Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
In his recent article on WUWT titled “HADCRU Power and Temperature” Andy May refers to the challenges of modelling the atmosphere. He wrote,
The greenhouse effect (GHE), when calculated this way, shows an imbalance of 390-239=151 W/m2. Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997 calculated a similar overall forcing of 155 W/m2 using the same procedure. This GHE calculation makes a lot of assumptions, not the least of which is assuming the Earth has an emissivity of 1 and is a blackbody. But, here we want to consider the problem of using a global average temperature (T) for the Earth, which is a rotating sphere, with only one-half of the sphere facing the Sun at any one time.
Models vary from hardware models or simple scaled down versions of reality to complete abstractions. A model car is an example of the former and a mathematical formula with symbols replacing variables of the latter. The problem with the hardware is it is impossible to scale down many things because the physical properties change. For example, it is impossible to scale down the change of ice from solid and rigid to plastic and flowing as occurs in an alpine glacier in a hardware model. In the abstract model, each variable loses most of its real-world properties.
Climate models are abstract models, except they are made up of a multiple of models all interacting with each other. Those interactions bear little resemblance to reality.
In summary,
- We have virtually no data.
- This is true even for fundamental variables like temperature, precipitation atmospheric pressure, and atmospheric water content.
- Data is replaced by symbols that eliminate most of the properties of the natural variable.
- In many cases the “data” is generated in another model and used as ‘real’ data in the larger model.
- The models are essentially static representations of average conditions. The one thing we know with certainty is that the Earth’s atmospheric system is dynamic, changing daily, seasonally and constantly over the course of time.
- The models consistently fail the standard test of scientific understanding and accuracy by producing inaccurate predictions.
Initially, I learned the basics of weather and especially forecasting necessary for aviation. These were expanded when I gave lectures on aviation weather as an operations officer on an anti-submarine squadron flying over the North Atlantic and then for a search and rescue squadron flying in northern and Arctic Canada. I recall one search out of Fort Chipewyan, northern Alberta when we observed first-hand the severe limitations of knowledge and therefore forecast skills. We took an Environment Canada forecaster with us to provide more local information. He was unable to come even close from the data originating from Edmonton. Eventually, we listened to his forecast and then took him flying with us to show him the reality.
After I left the military because I lost my flying category, and as they say, I didn’t want to fly a desk, these experiences caused my return to university to try and determine the limitations of knowledge about weather and climate.
When I began studying them from an academic perspective, the first thing I realized was the complete paucity of data. This was reinforced when I learned about the work of H.H. Lamb who set up the CRU with the realization that without data, no understanding of the mechanisms was possible and accurate forecasting beyond hope.
“…it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.”
I include this quote in as many articles as logic allows because things are worse now. Sadly, this is due to many graduates of the CRU and their disciples, like Gavin Schmidt.
This awareness led to my doctoral thesis that involved reconstruction of weather and climate patterns for central Canada over a 300-year span. Serendipitously, it was while in places like Fort Chipewyan that I became aware of the remarkable weather and meteorological journals of the Hudson’s Bay Company.
In basic climatology and some meteorology texts of the time, the student learned about a single cell atmospheric model (Figure 1).
Figure 1
The objective is to show that in a non-rotating world a simple, single cell system would exist. The strength of the basic circulation pattern is a function of the temperature difference (gradient) between the Equator and the Poles. This is a lesson for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who claim that the Poles will warm more than the Equator, thus weakening the system. The reality is that the difference is almost totally a function of the amount of insolation received not a difference in the greenhouse gas difference, especially CO2.
The next problem that climate change theorists and modelers face is that the Earth is rotating and changing how it presents itself to the insolation over time. In 1735 George Hadley’s determination of the existence of a single tropical cell, now named after him, (Figure 2) from winds recorded by British sailing ships, is a classic example of inductive reasoning.
Figure 2
This gradually evolved over the next 200 years into a three-cell system (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Note that this diagram appeared in a text titled Tropical Meteorology published in 2011. A similar pattern is used in the UK Met office (UKMO) web site diagram. (Figure 4). The caption reads
Circulating Cells: The Hadley cells have the most regular pattern of air movement, and produce extreme wet weather at the equator and extreme aridity on the deserts. The polar cells are the least well-defined.
The terminology starts the misunderstanding. The word extreme is wrong. The wet at the equator and dry in the desert is normal. The polar cell is well-defined as evidenced by the over 90 percent persistence of the polar easterly winds, the Polar Front that separates cold polar air from warm subtropical air, and the circumpolar vortex (jet stream) (Figure 5)
Figure 4
Figure 5 (source: author)
Questions began to emerge about the existence of the Ferrel cell at about the time the IPCC was forming in the late 1980s. William Ferrel proposed its existence in 1856 to explain newly measured wind speeds, especially the mid-latitude westerly winds. The Encyclopedia Britannica is better informed than the UKMO because they write,
Ferrel cell, model of the mid-latitude segment of Earth’s wind circulation, proposed by William Ferrel (1856). In the Ferrel cell, air flows poleward and eastward near the surface and equatorward and westward at higher altitudes; this movement is the reverse of the airflow in the Hadley cell. Ferrel’s model was the first to account for the westerly winds between latitudes 35° and 60° in both hemispheres. The Ferrel cell, however, is still not a good representation of reality because it requires that the upper-level mid-latitude winds flow westward; actually the eastward-flowing surface winds become stronger with height and reach their maximum velocities around the 10-km (6-mile) level in the jet streams.
The problem is they, like the UKMO and the IPCC do not provide an alternative model. The reason is because they have no data as they explain in AR5.
In the past few years, interest in an accurate depiction of upper air winds has grown, as they are essential for estimating the state and changes of the general atmospheric circulation and for explaining changes in the surface winds (Vautard et al., 2010).
We also learned in AR4 that,
Due to the computational cost associated with the requirement of a well-resolved stratosphere, the models employed for the current assessment do not generally include the QBO.
From a March 2015 conference in Victoria BC, we learned that
The Quasi-Biennial Oscillation is one of the most remarkable phenomena in the Earth’s atmosphere. High above the equator, in the stratosphere, strong zonal winds blow in a continuous circuit around the Earth. At a given altitude, the winds might start as westerlies, but over time they weaken and eventually reverse, becoming strong easterlies.
They asked,
Why is the QBO important? It is certainly relevant for seasonal prediction, where the state of stratospheric winds affects interactions between the tropics and the mid-latitudes, and may also affect the tropical troposphere directly and possibly how the solar cycle interacts with the atmosphere.
They concluded that,
The poor representation of the QBO in climate change models means that no-one knows what will happen to the QBO in the decades ahead – will it remain largely unchanged, will its period lengthen, or will it change more radically?
The question is how and on what structure are the climate models built? The most recent representation I am familiar with is in Figure 6:
How do you build a computer model to represent this structure and all the mechanisms it encompasses? But the challenge is much greater than that because the diagram is a representation of the average, which is a fixed statistical condition. In reality, it is an extremely dynamic system that changes on an almost infinite number of time scales from hourly to millions of years. Even if you can approximate the data and mechanisms with a mathematical formula there is the problem mathematician and philosopher A. N. Whitehead identified,
“There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.”
The IPCC acknowledged this in the Third Assessment Report when they wrote,
In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
There is one major component of computer models that distorts and masks the reality and allows models that consistently fail to persuade policy. Pierre Gallois (1911-2010) summarized it in his comment that
If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.
This parallels the well-known, but somehow ignored acronym GIGO, Garbage in, Garbage out. Somebody perceptively said in climate models it was Gospel in, Gospel out. However, in the case of climate computer models, the Garbage in includes not only the input or what the IPCC calls forcings but the very structure.
I collect quotations that appear to epitomize a period such as a decade, a century, or a millennium. My prime candidate so far for the 21st century was from Alan Greenspan former President of the US Federal Reserve and thereby de facto architect of US financial policy. Greenspan was asked in his appearance before Senator Markey’s hearing into the financial collapse of 2008 what went wrong. He simply replied, my model was wrong. When asked how long he had been using it he replied, 40 years.
If we consider the first meaningful climate model the one developed at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) in the late 1960s (1967?) the first meaningful climate model because it included atmosphere and ocean processes, then it is 50 years.
Now consider the IPCC situation where they take the worst of both worlds by combining the output of climate and economic models. They have done this now for 27 years (1990-2017), and despite supposed updates and improvements their predictions or projections are still wrong, but still being used to determine global environmental and energy policy.
Andy May correctly identifies that the problems of climate modeling are much greater than the Kiehl Trenberth energy balance diagram and its numbers. They are so fundamental, as some of us have identified for decades that it is remarkable that the IPCC managed to fool the world and all the scientist affiliated with or supporting that agency and its work. It is why my book is titled “Human Caused Global Warming: The Biggest Deception in History.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I posted my observation below earlier in the thread, but this opens with a brief preface and additional material.
My observation/explanation that the earth would be warmer, NOT cooler, without an atmosphere than with parallels Volokin’s paper on airless bodies, but does it in 200 words instead of 40 pages.
If this analysis is correct (and imho) it tosses RGHE and its bogus physics straight into the trash as does Volokin’s paper.
I know Anthony et. al. (Trenberth) don’t care for slayer anti-RGHE approaches, but let’s try to be honest and objective here and address the actual science.
Which approach explains reality w/o any bogus thermo?
**************
The genesis of RGHE theory is the incorrect notion that the atmosphere warms the surface (and that is NOT the ground). Explaining the mechanism behind this erroneous notion demands some truly contorted physics, thermo and heat transfer, i.e. energy out of nowhere, cold to hot w/o work, perpetual motion.
Is space cold or hot? There are no molecules in space so our common definitions of hot/cold/heat/energy don’t apply.
The temperatures of objects in space, e.g. the Earth, Moon, space station, Mars, Venus, etc. are determined by the radiation flowing past them. In the case of the Earth, the solar irradiance of 1,368 W/m^2 has a Stefan Boltzmann black body equilibrium temperature of 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. That’s hot. Sort of.
But an object’s albedo reflects away some of that energy and reduces that temperature.
The Earth’s albedo reflects away about 30% of the Sun’s 1,368 W/m^2 energy leaving 70% or 958 W/m^2 to “warm” the surface (1.5 m above ground) and at an S-B BB equilibrium temperature of 361 K, 33 C cooler (394-361) than the earth with no atmosphere or albedo.
The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool.
(Volokin) https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
****************
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/
“The first design consideration for thermal control is insulation — to keep
heat in for warmth and to keep it out for cooling.”
“Here on Earth, environmental heat is transferred in the air primarily by
conduction (collisions between individual air molecules) and convection
(the circulation or bulk motion of air).”
“This is why you can insulate your house basically using the air trapped
inside your insulation,” said Andrew Hong, an engineer and thermal
control specialist at NASA’s Johnson Space Center. “Air is a poor
conductor of heat, and the fibers of home insulation that hold the air still
minimize convection.”
“”In space there is no air for conduction or convection,” he added. Space
is a radiation-dominated environment. Objects heat up by absorbing
sunlight and they cool off by emitting infrared energy, a form of
radiation which is invisible to the human eye.”
“Without thermal controls, (or an atmosphere, my note) the temperature of the orbiting Space
Station’s Sun-facing side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C), while
thermometers on the dark side would plunge to minus 250 degrees F
(-157 C). There might be a comfortable spot somewhere in the middle of
the Station, but searching for it wouldn’t be much fun!”
121 C plus 273 C = 394 K Ta-dahhh!!!!!
Shiny insulation keeps the ISS COOL!!!! Just like the earth’s albedo/atmosphere keeps the earth COOL!!! NOT hot like RGHE’s BOGUS “theory.”
A physicist might proceed, as Feynman was wont to do, by doing a back of the envelope calculation. Total mass of water in the oceans is about 1.4×10^21 kg. Velocity of earth rotation at the surface at 45 degrees latitude is ~1000 km/hr ~300 m/s. That gives the energy of the water due to earth rotation as about 0.5*m*v^2 ~ 4.5×10^25 Joules. The total mass of the atmosphere, including water vapor, is about 5.1×10^18 kg, which has rotational energy ~ 2.3×10^23 Joules. Now if the presumed net radiative imbalance due to CO2 is about 1 watt/m^2 that would be for the earth radius ~6400 km about 5×10^8 watts (assuming the imbalance applies to the whole surface averaged over a day). In a year that would contribute about 1.1×10^16 Joules. So just the mechanical free energy of the oceans plus atmosphere is about 8 orders of magnitude greater that the presumed radiant input due to CO2. This suggests that to make a 10 percent change in the total system energy would require on the order 10^7 years. This does not include contributions from enthalpies due to phase dependent equations of state of different materials, nor does it include contributions from gravitational compression, and a host of other contributions. These energies are estimates at single points, ie latitudes, altitudes, etc, but in actuality they vary considerably with latitude, altitude, etc. all of which result in differentials which essentially act as driving forces for a large number of interacting Carnot engines, which exchange thermal energy for mechanical energy and vice versa. These are among the sources of ocean currents and prevailing atmospheric winds. Further, energy in the system is not constrained to dissipation by radiation but also mechanical dissipation due to shear forces, friction, etc. as well as phase changes. In short, a thermodynamic view of the earth involves a number of quantities.
1,368 W/m^2 is the solar luminosity in watts spread over the photospheric surface area m^2 at earth’s average orbital distance.
But the orbit is actually elliptical so the insolation at perihelion is 1,415 W/m^2 and 1,323 W/m^2 at aphelion for an annual fluctuation of 92 W/m^2, 46 times greater than the RF added between 1750 and 2011 and ten times greater than IPCC’s worst^4 case RF scenario RCP 8.5 W/m^2.
Because of the tilted axis and the oblique angle of incidence the insolation perpendicular to ToA at 40 N latitude ranges from 1,311 W/m^2 at summer solstice to 610 W/m^2 at winter solstice, a variation of 701 W/m^2 and all we get is winter and summer.
The sun heats/energizes only the lit side. The atmosphere loses heat 24/7 per Q = U A dT. If more energy/heat leaves than enters, the atmosphere cools off as evident in Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10. If less energy/heat leaves than enters the atmosphere heats up. Supposedly 0.04% of the atmosphere “absorbs” heat reducing the amount leaving. Does not work that way. 0.04% is simply incapable of “absorbing” a significant amount of kJ.
A model that shows 342 W/m^2 perpendicular to and evenly distributed over ToA is a complete waste of time.
Would you say applying averages to a complex chaotic non- linear system is futile?
David A,
Well, that and attempting to conform physics to an incorrect assumption.
Oh puhlease!
Meanwhile, Leroux observed and figured it out, visibly to the chagrin of some…
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf
It looks like that majority of commentators have no experience about spectral calculations. The Harvard University maintains the HITRAN data base, which contains the absorption formulas for all GH gases. The correctness of these formulas have been tested in laboratory conditions with real gases. The absorption of CO2 has been tested also in the real climate conditions in the Atacama desert. The result is that the theoretical value is almost the same as the real observations with an error of only 1 %.
I have shown in my analyses that the total absorption of the atmosphere is about the same as the observations with an error of 1.0 % and the outgoing LW radiation into the space is even more accurate. There is no basis to say that the calculations are highly theoretical or we have no real observations about the real radiation fluxes.They match so well as one could wish. Also the surface emitted LW radiation flux matches with the observed global temperature ans also with the observed radiation fluxes. Where is the problem?
Aveo, the problem is you are parroting your assertions without answering several posts, such as Aphan’s pasted below…
September 16, 2017 at 2:03 pm
Data. Doctor, it would seem you use this word without knowing what it means.
Data is defined as: “facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.”
It would seem to me, that if one could accurately measure the downward flux, all 13 studies would have arrived at the same number for that measurement, and not a range of “measurements” that have a 16.8 w/m2 difference between it’s low end and it’s high end. One certainly wouldn’t be able to claim it as accurate if that one number had an “estimated” error margin of ±10 Wm.2 either.
The actual downward flux would be an actual, accurate measurement-not a calculation or an estimate, and that actual, accurate measurement would be a fact, or a data point. The upward flux would be an actual, accurate measurement, not a calculation or an estimate or an average, and that actual, real number would be a fact, or a data point.
You pointed out that in 13 studies, the “flux” ranged between two numbers that were 16.8 w/m2 different, and that even the “average” between them had a margin of error that was +/- 10 w/m2!!!
And then you claim to be able to arrive at a climate sensitivity of only 0.6 degrees????
I question your “measurements”. I doubt they are actual observations. If so….why are they not all the same?
“Why they are not all the same?”. The climate is changing all the time around the average value and the measurements have limited accuracies. But it does not mean that we a good idea about the average values of the climate.
There is a claim in the title of this blog: “Climate Models Can’t Even Approximate Reality”. I wanted to show that actually simple models and calculations can approximate the climate very well. The accuracy is well inside the error margins of the radiation flux observations. It means that we do not know, which of them is more accurate: a model or an observation, if a model calculated value is inside the error margin of observations.
I admit that I used the term data in the wrong place. For example the flux radiation value is not a single measurement value (=data) but it is a product of using data for getting an information like a global LW flux value emitted into the space at TOA.
Aveo,
“Where is the problem?”
Radiating upward 396 W/m^2 at 16 C from the surface is thermodynamically impossible.
Downwelling/”back” radiation from a cold troposphere to a warm surface without adding work is thermodynamically impossible.
Absorbing upward/emitting downward the same energy with no losses/work added is thermodynamically impossible.
GHGs making zero difference at ToA makes it all moot.
The LW flux of 396 W/m2 emitted by the surface is based on the observations. The uncertainty is 10-15 W/m2. The average flux value is a fact and not imagination.
“The LW flux of 396 W/m2 emitted by the surface is based on the observations. The uncertainty is 10-15 W/m2. The average flux value is a fact and not imagination”
Correction:
396 W/m2 plus or minus 10-15 W/ms is the AVERAGE flux value based on observations. That we cannot measure it with any greater accuracy than that…IS A FACT. To state that 396 W/m2 is the ACTUAL, ACCURATELY MEASURED amount of LW Flux is a LIE. To insinuate it, is ALSO a lie.
396 W/m2 plus or minus 10-15 W/m2 means that the actual LW flux could be ANY number between 381 W/m2 and 411 W/m2. It means that every single calculation that involves that LW flux needs to done using every single one of those numbers as the possible CORRECT flux and the results of all of those calculations needs to be presented as the RANGE of possible correct answers that involve that flux.
If you think that you don’t have to do that in order for your work to be viewed as having scientific integrity, you are IMAGINING things.
Interesting. You are basing this contention on the Second Law, I assume? But radiation does not follow the Second Law. When a body (molecule, whatever but let’s assume a spherical shape) radiates energy at whatever wavelength the amount depends, according to Stefan-Boltzmann, on the temperature of the body (K) to the fourth power (T^4). The radiation from the body will proceed in the direction the body is “aimed” at. In the case of a spherical body the radiation will be spread throughout the space surrounding the body. The radiation does not “care” what the temperature of other bodies that receive it is—it just goes there. Whatever receives it will have its energy increased by an appropriate amount. Of course, the receiving body will also be radiating energy according to its temperature. I think the confusion arises because the NET energy received is sA(T1^4 – T2^4) where s is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and A is the effective area applying to the two bodies. If T1 is greater that T2 the net radiation will be towards the second body and if the bodies are an isolated system with no other energy transfers possible, body 1 will appear to cool down and body 2 will appear to warm up. The radiating wavelengths need not be same for the two bodies. I understand the ground receives radiation energy from the Sun and space across the full spectrum but reradiates some of the energy as long wavelength (infrared) energy.
Gary.
“Stefan–Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. … The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation.”
Earth is not a blackbody.
Q.What is the absolute temperature of Earth???
WE DON’T KNOW!!! There is no currently existing way to directly measure every inch of the Earths surface and obtain it’s absolute temperature. We can only indirectly measure other things and attempt to calculate an approximate temperature from those other, indirect sources.
Some scientists PRETEND that Earth is a blackbody and base all of their calculations regarding the planet, and it’s climate on that PRETENSE. On this PRETEND idea, they make hilarious statements as if they are FACTS. Like pretending they have MEASURED an increase in Earths temperature to within hundredths of a degree and can actually attribute that increase to human CO2!!!
Yes, you are right in that I should have included an emissivity/absorptivity in the equation. You’ll have to forgive me—I am getting old and remiss! You are also correct that we don’t know the “global temperature” although we might be able to make a reasonably intelligent guess.
But that’s not the point I was making, which is that the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems with rigorously defined boundaries. The laws do not apply to radiative transfer of energy. True, radiation may also be occurring in a closed system, along with whole gamut of heat transfer: radiation; conduction; and convection both natural and forced. Radiant energy will be received by a body whether it is warmer or cooler than the transmitting body.
I LOVE LOVE LOVE THE EARTH-ATMOSPHERE SAT FOTO which WUWT uses at the top of its Comments sections. I find myself pondering it … sometimes a few times a week and am always on the lookout for fotos of similar subject material. [See said foto at the top of this page, where, in fact, I suggest that impactful foto be used on the WUWT FRONT PAGE! Further, IMO, this particular article provides an ideal example in support of same.]
WHY: because, for me, a meteorological wannabe, this foto puts into dazzling VISUAL perspective the massive volume difference between the planetary solid earth relative to that of its VERY thin total atmospheric “skin”; where it gives me a much more “proper” perspective when I am trying to assess the impact of the physical atmospheric processes. [To overstate the obvious, I often ask myself: how the hell do these atmospheric processes impact this zone and determine largely our overall atmospheric metrics?]
This is PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT for people like me who assess, mostly intuitively, the physical atmospheric processes, that is, those processes, some of which are discussed in this article, which the meteorological experts understand at such a higher level of mathematical detail.
For this reason, it never fails to frustrate me, when I see articles such as this — despite how good it is … where, in fact, I find it to be quite good — it restricts itself to schemas [cartoons] which throw way out of whack the stark contrast of the relative earth-atmosphere volume differences. I find, for myself and most likely for many others, that such schemas indicate INCORRECTLY a massively thick atmosphere — 1000’s of km tall — with a relatively small-diameter solid earth, where such is very misleading.
For this reason, I submit that these schemas do not help to project the author’s full message … where, I for one, where it is so easily remedied, suggest that such articles include at least one earth-atmosphere visual which shows a “correct” perspective of the magnitudes of these two bodies.
Johnny,
Not only are the words the choice of the author, but the images as well. Dr Ball included those images because they go with each point he made. Those are actual illustrations from TEXT BOOKS written by “experts” on those particular topics. (If you click on the hyperlinks, they take you to a site that shows you the actual book.) Not only are the images ridiculous, but the “facts” implied by them are too. THAT is his point, and you clearly got PART of his point…the silly image part.
Intuitively, you should have understood that they help him make his actual over all point…that even the TEXTBOOKS that teach how the climate system works demonstrate how immature and simplistic our knowledge of this complex, dynamic, unpredictable system is. If we know so little, and on such a rudimentary level, why would any model we could build even come close to representing Earths climate??
Might I suggest that intuition and logic should demonstrate that not everyone learns like you, prefers the exact same things you do, and thus even IF the primary goal of WUWT and its writers was the complete pleasure and utmost satisfaction of every reader here, it would be impossible to achieve.
Dr. Ball:
Thanks for even ammo on why models are bogus.
I’m amazed at this as well, especially given they’ve admitted to the following (bold mine):
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”
http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
So we can’t build an accurate model because 1) we don’t know the system we’re modeling, 2) we don’t have the hardware to run it and 3) we don’t have any method to determine if the model is accurate.
Should opponents of AGW attempt to focus more on the logic of the problem while continuing to debate the science of the problem?
Thanks for another well written essay Dr. Ball, you consistently provide educational material on the subject and after reading your work on this site and in other media I have to say I find your ongoing energy inspiring. For my own part I’ve gotten tired of going over the same material and arguments for so many years, I admire both your subject matter knowledge and your sheer perseverance.
It seems to me there really are two very distinct “camps” participating in this debate; scientists like yourself who openly admit the unknowns and uncertainties but who continue working to improve understanding, and cult leaders who simply repeat the mantra of doom and repel all boarders with calls to arms. It’s a sharp line and it’s pretty easy to identify the names of the charlatans. They’re a very small group relative to the population of all scientists and they show up in the media relentlessly, names like Mann, Trenberth, Jones and Karl. It’s almost a list of “the usual suspects”. While there are some equally well known counter-examples, they don’t seem to have a vocal following in popular media.
I think the boundary between camps is best expressed by your quote from the IPCC’s 3rd assessment:
It seems to me there’s really no more complete admission that climate modeling simply isn’t possible using our existing understanding and technology, but this doesn’t do anything to quiet the alarmists.
It would be helpful if climate scientists worked quietly among themselves to correct this problem instead of allowing a small group to terrorize the general population with gratuitous tales of the AGW boogerman and discrediting science in general as a side effect, some sort of “acceptable loss” or “collateral damage”. Convincing them to act like sane adults would be a step in the right direction.
+ a “Nuclear” million 🙂
What if we were only a very simple and cheap expirement away from falsifying the theory of the GHE once and for all?
How would that work? Well, all we need is a flat glass box, open at the bottom, and then put it on top of desert sand in some place where the sun can reach more or less the zenith. Obviously it is meant to cut off (atmospheric) convection, just like we have it in a closed car. Then we only need to measure the temperatures the sand will yield.
The expected outcome would be some temperature about 30 Centigrade higher than in the presence of convection. Given that sand can yield up to 90°C in direct sun light, that could result in a boiling 120°C.
I came to this simple conclusion after doing my analysis of clouds, with the result that clouds will reduce emissivity by a 35% on average. The question hereto is of course, what is emissivity under a clear sky. Deriving it from the commonly accepted GHE of roughly 155W/m2, I can attribute it all to clouds, leaving no scope for greenhouse gases.
However there is the infamous “back radiation” of some 324W/m2 like in this illustriation, which eventually puts the GHE to over 100° Centigrade. Of course “back radiation” is very hard to measure, and must therefore be considered a black box for every non “government-climatologist”.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/TDDizFtBw0I/AAAAAAAABMI/Hl_EW6F_-og/s1600/divine.gif
So I tried to find a leverage nonetheless. I looked at the moon and temperature variations up there. Temperatures are much more extreme on the moon, and the rate of heating and cooling should teach me something. But even sorting out the time component, it became obvious that the moons surface was heating (and cooling) by much higher rates than we can find anywhere on Earth.
Sure, there is not atmosphere and accordingly no convection. The hot car in the sun example demonstrates how important that factor will be. Yet there must be more to it. Of course lunar surface consists not really of sand, but rather of extremely fine dust. It means there will be a very thin layer on the surface, which naturally can heat and cool very qickly. And yet there was no way to argue the above illustration would be wrong, as it would explain to a large extend why temperatures are so inert on Earth.
As a decent fraction of solar radiation is already absorbed by the atmosphere, and only a tiny amount of surface radiation can emit into space, most heat will be caught within a complicated system of atmosphere. Logically then temperatures can never grow as high as on the moon.
In fact the hottest temperature ever measured on Earth is from the death valley, that reached 56.7°C (330K) in 1913. 1913? Yeah, I see the irony. On the moon however we reach up to 400K. So while convection could explain a part of it (~30 Centigrade), the rest will be due to the complicated climate system. So I thought.
However I was very unhappy with this status. I thought I should look at places located in high altitudes, where radial exchange would far less impaired by atmospheric GHGs, like in the Atacama desert or the Tibetian plateau. Strangely however, daily temperature variations are hardly higher there. As a maximum it is about 20° Centigrade, not more, and high altitude and/or extreme dryness will not change a lot. Only clouds seem to make a difference. But even at sea level, with moderately high humidity, 20° Centigrade are easily achieved if only the sky is clear. And that very much contradicts the GHE itself.
Then it struck me! What a fool I am! We are measuring air, not surface temperatures. Something we can not do on the moon, as there is no air. But actual surface temperatures on Earth turn much higher. I mean, we know that sand may turn very hot, well above 60°C. In the Gobi desert (not the hottest one), sand can reach up to 82°C, as this paper suggests.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1981LPI….12.1127W
That is despite convection aka “air cooling”. In truely hot areas, like the Sahara or the death valley, 90°C should be attainable. Turning off convection, another 30° Centigrade should be possible. So ultimately we should to reach temperatures almost as high as on the moon, which is impossible if the “back radiation” model above was correct. To heat a perfect black body to 120°C it would require about 1350W/m2, essentially all the sun can give. A temperature absolutely unattainable if current climate models were correct.
Actually, back radiation is trivial to measure. Even Roy Spencer can do it in his backyard: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
Mr. Spencer has not really thought things through. A device can not measure temperature by radiation only. It does not know how much radiation is reflected or what the rate of emissivity is. I am sure, there will be some amount of radiation even from a clear sky, but things are a way more complicated than this. Those facts I have named can not be ignored.
Btw.. he ignores the obvious subject that there is looking form brightness into darkness. It does not work in astronomy, and we are talking about professional telescopes. It will not work with a casual infrared thermometer either.
“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
I want this on a hoodie.
You should have continued reading: “The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles.”
That’s much too long for a hoodie Tom.
As always, Dr. Ball, an excellent post. Thank you.
Come, now, Dr. Ball. Mere ignorance of the facts should not be an obstacle to dogma.
As Belloc said,
“Oh, let us never, never, doubt
What nobody is sure about.”
In my opinion, Dr. Ball is the most consistent writer on this website.
Consistently good.
And this is one of his best articles.
Many people who make comments here treat the subject of “climate change” as real science, which it could be … but generally is not.
Modern “climate science” is mainly politics — so far very successful politics —
— using government bureaucrat scientists and computer “models” as props
to scare the general public with a climate change fantasy, and then the politicians
can claim they are virtuous people trying to save the Earth for our children.
It’s always good politics to throw in the word: “children”.
“The urge to save humanity from harmless carbon dioxide
is a “progressive” false front for their urge to rule.”
quote from my The Honest Global Warming Chart Blog
The exact causes of climate change are unknown.
Therefore, a correct physics model of the causes of climate change can not be constructed.
Without a correct physics model, a global climate model can not be constructed.
Of course you could construct a prototype climate model that makes wrong predictions!
And that’s all we have — failed prototypes (failed wild guess models) based on the opinion that CO2 controls the average temperature.
The wrong predictions are strong evidence CO2 levels do not control the average temperature.
We have failed models — not real models of any real process, that could be used for what-if studies, or predictions.
So why do we continue to call them “models”, as if they have value?
Because they are being used as props to promote the CO2 is evil fantasy.
The failed prototype models are nothing more than the disguised (wild guess) opinions of government bureaucrat scientists, converted to complex mathematical models to impress ordinary people.
We started this fantasy with wild guess predictions of a future climate catastrophe by UN bureaucrats, who later formed a group of “scientists” and activists to back up that unproven, and unprovable, conclusion.
— That was enough for some people to get scared.
Somewhat more educated people (not educated about climate change, of course) needed more persuasion, and they got that from government bureaucrat scientists with PhDs, and complex “models” that needed SuperComputers to run them.
The most educated people about climate change are the skeptics, who wonder why no one else seems to notice the 30 years of failed predictions from the failed climate models … and many decades since 1940 where there was cooling, or a flat temperature trend, contradicting the greenhouse warming theory.
A failed prototype climate model makes wrong predictions.
A real climate model makes right predictions.
Now you tell me: Do ANY real climate models, that make RIGHT predictions, exist today?
Of course not — we’d have to thoroughly understand what causes climate change first.
And we don’t.
So there can’t be any real climate models — just failed prototypes,
used as political props in the climate change fantasy drama,
that makes this website necessary.
My public service climate blog for non-scientists.
No ads — no money for me.
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
Richard,
I loved your comment, but I think something needs to be clarified:
“A failed prototype climate model makes wrong predictions.
A real climate model makes right predictions.
Now you tell me: Do ANY real climate models, that make RIGHT predictions, exist today?”
Even a wrong/false climate model can make correct predictions by chance. One could even tune a false model to LOOK accurate and use it to scare, threaten, direct policies etc. It has been mentioned here that there are “simple models” that are more accurate than complex ones. But that statement is unnerving, because a complex, chaotic system cannot be truly represented accurately by a simple model.
So even IF we had a model that made correct predictions, even if we were absolutely certain that we knew every facet of Earths CURRENT system inside out, backwards and forwards, we’d be stupid to rely on such a model as if it would always be an accurate representation.
Thank You Aphid
And I would add that we could have a perfect climate change physics model,
that was the foundation for a perfect global climate model,
and even then it is possible WE STILL COULD NOT PREDICT the future climate,
because natural changes were abrupt and random,
rather than any predictable cycle.
Meanwhile the average temperature has stayed in a one degree C. range since 1880
… even after all the “adjustments”, and infilling,
and huge parts of the planet with no thermometers,
and who knows what else was done to show more warming!
Today’s climate is wonderful, and the whole climate change fantasy is a big nothing.
I personally prefer the models that are tall and skinny and strut down the runway.
Those are real models.
GCM’s are a baloney sandwich
Has anyone found any research how global temperatures are affected by the depleted ozone later over the South Pole? It’s been essentially unchanged for 20-25 years.
Certainly a decreased energy absorption of UV in the upper atmosphere is occurring. How does that change the fluid dynamics of Earth’s atmospheric system?
Vicus,
Google is your friend:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/01/health/antarctic-ozone-layer-healing/index.html
InvestiGoogling is your thing, not mine.
A MSM site? Why couldn’t you provide actual data?
If you’re too freaking lazy to follow the links or look up the study mentioned in the article, that’s YOUR thing. Not mine.
Try Google scholar. Look up as many of the recent studies on the ozone as you need to become aware that maybe you shouldnt have so confidently declared it hasn’t changed in the past 20 years.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/06/30/science.aae0061
Here’s the link to the research talked about on that MSM page. Apparently you need some enabling.
Vic,
It’s right there at the end of the first paragraph. All you had to do was click.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/06/30/science.aae0061
Abstract
Industrial chlorofluorocarbons that cause ozone depletion have been phased out under the Montreal Protocol. A chemically-driven increase in polar ozone (or “healing”) is expected in response to this historic agreement. Observations and model calculations taken together indicate that the onset of healing of Antarctic ozone loss has now emerged in September. Fingerprints of September healing since 2000 are identified through (i) increases in ozone column amounts, (ii) changes in the vertical profile of ozone concentration, and (iii) decreases in the areal extent of the ozone hole. Along with chemistry, dynamical and temperature changes contribute to the healing, but could represent feedbacks to chemistry. Volcanic eruptions episodically interfere with healing, particularly during 2015 (when a record October ozone hole occurred following the Calbuco eruption).
Sixto:
Then he could just post the direct link. Even if, in this instance, was “super easy”, that still falls into having to fish to find information.
And that study had no bearing to what my query actually was…
Aphan:
I seem to have missed your needlessly snarky reply calling “me” lazy.
To quote myself, it’s “essentially unchanged”, which your did not actually refute.
And again, where’s the studies relating to my query?
Sixto,
It’s too HAAAARRRRDD to “fish” for that big old link all by himself!!!!!! If he’s too lazy to click and read, but has the energy and motivation to whine about the response he got, then you’re probably going to have to find him some research with pretty pictures and very small words. And maybe some animal crackers. In a safe place.
*And I’m no man*
Thousands of times I am presented links to media sites, which almost invariably have NO links. I do *not* have time for fishing.
Again, a snarky reply, without even acknowledging the substance of my original question.
If this is so easy, then answer my question. If not, admit “there is none”.