I’m traveling today with Christopher Monckton, after being part of his lecture last night in Half Moon Bay, CA.
Today, we were on KSFO AM 560 in San Francisco with Brian Sussman.
Feel free to comment on any if the usual topics we cover at WUWT.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A fake news (and I mean REAL fake news: Infowars) site here in the US posted an interview with Lord Monckton yesterday claiming that he’s found the mathematical Fatal Flaw in the IPCC temperature models.
I don’t trust Infowars and am disappointed that Monckton was willing to legitimize them by talking to them.
Anyway, I’d like to see the actual math. I figure all of it will eventually turn up here on WUWT.
I am impatiently waiting…
Would you trust NPR, NBC, CNN, or the LATimes to give you unbiased climate related news? You shouldn’t.
InfoWars articles are another piece of information that in this Age of Dishonest Journalism has to be critically evaluated, just like NPR, NBC, etc.
A fake news (and I mean REAL fake news: Infowars) site here in the US posted an interview with Lord Monckton yesterday claiming that he’s found the mathematical Fatal Flaw in the IPCC temperature models.
I don’t trust Infowars and am disappointed that Monckton was willing to legitimize them by talking to them.
Anyway, I’d like to see the actual math. I figure all of it will eventually turn up here on WUWT.
I am impatiently waiting…
Not a fan of Alex Jones, as he is one of those conspiracy theory promoters. I did like his interviews with Rosa Koire about UN Agenda 21 though.
Somebody just said that!
My Real Science comment:
A joke. The sea remains the same. NO CHANGE! No noticeable change as maybe it’s risen a half inch when the Prophets of Doom like Hansen talked about 75 meters. 17 years after the doomsday year 2000 and by now according to the fear mongering leftists the seas should have flooded half the country. And it should be hot as h-ll. But the temperatures are … just the same. And even today the Chicken Littles keep at it, squawking and squawking, repeatedly CRYING WOLF. Go outside and see for yourself that there’s no climate crisis. I don’t think there’s any appreciable *change* in the climate either.
lol (good comment). “Hot as h-ll,” indeed.
Which nicely sets up a promo for Bob Tisdale’s fine e book:
Climate Models Fail — now FREE
Available here: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/new-book-climate-models-fail/
I couldn’t be sure that “h*ll” would make it through WUWT without moderation, though it would probably be fine in Tony HELLers site! And thanks for the book link. Looks like a good read. It looks like a good read. Free is good!
“It looks like a good read.” I just had to say that a third time. /s
I’ll add this while I’m at it.
Here’s a problem in their treatment of models. On the one hand we got the Chicken Littles saying this:
On the other hand they say this:
See the problem?
Yup.
And, yes, good read. (heh)
The poor old Maldives can’t even manufacture a dilemna yet put their hands out for aid. Or have they gone beneath the sea but no one is game to share the pictures! What about it Leonardo?
Here is southern Oz it’s been freezing for three days , please can we have some globull warming ?
I’m an opportunist, and so … [not meaning to hijack, but if I am, then my bad, tell me and I’ll quit] … since this is an OPEN thread, I wonder if any of the technically savvy inhabitants here could clarify something for me about … “effective emission height” … [I know] the physical non-entity used as a simplified explanation of the latest, most sophisticated explanation of the CO2 greenhouse effect.
Assume that the simplified idea is valid, and educated me about whether I am thinking incorrectly about the internal consistency of this simplification, and does the internal consistency itself fail to support the premise?
As I understand it (via the alarmist argument), supposedly additional CO2 concentrations force the effective radiation height of Earth’s atmosphere “higher up”, which is colder, thus causing radiation to leave more slowly, thus, causing the lower levels to cool more slowly and maintain more heat (elevated temperature).
I’ve read that the increasing height “reduces” the mass of air above — I don’t get that at all.
But more importantly, I don’t get how an “increased height” of a mathematical fabrication does not obey the laws of mathematics and also increase in surface area or volume, thereby creating a greater surface area and greater volume over which/through which radiations leaves this now-higher level, thereby changing little or nothing temperature-wise in the layers below. In other words, wouldn’t greater surface area/greater volume over which to radiate … offset any increased warming caused by increased CO2 concentration?
Doesn’t “increased height” mean the same as “increased height all the way around a circumference”, which means “increased radius of the non-physical spherical shell defining the effective radiation height”, which still has to obey the formula for area/volume of a sphere?
I’ve read that the increasing height “reduces” the mass of air above — I don’t get that at all.
It doesn’t reduce the mass of the air above per se, that stays the same. But increasing the height moves the effective emission height closer to the TOA (Top of Atmosphere). Since there is now less atmosphere between the effective emission height and the TOA, you could say that there is less mass between the two. But the way you phrased the question, it seemed to me you thought the mass of the atmosphere was somehow changed, which it isn’t. Draw a line on a piece of paper. What’s the mass of paper between the line and the top of the paper? Now draw another line higher up. Is the mass of the paper between that line and the top of the paper less than between the first line and the top of the paper? Of course it is. Has the mass of the paper changed? No.
and also increase in surface area
The amount the effective emission height moves creates a larger surface area, but that effect is minor in comparison to the original surface area. Remember a kilometer is a huge difference in comparison to the thickness of the atmosphere, but it is just a sliver in comparison to the radius of earth + atmosphere. So yes there’s a larger surface area, but in the context of all the other processes going on, pretty minor.
The amount the effective emission height moves creates a larger surface area, but that effect is minor in comparison to the original surface area.
It seems that even a minor radial increase in the resulting spherical-volume shell would result in a significant volume increase within that shell, since the total expanse of that shell is around the entire circumference of the atmosphere. I get that the spherical shell between Top Of Atmosphere and effective-emission height shell is now “skinnier”, but isn’t the atmosphere BELOW the now-higher emission-volume shell fatter ?, with more room into which the atmosphere can now expand ?, … in effect creating a cascading effect of increasing volumes of layers all the way down to Earth’s surface ?, giving MORE room for all the processes to work to distribute the resultant increase in heat from added CO2?
So yes there’s a larger surface area, but in the context of all the other processes going on, pretty minor.
… and this has been measured or modeled and shown to be correct within the context of the idealized, non-physical “effective emission height” ? [just curious, NOT challenging (^_^)]
Don’t hate me — I’m just trying to get it straight.
Maybe this is whats happening –
http://www.climatechangemt.org/uploads/images/cc-cartoon_small.jpg
(:-))
RK, the effective emission height or effective radiation level does indeed rise with more CO2. There are two opposing consequences. Higher in the troposphere is colder, so a less energetic emitter. (The radiating height is inferred from the TOA observed IR frequency and the radiosonde determined temperature lapse rate). But this is also over a larger surface, a bigger emitter. Neither of these opposing effects is the major one causing added CO2 to more effectively prevent radiative cooling. Below the emitting level there is a larger volume of atmosphere which is scattering coolong IR by absorption and re-emission, lengthening the time until its eventual escape at the radiating level. The effective rate of cooling slows as the ‘trapping’ volume increases. The emitting surface increases by r^2, while the ‘foggy to IR’ trapping volume increases by r^3.
Doesn’t the … “trapping volume” … now have more room to work ? … with convection? (if it still happens here) and other processes that distribute heat ?
Doesn’t the … “trapping volume” … now have more room to work ? … with convection? (if it still happens here) and other processes that distribute heat ?
Of course. But those are secondary processes, or feedbacks, which are separate and distinct from the direct warming of CO2 increases. Other examples abound. Water vapour for instance. The warmer the air is, the more water vapour it can hold. The direct effects of CO2 are well understood. The feedbacks are largely in dispute. Even the IPCC admits this.
This is how I understand effective emission elevation. In the lower troposphere IR emission from the earth’s surface and greenhouse gases only a short distance, a matter of metres, before re absorption. Due to the atmospheric density most of the IR radiation in the lower troposphere is thermalized through collision with molecules non-radiative in the IR spectrum (O2, N2). This occurs because the mean time between molecular collisions at this atmospheric density is much less than the mean time that an excited greenhouse gas molecule remains in the excited state. So most excited molecules in the lower troposphere get no chance to re radiate.
The effective emissions layer occurs at an elevation (around 1/10 bar) where the atmospheric density has decreased to the point where significant excited greenhouse gas molecules are able to re radiate or radiate to space before colliding with other gas molecules. And note that this elevation is primarily a function of total pressure, not the partial pressure of the constituent greenhouse gases. Thus, the effective emission height and the top of the troposphere are intimately related. And since the emmissions height is primarily a function of total pressure, the minuscule change from the increase in CO2 results in a correspondingly minuscule change to the height of emissions.
Why is the result, then, not theorized as minuscule warming, instead of something we need to really worry about?
The warmist “scientists” invoke positive feedback in their models to inflate the effect of rising CO2 concentration. Some (eg. Hansen) also posit the fabulous “tipping point” without a shred of paleological evidence for abrupt changes from warm regimes to yet warmer regimes.
For CO2 to somehow affect climate and cause global warming it must somehow increase the insulating effects of the atmosphere. A good measure if insulation is how it retards temperature going from a warm inside to a cooler outside. In the troposphere that change is on average linear with respect to altitude and can be characterized by a lapse rate. It gets cooler as we go higher in the Earth’s atmosphere. It turns out the the lapse rate can be derived from first principals and has been confirmed by observation. The lapse rate in the troposphere is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption characteristics of so called greenhouse gasses. The increase in CO2 over the past 30 years has failed to have a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere so CO2’s increasing the lapse rate cannot be a cause of global warming. Bummer. So the AGW cconjecture had to be changed.
Based on energy equilibrium, the Earth from space looks like an equivalant black body radiating at a temperature of around 0 degrees F at an equivalant altitude of around 17K feet. The 17 K feet and the lapse reate cause the Earth’s surface to be roughly 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without and atomsphere. 17K feet is at the mass midpoint of the atmosphere. What a coincidence. So to warm the planet, if more CO2 does not actually change the lapse rate, it must raise the equivalant altitude.
If we knew exactly how adding more CO2 to the atmosphere raised this equivalent radiating altitude then we could compute an exact value for the climate sensivity of CO2. But the IPCC, after more than 20 years of effort has been unable to make such a calculation. In their first report the IPCC published a wide range for their guess as to the climate sensivity of CO2 and in their last report they published the exact same values. So after more than two decades of effort the IPCC has learned nothing that would allow them to narrow the range of their guesses one iota. Gee, maybe it is because CO2 has no effect on climate and the climate sensivity of CO2 is really 0.0.
so CO2’s increasing the lapse rate cannot be a cause of global warming.
CO2 doesn’t increase the lapse rate. The lapse rate stays the same. CO2 causes the height at which the effective emission layer is found to increase. Since this coincides with the effective black black body temperature of earth, that is no found at a higher altitude. It is about -18 C. Since the place in the atmosphere where -18 C occurs is now at a higher altitude, we follow the exact same lapse rate down to the surface and arrive at a higer surface temperature since we had to go further to get there. There are of course other effects, but there is no change to the lapse rate.
“now found” not “no found” you fumble fingered moron.
davidmhoffer: Please tell us exactly how does the effective radiating altitude change as a function of the CO2 amount in the atmosphere. Such information should allow one to compute a single value for the climate sensitifity of CO2 which for more than two decades the IPCC has been unable to do. Currently that altitude is at the mass midpoint of the atmosphere which seems to be quite a coincidence if it is really a function of CO2. In coming up with your global warming formula you also need to take in consideration that more CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the dry lapse rate to decrease a little, which is a cooling effect, and the O2 percentage to drop slightly because we are talking about CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels which converts O2 to both CO2 and H2O.
davidmhoffer: So you are name calling now.
@willhaas: Smilie when you say that.
davidmhoffer: So you are name calling now.
Yes. If you’ll note carefully, the person I called a moron was me.
Please tell us exactly how does the effective radiating altitude change as a function of the CO2 amount in the atmosphere.
As the concentration of CO2 increases, the chances that a photon emitted at any given point will be absorbed by another CO2 molecule increase. So, for the effective odds for a photon to escape to be the same after CO2 increases, the effective release point has to be at a higher altitude.
When we are talking about CO2 we are talking about just the 15 micron band where H2O does not dominate. Remember that a good absorber is also a good radiator. In the troposphere, until you get to the tropopause, conduction and convection dominates over LWIR absorption band heat transfer. The equivalent altitude of the Earth’s radiating to space is roughly 17k feet which is the middle of the troposphere and no where near the tropopause. Because of the low emisivity of the atmosphere the actual radiation comes from an even lower altitude. I would think that adding CO2 might make the upper atmosphere a more efficient radaitor to space which would have a cooling effect. Then again maby the absorption and radaition aspects balance out. You have provided a possible mechanism that you say might be important but you have not provided a formula showing how the altitude of the Earth’s effective radaition to space changes with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Such a formula would allow one to specifically calculate the climate sensivity of CO2 which the IPCC during all of their existance has been unable to do.
Such a formula would allow one to specifically calculate the climate sensivity of CO2 which the IPCC during all of their existence has been unable to do.
The formula is P=5.35*ln(C1/C0). The derivation can be found in multiple sources, including the IPCC. It has been there since at least AR3, I haven’t read AR2 or AR1, so it may be there as well. It yields 3.7 w/m2 which when applied to the EBB of earth, via SB Law, in turn yields an effective temperature change of about one degree C due to direct effects of CO2 doubling. Various sources come up with slightly different numbers, but they are all pretty close. Physicists on both sides of the debate do not quibble with this number. What they DO quibble with, and what the IPCC has not been able to quantify, is what the net effects of feedbacks are.
Get your facts straight. You repeatedly demand to know “how it works” and when I explain it, you instead demand a formula. Do you actually want to know? Or do you just want answers that fit with your preconceived notions? Well now I have given you the formula. I only answered because when I was starting out on my own research of climate change (which incidentally turned me into a vocal skeptic) my questions in blogs like this were usually ignored, and I felt a lot of gratitude toward those few who took the time to help me out.
Now I am trying to pay it forward, and am greeted with snark. I’m not inclined to answer you further.
I would think that adding CO2 might make the upper atmosphere a more efficient radaitor to space which would have a cooling effect.
Forgot this in my response above. Where, exactly, do you suppose the energy the CO2 radiates to space is coming from? Magic? Perpetual motion perhaps? The energy radiated comes from energy absorbed by CO2 that would otherwise have exited unimpeded to space. If you think blocking energy that would have otherwise escaped to space, and transferring some of it to the atmosphere, and radiating some of it toward earth, instead of letting it escape, makes for a more efficient radiator, be my guest.
davidmhoffer Concerning your formula, What is P? Where does the number 5,35 come from? What is C1? What is C2? How is this formula derived? Where is there a variable that stands for the effective altitude of radiating to space? What is the EBB and the SB Law? A researcher found that such calculations were too great by a factor of more than 20 because the doubling of CO2 would result in a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect.
Yes, how it works is what it is all about. The AGW conjecture is notorious for being based on only partial sceince. If CO2 really affected climate, the increase over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable change in the lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. The IPCC has been assuming that H2O provides a strong positive feedback which apifies the effect of CO2 because warmer temperatures cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere and molecule per molecule, H2O is a better absorber of IR radaition then is CO2. But H2O is also a major coolant in the troposphere causing the lapse rate to decrease which is a ciooling effect, The feedback is really negative as it has to be for the Earth’s climate to have been as stable as it has been over at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve because we are here.
The AGW conjecture contends that the the Earth’s surface is 33 degrees C warmer then it would be wihtout an atmosphere because of the heat trapping action of so called greenhouse gases. But the convective greenhouse effect which is caused by gravity and the heat capacity of the Earth’s atmosphere, as derived form first principals,and accounts for all 33 degrees C. The radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on earth nor any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere.
davidmhoffer In the troposphere heat transport by means other than LWIR absorption band radiation dominates. For example, at a pressure of one bar, In the time that a CO2 molecule holds onto an LWIR photon the CO2 molecule will have had on the order of a billion interactions with other molecules sharing energy with each interation. LWIR absorptioon band radiation is relatively unimportant in the troposphere.
willhaas;
You don’t know what P is, even though my answer makes is clear what P is. You want to know what C2 is even though it isn’t even in the formula. You state clearly that you don’t know what EBB and SB Law are, but you are certain these things that you don’t know what they are have been debunked by someone or other but you don’t know who it is.
davidmhoffer I am sorry, instead of C2 I ment to type C0. Please go ahead and answer my questions. It is customary when preseting equations to define the variables that one uses.
I’ll leave this reply for Willis here, the comments were closed down after I posted it and I’m unsure if it was published…
Hi Wills, nice to hear from you again, sincerely it is 🙂
I’ve always appreciated your interest in this subject, it’s a fascinating subject can we agree on that? alrighty then let’s move on…
What gets to me every time when this issue of the sun and the planets are brought up for discussion is the misunderstandings and the so called poisoning of the well of the subject, and come on Willis lets be straight with one another about it, you do more than your fair share.
I agree with the logic that you have mentioned above, looking at it from your prospective, that’s fine, can you ever say with a straight face that I have ever made such a claim? okay let’s move on…
Uranus does not have 4 poles, that is a ridiculous thing to say and another misunderstanding, Uranus has a polarity [N] negative and [P] positive, does the sun have 4 poles? ridiculous, I’m throwing that one out.
On Uranus’s orbit your understanding is a little weak, also I DO NOT make orbital calculations of a planet by taking it’s sidereal/orbital parameters and try to make them fit solar activity because of similar coincidental cyclical timing, I’m throwing that one out as well, that’s actually quite insulting dude…
Uranus has the most unusual orbit, it’s poles rotate very near it’s axis plane facing the sun, it’s sidereal period is equal to the suns Hale cycle (sorry the Spark cycle) it never goes out of phase like you claim, but of course you decided to use the worse form of astronomical calculations to make a back handed remark, please dude, don’t be putting any satellites up any time soon.
Uranus is a very fascinating planet, in fact it was dubbed “Dumbo” simply because it didn’t conform to expectations of the scientists at the time, a bit ironic,
I’m not going to throw you in the deep end or bury you with vast amounts of calculations and I’ll do my best here to give you a reasonable understanding of my view, I’m sure you have a beautiful ex-fiancée looking for your attention.
The stage that I’m at with understanding planetary orbits and the methods I’ve developed over the years to understand if there is a Solar/planetary interaction, that is my question after all, The results from the observations I have, scream out that there is a Solar/planetary interaction, I can now show you a pattern of Solar Activity from any time spanning 8000 years, 4000 into the future and 4000 into the past, this is due to software limitations, the software I use was bought in 1993-94 I have calibrated it with the real world and it has helped me forecast comets coming into view of the Soho satellites with astounding accuracy, I understand the limitations of the software and I understand how to improve the accuracy…
I have no problem bundling up all the spreadsheets, software and sending it to you, talking you through the process of collecting orbital data and showing you the method for calculating these orbital patterns that match Solar activity for yourself and reproduce my results, it’s a cheat for you at my expense, but I’m fine with that…
Now, getting to what my view is on what’s going on, I’ve a lot of thoughts on this but I’ll break it down for clarity’s sake, one quick point: looking at the historical sunspot record, do you notice the dips in sun spot activity during the peak of the two main cycles of activity? there’s a dip in the 70’s (cycle 20) and in the 1800’s (cycles 5 and 6 I’m not convinced about cycle 5 just a note), studying my results and pouring over the data for months on end I realized the cause of this was a polarity break down taken place, what I mean by this is that the suns polarities speed up over time and reverse at such a fast pace that they cancel each other out, to a point where the activity does not manifest itself as sunspots, that is the key to what is going on, the suns polarities interact with each other on the solar plane, the equator of the sun as they reverse, the suns polarities when at rest at the geographical poles produce very little activity, when the polarities begin to wobble and continue to rotate and reverse over time, speeding up and slowing down, when they reverse too fast solar activity drops of as well as when they do not reverse, this is the interaction the sun has with the planets.
Yes there are relativistic and gravitational effects between the sun and the planets you have said as much yourself, but let me remind you about some very basic physics, a small magnet can move a much larger one, there are enormous polarities interacting within the solar system, continuously nudging and effecting the timing of bodies in their orbits, and I can show you proof of this pattern, I have on occasion, if this was untrue there should be no matching pattern between the planets and the Sun.
Where the solar dynamo is concerned, I’m going by observational evidence that the dynamo occurs from the inside out and is a result of the rotating and reversing poles and is NOT caused from the outside in because of the difference between the suns equator in relation to it’s poles, in which sunspots cause the magnetic poles to reverse, this is a scandalous interpretation in my view.
Sparks, that sounds interesting,
why don’t you put an artical together, I’m sure Antony would host it here.
Thanks
This is even better;
“I realized the cause of this was a polarity break down taken place, what I mean by this is that the suns polarities speed up over time and reverse at such a fast pace that they cancel each other out, to a point where the activity does not manifest itself as sunspots,”
I recall reading a recent paper (NASA? WUWT?) that discussed this canceling. I just skimmed it. So it is not exactly “off the wall”. I should look to see if i can find it.
Here is an article. Not the one I remember:
http://www.universetoday.com/83664/new-study-suns-deep-physics-explain-sunspot-free-days/
This is interesting and deep.
http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/3/3.9.full
When the suns polarities speed up to a certain extent rotating and reversing around the sun, there is no time for the interaction that produces sunspots, off the wall? Recently? post the link, I appreciate that.
Just letting you know that the part of my comment you quoted is about how the sun behaves over many solar cycles, and the “polarity break down” in context is more of a non-interaction due to the speed up of the motion of the suns polarities reversing. apologies for any confusion.
Such behaviour is characteristic of chaotic oscillators. In nonlinear dynamo models the macrodynamic effect of the Lorentz force on differential rotation (which is seen at the solar surface) is a key ingredient and this process has been studied in some detail for idealized configurations. Figure 10 shows several butterfly diagrams for different choices of parameters (Knobloch 1998). The eigenfunctions of the linear problem yield toroidal fields that are either antisymmetric (dipole symmetry, as in Figure 10a) or symmetric (quadrupole symmetry, as in Figure 10b) about the equator. Mixed mode solutions (Figure 10c) may also appear in the nonlinear regime. Further bifurcations lead to periodically modulated cycles and eventually to chaotic modulation (Tobias 1996, 1997). Figure 11 shows such a modulated solution (Beer 1998). Although the active cycles maintain dipole symmetry, this symmetry is broken as the system emerges from a grand minimum, when activity is concentrated in one hemisphere: this is exactly what happened between 1680 and 1714, at the end of the Maunder minimum (Ribes and Nesme-Ribes 1993).
from: http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/3/3.9.full
And remember, TIME IS RUNNING OUT TO
BUY JOSH’S 2017 CALENDAR!!!
http://i1.wp.com/cartoonsbyjosh.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Calendar_mock-up.jpg
Available to the residents of the U.K.
and to other Europeans here: http://cartoonsbyjosh.co.uk/calendar-2017
U.S. and Canadian buyers, please see this WUWT thread to order (until Dec. 26th):
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/05/now-available-in-uscanada-the-cartoons-by-joshwuwt-climate-calendar-for-2017/
#(:))
Thanks for the reminder Janice, I almost forgot 🙂
You’re welcome, James! And thanks for saying so — VERY nice to know that my attempt to promote was worthwhile!
Take care and keep warm. 🙂
It’s just occurred to me that Hansen’s recent statement that mitigation is not immediately urgent, but can be phased in over a lengthy period, is consistent with the implementation of a “nuclear” CO2-reduction strategy. I suspect he made this statement after consulting with a member of Trump’s team, which may be planning to unveil that plan.
Hansen is Gore’s advisor on climate-related matters. Gore’s visit to Trump is consistent with what I speculated about Hansen, namely that a “nuclear” CO2-reduction strategy is in the works.
Not sure about that but, if so, he wouldn’t be the first “green” to go nuclear over Trump! 😎
I like the “more trees” mitigation strategy.
My thoughts have been lately on the disciplined decline of the solar EUV proxy F10.7.
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-10-cm-radio-flux.gif
Each month goes by and the predicted line gets shifted down a little more as the past months numbers kept falling short of prediction.
It is now (9 December 2016) hitting values of 70-ish (FLUXADJ), values not seen since 2010, and about a year ahead of schedule in its decline to minimum.
You can FTP Download the Oct 2004 to current F10.7 flux value data here:
And then plot the FLUXADJ column vs julian date for yourself.
ftp://ftp.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/data/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
Also the observed South polar Field strength has been collapsing (last 4-5 months) at a higher than expected rate, while the North polar field strength has stagnated. Behavior not explained by simply the tilt angle of the sun as seen from Earth.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif
(note: I’ve shown the current data from WSO Stanford. Lief’s plots have not been updated since June-July time frame).
Interesting times for the sun and wondering what effects these may have on Earth’s temperatures next few years as Solar minimum is approached (mid-late 2020 to early 2012).
Dr. S d@nies that EUV flux has any effect on climate, being a small portion of TSI energy, but IMO it can’t help but influence both atmosphere and surface, through a variety of mechanisms, not least of which is ozone production.
Quite likely there is no direct connection but magnetic field could have secondary influences — see Svensmark.
Some of Dr. S’s colleagues in NASA and NOAA-funded research beg to differ with his opinion. Link on connection among EUV variation, ozone and climate:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate
Willis doesn’t like Meehl’s models, but he’s “not the only one”.
Does anyone want to discuss whether greenhouse gases actually warm a planet to a temperature greater than it would be without them?
IMO, the first 100 to 200 ppm of CO2 do have a net warming effect. After that, not so much.
Chimp
That’s the same as saying that CO2 would only affect climate on a planet earth with no life; i.e. with CO2 levels too low to support vegetation. Once CO2 rises above 200 ppm and sustains robust vegetation on land, its effect on climate falls away to negligible. This decline in CO2 effect on temperatures is probably accentuated by the activity of plants collectively to regulate climate to their own advantage, Gaia-Daisyworld style.
Yes, this is an open thread but his subject has been beaten to death here and at other popular websites (Roy Spencer, Tony Heller’s etc.).
Dilution…
The Weather Channel has been giving names to “winter storms” (winter weather fronts as they bring snow across the country) for a few years now.
I always thought that was useful as giving names to summer weather fronts as they bring rain across the country.
A day or two ago they reported on a blizzard that hit North Dakota.
Guess what they called it?
Just a no-name “blizzard”.
Some more Weather Channel
“Wow! Breitbart’s climate science has come under attack from a devastating new rhetorical technique:
the argumentum ad puellam pulchram.
(aka the Argument from a Pretty Girl)”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/07/weather-channel-attacks-breitbarts-climate-science-fake-news-climate-change/
Surprised there’s no discussion of this on WUWT. The mainstream/sidestream media (e.g WIRED) are having a heyday with it.
MSM has “Talking Heads” but here we have “Talking Boobs”…even from those who don’t have them.
To clarify, they know a lot of stuff, but, are they being honest with what they know or are they speaking through “falsies”? “Looks good. Sounds sounds. But what is really there?”
aka infobabes
I was surprised when on the recent thread on random climate variability, Toneb made the comment that Chris Monckton was banned, or “verboten” on WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/08/global-warming-fails-the-random-natural-variation-contest/#comment-2364584
So now I’m even more surprised that Monckton and Anthony are together at this west coast conference!
I guess just another case of fake news from Toneb.
Anthony, as the world’s premier site on global warming/climate change, you receive hundreds of comments to every article.
We are all time poor, busy people so, it would be invaluable to read only the comments that create the most reaction, good and bad.
Thumbs up and thumbs down after each comment achieves that as well as increasing reader participation, one purpose of your wonderful web site.
How about it?
We tried it for awhile, pretty much useless since wordpress doesn’t change the order of comments with such ratings
Hi Anthony,
A thought on that,
please do not put any thumbs up, thumbs down, like button, or any type of button which could be, and will be used as manipulation. The star system on top is sufficient.
I think that is partly why this site is so friendly, just the fact you allow the average person to comment and be part of this community if they have something to offer, or just giving them that freedom of speech to say something relevant.
( of course a little humor here and there never hurts )
A Good Thing ( IMHO as a layperson) is Forcing people to read any given article, opinion, long threaded discussion, etc. is much better than being able to hop on a button without actually knowing what is being discussed, let alone being any type of expert and giving some scrupulous person every opportunity to try to discredit someone here, along with sending out their minions to vote something up or down.
People need to read thoroughly, try to digest that information and form their own opinions.
We have the ability to skip the foggy stuff.
Thanks, EJ
So how the hell do you determine which are the most reactive articles if everybody is twiddling their thumbs while waiting for the lazy bum’s cheat sheet.
I read pretty much everything. It is quite apparent that many people read almost nothing.
G
I just thought this was worth repeating.
If I understand correctly, it would be a site compiling and organizing links (with a topical intro) to climate related information without comments on the site itself. A simpler way to find the info wanted without going through a search engine’s, no doubt soon to be introduced, “fake news” filters.
Gunga
I visited it already, it’s a mine of solid reference data on climate, plus useful media events.
I see the Donald has brought them out in force-
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-mass-extinctions-species-study-donald-trump-kill-himself-joke-a7464391.html
It really is worse than we thought as Tim Blair rounds up some doozies-
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/donald-dooms-dating/news-story/fd6e8d0b8acbfc7e3bf1c1a6f8b9c2a3
We can’t explain the decline and is it a travesty that we can’t?
What is “false news”? A rumour purported to be fact? Blatant propoganda? If there is one thing that unites humankind irrespective of race, creed or color is an enjoyment of gossip. The one old saw that really depresses me is ” there is no smoke without fire”. Try a Brritsh summer BBQ and you will appreciate that fallacy.
It is regrettable that the studies of philiosphy ( how and why we think) and logical argument have been sidelined as esoteric and not of everyday relevance.
Ad honiem attacks as ” deniers” or “grant chasers” do not enlighten or promote an argument. Selective interpretation of data to bolster a view is not unnatural. But to ignore or dismiss data is corrupt.
Logical outcomes do not always produce the right resullts. Are photons and electrons waves or particles? It depends on your observation. Quantum mechanics indicates that the four dimensions we can percieve as evolved apes are insufficent for what we can scientifically demonstrate. Hence there must be higher dimensions.
In some issues ,for example abortion, logic alone cannot denote a pro or anti stance. This is an ethical issue either of personal or state choice and compelling arguments can be made both ways. This is based on philosphical choice.
Those who instigate ” safe places” and ” no-platforming” do a disservice to reasoned, peaceful debate.
i would propose that all freshman/undergraduates do a course in philosphy and logic as a minor, no matter what their degree is.
“What is “false news”? A rumour purported to be fact?”
I think the issue currently discussed is fake news. Where people make money by getting clicks for outrageous made up stories.
And it can cause real problems. As here.
An actor?
And it can cause real problems.
Well of course it can. Now, when someone is given the power to decide what is fake news and what is real news, it can also cause problems. No link. Any decent history book will do. Pay attention to the parts with millions of deaths.
And here is another fake news story with DEADLY consequences:
J. Philip Peterson, Thank you for that clip. And a huge THANK YOU for Sheriff David Clarke for telling it like it is.
I admit I’ve made mistakes in my life and I’m grateful to those who have forgiven me for them.
The MSM? Their attitude seems to be that we should all forgive them for the mistakes they’ve made that they refuse to admit too. And then keep trusting them to identify what is “fake news” for the rest of us.
Yeah, right.
worm and parcel with the lay; turn and serve the other way
“My cars are both Prius’s and I meticulously conserve energy and water.”
Do you mean you drive a Pius?
Unless you can provide an independent study that show hauling around batteries in a car is good for the environment, I would suggest that you are more pious than prudent.
I use the energy and water to make life for my wife and myself better. I know that the environmental impact of such use is insignificant.
Part of being ethical is focusing on what is important. As we have solved important problems, we have replaced them with with trivial and made up problems.
energy
As an engineer, I know that every person on the planet having food, clean water, and electricity is not a technical issue.
I can conserve all I want but it will not change corruption that creates poverty. Cleaning my plate as a child did not feed children in China that Mao was starving.
Stop Press: Incredible perpetual motion system invented:
“Dr Sheridan Few, Research Associate at the Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, described a phenomenon unique to this technology.
“There’s the storage of the energy, and the generating of the energy. You can make use of waste cold and waste heat… because you’re putting both electrical and thermal energy in, the amount of electrical energy you get out, can in some cases end up being more than the electrical energy you put in.”
I wonder what “waste cold” is, but as the Grantham Institute is involved perhaps I shouldn’t bother.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37902773
Maybe sloppy language and maybe too optimistic to hope to capture much energy at this time. I don’t know. Also, dont know about the Grantham institute or about the practical utility of the particular project -may well be a boondoggle-but electricity can be generated from tempature differentials. See thermocouple. Cold can have value that can be wasted.
It’s a steam engine that uses liquid air as the working fluid. It works as storage by using surplus electricity to condense the air. Then it just lets in ambient heat to boil the air and regenerate the electricity. The “waste cold” works if you can pre-cool the air – that then takes less electrical energy to condense. You’d probably still lose on the cycle, but lose less. And if you add any warmth to the boiling phase, that boosts the cycle too.
I would have thought something like, yes, CO2, might be a better working fluid (under pressure).
Someone should write an article for WUWT picking apart DiCaprio’s plan, to cool Ivanka’s enthusiasm for it.
Anyone interested in having some fun with the ‘accelerating sea level rise’ false alarm can comment here:
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2016/12/08/how-rising-seas-government-squabbling-turned-climate-change-into-a-local-issue
(No registration necessary.)
I have a serious question, when scientists say the planet is “warming”, what is the definition of warming? If it is temperature of the air near the surface why do they the use heat of the ocean to discredit the lack of air warming? If it is the energy contained in the earths atmosphere and below why do they use temperature as the measurement of energy? Since temperature is not a unit of energy and the two do not even have a linear relationship?
I think every conversation on AGW needs to have warming defined otherwise each side may be using a different definition. I already know one side has changed the definition as needed to fit their arguments.
How come so one ever mentions the job that large trees do blocking IR? It’s always CO2 does this and C02 does that. I can see what trees do. In the fall when the ground gets frosty over night, the ground by trees is less frosty because trees block ground exposure to the night sky. I assume the trees are blocking IR to the night sky and staying relatively warmer. Along those lines, when the great white pine forests were felled in North America it must have been suddenly much colder at night in the winter in those areas, how convenient for today’s warmista chartists.
Fun fact: James Hanson has calculated that if human beings burn all of known fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 levels will reach 1500 ppm. Indoor pot growing industry pumps their CO2 levels to 1500 ppm to maximize plant growth.
Well, we might be able to keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and feeding those hungry plants and humans a lot longer if new technolgy works out:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/massive-potential-for-new-oil-production-technique/
TA wrote on RealClimateScience: “Thanks for this ammunition, Tony. There have been several recent claims of climate change being the cause of glaciers melting. Your article will be a good example of [the] hysteria [voiced] about glaciers [melting] over the decades.
The article below provides examples of the wild speculation about glaciers melting over the years. Today, some people are still wildly speculating about the demise of glaciers, and blaming it on human activity.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/flat-earthers-at-the-sydney-morning-herald/#comment-30949