos to Eric for the bravery and integrity to post his findings, ideas (and questions!) in such a public place. We all thank you and respect you.
Kudos to Willis, lol! Damn my eyes!
“damp down” s/b “tamp down”, or am I all wet?
Dear Sir,
I just finished reading your piece on Emergent Climate Phenomena, and now I’m going to read all of your other articles. The grass and those other chores will just have to wait- some things are more important. Thank you for providing all of these additions to my education. I will do my best to direct others to your work.
Sincerely,
Jeff Hayes
Thanks, jeff. Let me offer the following for starters. The first one is my original 2009 post on the subject of the thermoregulation of the planet. The rest are in chronological order (although there were many other posts in between).
Enjoy,
w.
Bookmarked, and Thanks! Now that I have dealt with a “dumb as a box of rocks” churl above I will continue reading.
”between about three hundred and three hundred forty W/m2 of incoming energy, the temperature does indeed rise rapidly. In fact, it rises at a rate of about 3°C per doubling of CO2”
Are you referring to Fig 2 or Figure 3 in this statement? In 2, the 3C per doubling occurs only in about 20% of the global area (essentially the ‘green’). In 3 the green covers maybe 65% of the globe.
Good question, Gary. Figure 3, which shows TOA solar plus advection.
w.
Nice analysis. Kudos.
A supporting anecdote. The day I met with Richard Lindzen in his office at MIT (June 2012, three weeks before his retirement, to get his critique of the draft climate chapter of The Arts of Truth piblished later that year), one of the two most testing questions he asked was about Tropical to Polar advection–which wasn’t even in the chapter. Had I had this post, it would have gone better. My feeble thermodynamics response that heat flows from hot to cold was NOT what he was looking for. He want d mechanisms, and I did not know about Hadley and Walker cells at that time.
The other was how did I know Svalbard was right? That was easy, because another example in a different chapter was Alfred Weggoner’s continental drift theory, for which Svalbard is a key piece of evidence. But Lindzen did motivate me to put a long explanatory footnote on Svalbard into that example.
Lindzen was playing one last oral Ph.D defense with me that day. My climate chapter was his Ph.D thesis equivalent. A fond memory of meeting a brilliant climate scientist, who concluded CAGW wasn’t science and thus got at odds with the rest of his MIT colleagues like Susan Solomon.
Also an honest scientist who admitted when he made a mistake, which he fixed and showed that his revised work still supported his finding of low ECS, should such a thing actually exist.
The media focus on the inevitable minor mistakes skeptics make, while totally ignoring the world-view-shattering, irredeemable errors by alarmists.
Since we’ve already covered Zeitgeist, maybe I should have written Weltanschauung-shattering.
The complete correct German ‘word’ is Weltanschauungseeschutterung. Plural ungen at the end if you wish.
Gruesse Gott. Ich spreche doch Bayerische. Buchstabiernde hier ohne umlaute, deswegen. Oe, ue, au, und so weite. Weil iPad kann doch zwichen Deutsche und English eraltern, aber weder nicht einfach noch leicht.
IMO it’s permissible to make an English compound with a German compound word which has entered English in common usage. But your wholly German compound works too.
I can understand Bavarian, Swabian, Koelsch, Austrian and Swiss German, but not speak it. Same goes for Dutch/Flemish and Frisian, which are closer to English. It also amazes me that even in the North German or Scandinavian languages there are still today whole sentences that are perfectly intelligible in English. But most of them, not a clue.
Respect, Gabro. You’re acquainted with the german planet. Makes one smile.
Vielleicht Weltanschauungserschütterung? I know nothing but that sounds like worldview’sshattering. Google is not very good on fixing your search for Weltanschauungseeschutterung
The great thing about the english language is that when it finds a word in another language that perfectly explains itself then we adopt it and before long it appears in our dictionaries – the french by contrast tend to resist it as do other languages. I personally love the long descriptive words (scandanavian my experience), but then english has a lot more descriptive words so when needed english will use a short multi word description.
Such a pity that most scientists don’t admit their errors. Everyone makes mistakes and it is by making mistakes, and recognizing them, that science progresses.
Well done Willis!
Most working scientists submit their work to peer review. It’s the process of peer review that exposes any mistakes and forces the scientist, however reluctantly, to admit to them.
Willis has submitted his thoughts to ‘blog review’, which is not ‘peer review’ in the normal sense. As Willis has been man enough to admit, his initial thoughts have failed to pass even this modest task. They failed even blog review.
Imagine how he would have fared had he submitted his initial thoughts to a reputable journal for peer review…. Hence peer review.
Except that peer review has become pal review, in which utter garbage passes “review” if it promote the program, while valid science fails review if it doesn’t support the prevailing, politically-correct paradigm.
Gabro
How do you define ‘valid science’? Who validates it?
If it’s science, it’s self-validating. Most government-funded “science” is pure, unadulterated garbage, politically motivated.
Anti-scientists (and non-scientists) like Mosher and Orestes are now trying to invalidate the time-tested scientific method, through which alone validation occurs.
Peer review didn’t do so well at discovering the flaws in Mann’s hockey stick methodology, and as I recall, the scientists who do most of the peer reviewing didn’t understand those flaws even after the flaws were explained to them. They kept defending Mann’s methodology until there was a Congressional inquiry and an independent review by a statistician to prove that Mann’s hockey stick was the result of mining the proxy record for hockey stick curves and then overemphasizing them.
Peer review didn’t catch even the obvious methodological flaws in Cook’s 97% consensus paper.
DWR54 on August 20, 2016 at 3:13 pm
Gabro
How do you define ‘valid science’? Who validates it?
A theory is valid when its results can be predicted on that theory.
Johann,
Yes. A scientific hypothesis is validated or confirmed when predictions made upon its basis are found correct. If not, then the hypothesis has been shown false, or “falsified” in the sense of scientific jargon.
“Consensus climate science” has been repeatedly falsified in both the common and scientific senses of the word.
Peer review quality and honesty depends on the peers. Climate science abounds with those lacking both, or either.
A striking feature of the peer review is that after decades of it the climate models continue to deliver nil mutual information to a would be regulator about the outcomes of events. Regulators continue to attempt regulation though regulation is impossible under nil mutual information..
peer reviewed in public – followed up by a correction – that’s prettier than you think Willis – it needs to be more commonplace
jeyon
In what sense was Willis’s article submitted to ‘peer review’? In what sense are, say, you and I Willis’ ‘peers’?
We read the same blog. Is that all we need now to become reviewers of someone’s ‘scientific’ ideas? Do we not need any expertise in the specific subject under discussion ourselves?
There are many here who have learnt more in life than what they read on WUWT.
DWR54 —
“Pal review” would probably meet all the conditions you would set for a proper review — the only problem being “open honesty” is not a condition you would set.
You advocate “form” and an appeal to authority.
Here the emphasis is “substance” and an appeal to ability.
Eugene WR Gallun
There are clearly many knowledgeable and competent scientists who follow WUWT and comment regularly. It is easy to spot them as well as the occasional trolls. No one seems to get away with sloppy or poorly thought through posts without being called out. Smart folks tend to follow the old adage that it is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. BTW, Willis is clearly no fool.
I’ll concentrate on beer review. ‘chup’.
What is the difference between the blue and red dots? Are red continental / glacial? How is the Arctic divided? Sea ice as sea?
You clearly have little idea of how peer review actually works.
An analysis a couple of years back came to the conclusion that the majority of published science turns out to be WRONG. ( That was not focused on climatology either ).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
it’s ugly. The scientific findings are too often wrong, but not only that; the assumptions in abstract and introduction are full of yea-yea, we know this so we don’t need to make sure if it’s actually right. Science is so vast nowadays that you should never trust a scientist writing an assertion outside the small scope of the paper’s key findings. Which may also be wrong.
The big error here is the idea that the word ‘scientific’ means ‘true’. From a small % of humanity come as well the idea that ‘religious’ means ‘untrue’. We shouldn’t beat around that bush.
It is an old battle I won’t detail here. Atheist priests want to replace religious priests. The essence is that there are those who are empowered to ‘anoint’ certain texts as ‘absolutely true’. These human powers are self-conferred.
The idea that ‘peer review’ means ‘truth confirming’ is also incorrect on two scores: first that the reviewer is an anointed person and second that his/her anointing of the text was a validation exercise. As Greg says, that represents a misunderstanding of how peer review works.
Peer review has no more gravitas than a claim that someone has no standing (locus standi) to make make comment – i.e. that they are not qualified or have no legitimate interest to have their opinion considered.
The problem is not limited to climate nonsense, it is just a stark example of it.
Most working scientists submit their work to peer review. It’s the process of peer review that exposes any mistakes and forces the scientist, however reluctantly, to admit to them.
____________________________________
Except in my case the reviewers had no clue and were intent on introducing mistakes. One did not even know what a gas partial pressure was. In fact, the entire peer-review process was a dissapointment, and the vast majority of criticisms were grossly incorrect, in both logic and science.
R
I’m curious about the CERES results over the poles. I’m wondering whether the sampling methods are reliable in that configuration. This may be the cause of the 5W/m^2 excess average heat flux in the CERES data.
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/science_information.php?page=EBAFbalance
Maybe you can make more of this than I.
Thanks, it seems they have masaged the imbalance down to a credible net imbalance but with the error limits they provide this does not really change anything. They have just tweaked it to a sensible value because they have lots on uncertainty.
Uncertainties of 1% + 2% are quite a lot when you are talking about 1360 W/m^2. 2% of SW is 27 W/m^2
This clearly does not provide any useful information on the actual budget which we can nail down more accurately that that without satellites. It is useful for providing a gridded dataset and for defining changes relative to previous years.
Achieving experimental accuracy of 1% is incredibly hard even for a controlled lab experiment.
Willis —
Good on you.
A small criticism. The only thing I would have liked to have seen was a mention by name (well, name under which he or she writes) of whoever pointed out the error. Acknowledgement makes both you and that person look good and encourages the process.
Eugene WR Gallun
It was Jan Kjetil Andersen, Gene, and I mentioned his name when I first reported the error. He has my thanks,
w.
Eugene WR Gallun
Well, that IS a problem with today’s “peer-approved” peer-review process nobody discusses.
With an almost-unknown editor choosing several unknown “peers” from a network of his/her “approved but anonymous list of peers” to review the manuscripts sent to the magazine, then (from that unknown list of potentials) convincing 2 or 3 “qualified reviewers” to spend THEIR (unpaid, unrewarded) time reading and critiquing the papers, then going through writes and re-writes, then returning the favored papers back to the (prejudiced) editor for some future publication date …
Now, all of that ideal process relies on the (unqualified-to-judge but unprejudiced) editor selecting (qualified but un-prejudiced) reviewers who are willing to spend THEIR TIME to benefit somebody else’s COMPETING ideas and theories. Which, if the result threatens the reviewer’s favorite project, favorite theory, and favorite theory funding will cause the new paper to destroy the foundations of the (reviewer’s favorite) old theory, right? Well, does the author’s receive a favorable review? Or many months of distractions and re-editing over trivialities and nonsense and back-biting?
We KNOW from the climategate emails which role today’s “climate scientists” chose!
I would recommend instead that the paper be published, be peer-reviewed. BUT. Give public credit to those who reviewed the paper. By name.
But also, give as much credit and attention to a “peer-review” in post-doc awards and promotions and “credit for publication”and tenure and travel budgets and honors as one gets for publication.
Now, if a peer-reviewer DISAGREES with a paper, permit/allow/require that disagreement to be published with the article.
But no CAGW-rewarded “climate scientist” publishing today has shown me by ANY actions at ANY level that they would permit that sort of light to be shown on their parade of self-centered, self-awarding “pal-review” circles.
And that does not
RACook
Once again I am motivated to express my agreement with your idea, in this case the publication of the names of the reviewers. Watching grad students produce their PhD theses, it is clear to me that the quality of the work is affirmed by the quality of the degree committee.
When you’ve reach the top you only have ‘peers’ as a check on your pursuit of new knowledge. The idea that a doctoral thesis has to agree 100% with the ideas of the reviewers is not correct. Differences have to be defended, not accepted. If the defense is good, then the alternative stands for others to consider.
A good example of this is Dr Willem Nel’s thesis demonstrating that the CO2 concentration is very unlikely ever to exceed 540 ppm no matter what we think we can do. It was the topic of the thesis, which was accepted, but not yet published because the editors can’t get it past the climate mullahs. A logical demonstration of the idea that CO2 can’t be doubled is anathema. Anathemas don’t get published for fear of excommunication, as witnessed in the Climategate emails.
The luminous sphere that is the surface of the sun radiates 6.320E7 W/m^2 perpendicular to the surface in all directions per S-B, luminosity, surface temperature, geometry.
When that sphere expands to the orbital radius of earth (or other planet) because of the increased spherical surface over which the initial luminosity is spread, the power flux decreases to 1,368 W/m^2 radiating perpendicular to the sun’s luminous surface in all directions.
At the earth’s orbital distance the arc of the sphere that intersects the earth is essentially a flat plane so the radiating 1,328 W/m^2 strikes the earth perpendicular to its cross sectional area.
If that same energy were spread evenly in a perpendicular fashion over the entire spherical surface of the earth it would be 1,368/4 or 342 W/m^2. (1,360/4 = 340)
At apehelion, farther, the values become 1,323 & 331 W/m^2. At perihelion, closer, the values become 1,415 & 351 W/m^2. In other words, because of the eccentricity of the orbit TSI fluctuates +/- 45 W/m^2. Compare that to CO2’s 2 W/m^2 or RCP’s 8.5 W/m^2.
These popular graphics are NOT true heat or energy balances. A watt is a power unit, energy over time, i.e. 3.412 Btu/eng h or 3.6 kJ/SI h. These graphics do NOT consider night or day or seasons or tropospheric thickness, they are simple models (yep.) attempting to illustrate where and how the power enters and leaves/balances which NASA defines as the ToA of 100 km.
This is neither wrong nor right, but people have to understand what and how these graphics work.
So 342 enters ToA, 100 is reflected straight away by the albedo, 242 proceed to be absorbed by BOTH the atmosphere and the surface, 80 by the atmosphere, 160 by the surface. The surface upwells as follows: 17 by convection, 80 by evapotranspiration, 63 by LWIR. The surface and atmospheric power fluxes rejoin at the surface of the troposphere.
A surface at 15 C, 288 K, radiating 390 W/m^2 is incorrect. This assumes that 100% of the ISR is remitted only by radiation and at the surface and essentially double counts the power flux the way a bookkeeper incorrectly enters a number twice. When conduction and convection are possible, S-B BB does not work. S-B applies only to the power flux NOT moved by conduction and convection and handled by LWIR. The surface of the sun and earth ToA face a vacuum w/ no convection or conduction so S-B works.
BTW if you search “debunking greenhouse theory” there will be several sites that share my views although I think I do better job of clearly explaining it.
Satellite based TSI meaurements were re-evaluated, and since 2011 the value is now 1360.8 watts/m2
Refs at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance
So what happens to the +/- 45 W/m^2 fluctuation between apehelion and perihelion?
What keeps this treatment of CERES data form being truly informative is the lack of comprehension of all the modes of energy transfer–not just radiation and advection–implied by the concept of enthalpy. TOA radiative imbalance provides insufficient information to determine the transfers of both latent and sensible heat in a three-dimensional atmosphere above a non-uniformly-thermalized globe. Small wonder that the results derived here scatter widely and make little scientific sense.
1sky1 August 20, 2016 at 3:59 pm
Thanks, 1sky1. You are correct that a TOA imbalance is not enough to determine the DETAILS of the advective heat transfer—it can’t tell where it is moved as latent heat and where as sensible heat, or how much of the heat is moved by the atmosphere and how much by the ocean, and the like.
But the TOA imbalance is entirely adequate for what I want to know, which are not the DETAILS of the energy moved, but the AMOUNT of energy moved. Once I know that, I can compare the total energy entering each gridcell with the temperature of that gridcell, which was the objective of this post.
First, natural results often scatter widely, it’s the nature of the beast. So that part is no wonder at all.
Next, I would say that the results make perfect sense when understood in the context of a system with emergent phenomena that only appear above a certain threshold and that cool the surface, and I’ve explained just how these results do make sense in that context. For you to respond by waving your hands and saying that they “make little scientific sense” is merely argument by assertion. You need citations, support, math, logic, that kind of stuff.
If you can provide evidence for an error in my work, please do so. I am afraid, however, that the unsupported opinion of a random anonymous internet popup doesn’t qualify as evidence on this or any planet …
w.
-Willis
I’m sure you’ve thought of this but the rainfall and snowfall records for a given area should be a reasonable proxy for the heat of condensation and of fusion, n’est pa? Not sure if that info would be comprehensive enough but might make a start?
This is a comically unrealistic claim, which passes off the operative
physics of the real-world problem to mere “DETAILS.” In reality, mere TOA
energy-flux imbalance provides no definitive information either about the
thermalization of cloud-modulated insolation in a geographical grid cell or
the advection of thermal energy by currents and winds from elsewhere. Both
of these are largely near-surface processes, while the emission of LWIR to
space largely takes place at various levels far above the surface.
The relationship between the two components of TOA imbalance over a grid
cell and the advected thermal energy thus is far from simple. Only in the
case of global–not local–imbalance measures (where the net advection
integrates out to zero) does simple algebra suffice. This analytic fact should be
recognized immediately, without recourse to
The misguided opinion of
internet gurus who argue with Clintonesque logic and Trumpean grace
doesn’t qualify as scientific evidence among the geophysically competent.
DWR54 August 20, 2016 at 2:59 pm
No need to imagine, DWR54. I have fared quite well under peer-review … heck, I even had a peer-reviewed “Communications Arising” published in Nature magazine. And in all, my citation count from my various peer-reviewed publications is over sixty and continues to rise. Not bad for a man with approximately zero formal science education, n’est-çe pas?
And you?
My favorite experience with peer-review was when I wrote an analysis of Michael Mann’s work. The reviewers said I was being too hard on poor Mikey, so they declined to publish … and then not long afterwards, Michael Mann published my ideas as if they were his own … the story is here.
Finally, I can’t begin to list the number of peer-reviewed articles published in reputable journals that have been shown to be anything from hopelessly wrong to deliberately obfuscatory … I’m sorry, but currently peer-review is not catching heaps and heaps of poor, bogus, and even deceptive climate “science”.
Hence my general contempt for your verdammt peer review …
w.
Willis, your “publication” in Nature was….(drum roll)….. A COMMENT
..
When are you going to submit original research for “peer review?”…..The fact is, you can “publish” all the commentary and opinion you desire, it does nothing to advance the science.
…
PS, citing your own publication to “prove” Mann stole your ideas isn’t “proof” get real buddy.
Beaumont Vance August 20, 2016 at 4:15 pm Edit
Beaumont, my “publication” in Nature was….(drum roll)…A PEER-REVIEWED COMMUNICATION ARISING
Since you obviously don’t understand the difference, you really should take a look at the Nature magazine guide for authors. Comments are published as Letters and are not peer-reviewed. They are very limited in length and cannot contain figures. “Communications Arising”, on the other hand, are peer-reviewed, and well-reviewed, I might add. They have a longer permissible length and can contain one figure.
Do your homework, Beau, you’re just revealing your lack of experience.
Two points. First, I have published my original research in peer-reviewed journals, including Nature. As I said above, I have more than sixty citations to my work.
Second, if you think that the blogs have done nothing to advance climate science, you are obviously inhabiting some alternate reality. Blogs have been the main force keeping climate alarmists from bankrupting the public purse and harming the poor in their futile pursuit of some carbon chimera. And I am proud to have played my own small part in that.
Proof? I have nothing to “prove”. I can only tell you what happened to me. Mann took my ideas and published them as his own. Read my account of the Mann’s charming ways first, and then come and we can discuss it.
Regards,
w.
“Critical comments on recent Nature papers may, after peer review, be published online as Brief Communications Arising, usually alongside a reply from the criticized Nature authors”
.
.
reference: http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta/commsarising.html
.
.
Please note the word COMMENTS
…
Now, please provide a link and/or links to the publication of your “original research” in peer-reviewed journals. PS, please don’t include stuff from “vanity journals” (and you know what I mean)
…
I’d like to see your “original research”
Beaumont
Might I see your “original research”?
Just a thought exercise using Q = U * A * dT.
Equator
lapse rate 6.8 C/km
Thickness 17 km
dT 115.6 C
Q / A = U * dT
Q / A 240 W/m^2
U 2.08
U / km 0.12
Surface 15 C
Surface 288 K
ToT 172.4 K
ToT -100.6 C
Poles
lapse rate 6.8 C/km
Thickness 9 km
dT 61.2 C
U / km 0.12
U 1.08
Q / A = U * dT
Q / A 66.1 W/m^2
Surface -35 C
Surface 238 K
ToT 176.8 K
ToT -96.2 C
It’s the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere and Q=U A dT that explains why the surface is warm, not the inappropriate application of S-B BB that comes up w/ a 33 C difference by mistakenly comparing 240 W/m^2 and 255 K to 15 C and 288 K. S-B BB can not be used at the surface to calculate 390 W/m^2. This is just flat WRONG!!
Always good to see a thermodynamic based approach to understanding bulk properties.
Also, the hazards of using “average” values in systems with non-linear characteristics.
Note that several surface weather stations located at the equator show average daily temps at 303K and night temps at 296K. Not surprisingly, the “average” equatorial sea surface temp is near 303K.
The canonical “average” global temp is 288K according to the experts. But that does not tell me much about what ecosystem exists at any point on Earth.
Also, contrast the summer and winter temps at the poles, instead of the annual average. The atmosphere can change a lot in a few hours, and that diurnal variability has some impact on life.
Willis, I’m still fixated by the natural “heat pumps” known as thunderstorms or “squalls”. This a daunting task, I’ll admit. However, I think that completing a good model (based on data) would add a part of the “heat balance” equation which is sorely needed. Here’s a start: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226933228_Charge_Structure_and_Dynamics_in_Thunderstorms
http://www.weather.gov/iln/ThunderstormProject
Trying to find data from this!
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493(1974)102%3C0455:SSLHRC%3E2.0.CO%3B2 Latent heat release for a thunderstorm.
Willis, what is figure1 plotting? Is this just downward SW ? It seems to even to be net SW.
net_TOA – solar = reflected SW + upward LW
I don’t see how this can be equated to advection. Maybe a little more explanation of exactly what data is being plotted in each graph and some explanation for this equivalence to advection. Maybe I’m just missing what you are proposing.
Alas, I only come up with about 10 to 20 watts per meter squared for the TS output. or 5 to 10% of the outgoing IR. Is that enough to help regulation things?
Advection is a localised phenomenon that is being defined by general circulation patterns and seasons and not a global, tropics to poles. Take the case of circumpolar vortex — it is more frequent in south pole region and less frequent in the north pole region. Also, polar regions are quite different in terms of period of energy — 6 months night and 6 months day. Even at local and regional level climate system modifies the process of advection. See the case of see breeze and land breeze. The global warming theories are also putforth like that of advection process. Such studies lead no where except creating confusion and distortion of science phenomenon.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Wher do you sea see breezes?
Willis, I still must start to read your article well. I just had a quick look and I was fascinated by the beauty of the graph you produced: figure 5. If this graph is gonna be famous, I think a nice name would be the “Willis’ Woodpecker” graph. Or perhaps you prefer ‘The Roadrunner’?
I am gonna read the article. I was waiting for it!
Does the North African Desert sand have a variable emissivity? Nasa has a variable emissivity, varies with frequency, paint that allows electronic boxes in sunlight to reflect the sunlight and at the same time allows heat to be radiated to deep space and cool the electronics. The paint is S-13G and here is the specification http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990021250.pdf
I had bookmarked a specification and now it is a report on thermal coatings. The data on S-13G is included in figures 61 and 62 on pages 61 and 62.The paint was specially designed for Nasa in the early 60s and was used vey successfully on the ATM Skylab.
Paints with selective spectral reflectivity have been used for decades on commercial airlines, to prevent them heating up when sat on the runway.
Many thanks to Willis for his amazing work over the years, and for his willingness to admit a mistake. The ability to admit mistakes is a true sign of honesty and integrity.
Sadly we will probably have to wait until hell freezes over before many climate scientists will admit their mistakes, which are literally costing us the Earth.
.
Funnily enough, a mistake may have tipped me towards being a sceptic.
Quite a few years ago, just when climate change started to appear on my radar, the Sunday Telegraph published two pieces by Christopher Monckton on consecutive Sundays. On the third Sunday they published a reply by Gore.
.
Here’s what impressed me about Christopher Monckton: in the second piece he admitted a mistake he had made in the first piece (I think it was something related to early Chines naval exploration).
Needless to say, Gore’s reply lacked substance and mostly relied on name-calling.
Both Monckton’s and Gore’s words possibly helped me on the way to being a convinced climate sceptic.
I’m proud to be a sceptic as scepticism is the very basis of science – or it once was.
.
Many thanks to Willis and Christopher Monckton, and keep up the good work!
Chris
So an entire article about how solar insolation and advection affect the planet’s temperatures.
“In fact, it rises at a rate of about 3°C per doubling of CO2 (using the IPCC value of 3.7 W/m2 per doubling), which is the classic estimate of the “climate sensitivity”.
And then that.
Glad that is settled 🙂
(sorry for the shot from the cheap seats).
Willis …. Best article you’ve ever posted.
So … Given your figure 5, it would seem that the absolute maximum climate sensitivity for CO2 would be around 2.4 C per doubling of CO2 (assuming 3 W/m2 per doubling of CO2 and assuming that CO2 and its feedbacks account for 100% of the change in energy).
Of course the real figure is less, as the globe does not all correspond to 302-342 W category showing a 0.8 C change per watt. …… And of course, CO2 can’t account for 100% of the W/m2 change.
Advection is only half the story in a 3D atmosphere.
Convection takes heat up within rising low pressure cells and returns heat to the surface in descending high pressure cells.
The regions with highest net heating are beneath high pressure cells for much of the time.,
It is the redistribution of convective cells that prevents system temperature change from radiative imbalances caused by GHGs.
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf
and see here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=11482&linkbox=true&position=10
Excellent work Willis. I am in no way belittling Fig 5 by saying it is a work of art. Beautiful!
Thank you for…yet another fascinating read…Question…what, if any, impact is from very large power transfer from the sun as particles and electral energy through the North and South poles? Is anyone including that in overall power budget???
Mea Culpa’s in the Scientific Community are not only rare, they are a breath of fresh air!
Having a blog like this is incredibly refreshing. Willis is just plain honest, period.
If he’s wrong, he says so, corrects himself and moves on. WHAT AN INCREDIBLE BREATH OF FRESH AIR.
None of us are right all the time, the key is to truly self examine, correct and move forward.Willis even reports on the reason a mistake might have been made.
Thank You Willis for your incredibly refreshing take on an open scientific discussion. You’re the MAN (fortunately, not the Mann)….:-)
I might add, when we see honesty in reporting like this, it gives we, the not as scientifically literate a HUGE dose of respect and credibility to the poster – in this case Willis.
In Figures 4 and 5, the block of ‘exceptional’ land data (approximate bounds 290 – 300 W/m2, -20 – -40oC) is curious. Does this block correspond to a particular part of the planet which is extremely sensitive for some reason?
Willis, I think a map like figure 3 but then with gridcells connected for every step of 10W/m2 will give a very interesting view about ‘what is happening where’. At least I want to see where exactly would be the grey lines in figure 3 at ‘300’ and ‘340’. But a more detailed (high resolution) map with lines connecting every 10W/m2 step would be very enlightning. Would be great!
Brilliant and brave post Willis. It is a shame we can’t see what is happening in real time. I imagine the shape of your combined chart would be writhing around like a snake as they system perpetually tries to balance. Thermodynamics is a wonderful science which is little understood by the majority of climatologists.. Looking forward to your next article.
Willis, I found this post very enlightening, but one thing troubled me.
I searched all comments that refer to “climate sensitivity” and found no one challenging your calculation of about a 3°C temperature rise per doubling of CO2 based on the IPCC value of 3.7 W/m2 per doubling. To my knowledge there is no data that quantitates how much global temperatures will rise for any given increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The 3.7 W/m2 per doubling comes from unverified models.
As you are aware, climate sensitivity is the equilibrium temperature response to changes in radiative forcing irrespective of the source of the changes. The specific temperature response to any further increase in CO2 is still unknown.
Willis Eschenbach: “You can see that the entire Sahara/Sahel/Arabian Peninsula is a net importer of energy”
WR: This must be Part II of the Global Temperature Regulation mechanism: descending [relative] warm and very dry air which is a – deprived of greenhouse gas H2O – radiation window to space. Part I is the rising wet air that creates dry air which becomes extremely dry when descending*.
Thunderstorms are created by high surface temperatures in combination with high Relative Humidity (RH). Depressions are created by a high pressure gradient which in itself is a resultant from temperature and RH differences – like with thunderstorms. Together (thunderstorms and depressions) they form Part I of the system. Rising temperatures create more thunderstorms and (in my opinion) more and/or stronger depressions.
Both create on a higher level in the atmosphere (relative) warm and dry air which, when descending, gets an even lower RH. In doing so, they create H2O-poor windows best suit for spaceward radiation.
H2O is our main greenhouse gas. Who looks at Ceres images – as I just did: animation https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/2157 – sees, that Outgoing Long Wave Radiation (OLR) is low where you find clouds and high where there are no clouds and dry air: deserts. This creation of [more and/or bigger] dry descending air columns is Part II of the Global Temperature Regulating mechanism.
Part I involves the transport of latent heat upwards, creating clouds and creating more albedo. The surface cools. Part II is the creation of [extra] dry windows – specific columns of the atmosphere – where the Earth can radiate [extra] energy and in doing so, cooling both the surface and the Earth. The power of the whole system is temperature dependent and as such a negative feedback on a rise of temperature.
P.S. When I am right that temperature rise creates more and/or stronger depressions, temperature rise creates more wind and so more air and water transport (stronger currents) which both enhance advection. While advection is in the direction of both land and the poles which are the globes’ ‘net radiating machines’ (data from figure 2 of this post: advection Land -20.4 W/m2, Arc: -108.2 Ant: -99.4 W/m2), the globally rising advection could be Part III of the Global Temperature Regulation mechanism.
* As Prof. William M. Gray in his “Crux of AGW’s Flawed Science” explains – worth reading: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Crux_Flawed_Science.pdf
“If the results aren’t repeatable, it’s not science.”
“If the supposed hypothesis can’t be tested in such a way as to be capable of being found false, it’s not science.”
Well said.
Prove it!
j/k