Chris Keating
AnonymousJuly 28, 2014 at 3:36 PMActually, this equation reminds me of Beer's law. I would bet that equation actually came from Beer's law, in fact.Delete
Anonymous #2- AnonymousJuly 16, 2014 at 8:36 PMOh, Hesus Kristo!!Delete
This is a terrible definition!
"""
Since there is no universally accepted definition for Earth’s average temperature, several different groups around the world use slightly different methods for tracking the global average over time, including:
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
NOAA National Climatic Data Center
UK Met Office Hadley Centre
"""
This could be the domino that drops the sets off the Rube Goldberg machine.
Straight from UCAR's website:
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what-average-global-temperature-now
This is ridiculous.
Why are there three different definitions for the global temperature!?
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 16, 2014 at 9:02 PMHere is the GISS definition:Delete
"""
The current analysis uses satellite observed nightlights to identify measurement stations located in extreme darkness and adjust temperature trends of urban and peri-urban stations for non-climatic factors, verifying that urban effects on analyzed global change are small.
"""
This definition doesn't seem half-bad, actually.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 16, 2014 at 9:03 PMOh, here is the citation for that:Delete
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ -
The purpose is to examine the question from different viewpoints to see if we keep getting the same answer. In fact, there is another very good temperature source: Berkeley Earth. This is actually a very good thing. We do not want to keep asking the question and get the answer from the same place every time. What we want to do is look at different data in different ways to determine what is going on. If we were getting different answers it would mean something. The fact that we keep getting the same answer, through all of the different systems, also tells us something.Delete
- AnonymousJuly 17, 2014 at 3:46 PMSo, it is a 'divide and conquer' approach of looking at global average temperature?
Hmm. That is a reasonable approach to use, actually.
Yeah, getting the same result from multiple different types of measurements tells you that:
--- Your definitions for global temperature are, on some level, consistent.
I looked through the 1007 page "The Physical Science Basis" report. And it looks as if most of the model predictions do seem to treat clouds as a net negative forcing. (See page 169 of the report: Figure 2.13) The model predictions vary between slightly positive aerosol forcing to -0.8 W/m^2. The average appears to be around -0.25 W/m^2 (from eyeballing the results).
I have no basis for comparison, I don't know what a high or a low radiative forcing result would be. I know what the basket should be from the sun's irradiance... but local heating factors?
What I really want to see is a table with all of the Forcings in the models stacked up right next to each other.
My best guess for a rough cooling calculation for -0.25 W/m^2 would be to take a parcel of water at some average temperature and remove some 0.25 W/m^2 of thermal energy from that, then look at the change in temperature.
The ocean would confuse that kind of a result, though, because I'm pretty sure that the ocean convects...
But the surface temperatures of the ocean have been increasing. The surface of the ocean *would* be the boundary between the solar flux and the deep ocean. The warm layer of the ocean *would* conform to the shape of the ice masses in the polar regions of the world. If the warm layer was getting warmer, this would cause more melt on average year after year. The ice may never disappear completely, especially in the winter.
So, if we know this is how the system works... what dynamic leads to ice ages?
Anonymous #2- AnonymousJuly 19, 2014 at 6:53 PMHere is something else interesting:Delete
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/
Could changing the salinity of the ocean shut down some of the ocean currents?
If the polar regions are warmed by the ocean currents; and if these currents were to begin to shut down and finally stop, thereby making them unable to carry heat from the warm mid-latitudes to the colder polar-latitudes, then could this ultimately cause a far greater formation of ice in the polar latitudes, thereby causing an ice age?
A much warmer climate might have more droughts; which could lead to issues with crop yields.
... but a big ice sheath could prevent crop yields from occurring altogether.
If we are decreasing the period between the "hot-climate" and the "cold-climate" cycle; this could become a serious problem.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 19, 2014 at 7:01 PMActually take a look at this presentation on how ocean currents works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ifoCIFKYXQ
This description is fantastic!
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly 22, 2014 at 8:29 PMChristopher Keating,ReplyDelete
Oi, I was missing something...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
Is this the idea that you have been driving at this whole time? That CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere control both the onset of Ice ages and the onset of warmer periods?
If CO2 is the *only* and most powerful control on the Earth's temperature and climate, then this idea that we should be alarmed about CO2 levels would be correct.
Is the system really this simple?
Is this the idea that you have been driving at?
Anonymous #2
-
This was really good. I need to find the rest of the videos he refers to and make a post with links to all of them. Thanks for sharing it.Delete
Is it that simple? Depends on what you are referring to. The basic idea is very simple: Bring in more energy than is going out and the temperature will rise. Everything beyond that is details, but details can really get complicated.
And, yes, we need to be alarmed about CO2 levels. - AnonymousJuly 23, 2014 at 3:01 AMWell, I liked his presentation. It gives a straightforward representation of the whole ordeal. Here is another presentation that I found rather interesting (this one is longer):Delete
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyAEucg6teg
I have no clue how this particular idea is perceived in the climate community.
The idea seems plausible, to me. Well... if all of the fresh water in the world makes up 2% of the total yearly supply, and if 1.6% of all water is locked in glacial ice; could changing the global solution of saline water by only 1.6% be enough to alter something as large the Gulf Stream? (Actually, with warmer temperatures, and higher probability of precipitation, perhaps the percentage of fresh water to saline water would be even higher than that?)
The issue with how to model clouds looks horrendously complicated.
Much of the issue of how to model the effect of vegetation seems to come from a fellow named "Gu". I have not yet found how they are really modeled.
How many myths about the way of the world do we have echoed in our culture today, celebrated as the great discoveries of our time?
Perhaps our cultures, our most powerful institutions, our most brilliant academics, and our greatest leaders are much like big children, fighting over their little toys.
Or perhaps my sense of humor has become a little too wry tonight. Don't take it personally, there have been other things that I have been reading that have triggered it.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 23, 2014 at 6:06 AMI mean... we *do* have examples in history where the wise men, the de-facto scientists at the time predicted doom and gloom... generated a great deal fear around a present and dangerous threat to the world as they knew it.Delete
How in the world did the high priests in the Incan civilization manage to convince the rest of the Incan population that they needed to carve the hearts out of their chests to appease the Sun god enough to come back up every day. The sun had always come up in the past, so... what was it? A little bit of Milgram with a dash of group-think?
So the hysterical people did what most people do when they are hysterical; they did something irrational. And the high priests of the Incan culture managed the succeed in their rent-seeking for a time.
What was it exactly that finally managed to finish off their civilization? Was it internal corruption like the Roman empire?
Anyways, this summarizes my real concerns with the IPCC predictions. And my concerns could very well turn out to be unfounded and unfair to the climate scientists.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 23, 2014 at 6:25 PMOne of the more powerful socio-economic influences in the history of the Western cultures was the power of catholic guilt.Delete
The idea was simple. Most 'rational' people want to get into heaven. But there was a price to pay to get there, a penance. You have to accept that Christ died for your sins, you have to acknowledge him as your savior, and in doing so you acknowledge that his blood is on your hands. Jesus died, and it is all your fault. This is an extraordinarily powerful dogma for manipulating people.
Then something irritating and, at the same time, useful, showed up. People began to recognize another form of 'truth'. That it was possible to observe the behaviors of nature, ask questions about those behaviors, and eventually arrive at a greater 'truth'; the laws of nature. The scientific method. It was applied to find many interesting 'truths', it was applied to find that the Earth was round and not flat. It was applied to find that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. It was applied to find the useful applications of electricity, it was applied to build engines. It would be so easy for one who grew up with these 'miracles' to assume there is a mystical component to the scientific method, and to place the method on a pedestal; much like a dogma.
It is fairly simple if you think about it; all that the scientific method gives you is a systematic way of stumbling and bumbling around in the dark. So when people's faith has been shaken and they are no longer able to take the old dogmas of the original catholic church as seriously, then how do you manipulate them?
Centuries under the same dogma had programmed people in Western civilization with a certain set of 'buttons' and pre-programmed responses attached to their guilt, attached to their purse-strings. But the original dogma was no longer as potent as before. There was a "vacuum" in dogma-space.
All that one had to do was warp the scientific method into a dogma, in and of itself. Define a set of laws by imitating the scientific method, use the laws to justify to the people that the world is dying and it is all their fault. Push the right buttons, and open your purse.
And if you have competing ideas that also imitate the scientific method, simply shut them up. Do you have a competing idea from a Nobel laureate in quantum field theory? Call into question his intrinsic validity, he is not a climate scientist, he is old, let the journalists in on this feeding frenzy. They can muddy the waters quite nicely.
There are a few entities in this world who could stand financially to gain from the dogma; there are a few entities who would clearly lose. So the entities who could clearly lose have a disadvantage when it comes to their knowledge of climate science as it has randomly managed to evolve in the past few decades. This, of course, does not stop them from resisting on whatever level they are capable of comprehending. They use their own journalists; they find their own 'experts'. Then both sides of the argument begin their siege warfare on one another. If you think the waters were muddy before, let's just say that this issue has become exacerbated.
So, when I observe from a hill and ponder the preponderance of data and ideas. I think I see the merits to the different sides of the argument. And if I seem confused about which side is more correct than the other... it is because, in truth, I am quite confused.
From the hill where I sit, the argument looks very much like the butter battle from Dr. Seuss.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 23, 2014 at 8:06 PMWe study the climate precisely so that we can understand how it behaves. We know that if we modeled it correctly then the models should accurately reproduce what has happened in the past.Delete
That is how you figure out how close your model is to reality.
There is a reason why we focus on the models. If the models cannot make accurate predictions about the past; then it means that the mathematics behind your theory might be bollocks.
If the mathematics behind your theory might be bollocks, then isn't the idea of exacting policies that lead to an exorbitant increase in the cost of electricity a little bit... foolish?
It is not about rejecting science; it is about making wise decisions.
I have not yet been completely convinced that the process of climate prediction is any more predictive of the future climate than models of the stock market are about whether or not a particular stock will go up or down. (But actually, if you've got one of those, can I have it?)
Anonymous #2 -
There are two problems with this. First, you are assuming the only thing that can go wrong with a model is the math. In fact, the biggest problem we have with models are things that can't be predicted, like ENSO and volcanic eruptions. But, the other thing is that models are actually quite good, certainly better than what deniers want to let on. And, they are a lot better than models that predict the stock market. Too bad, I would love to have a good one of those.Delete
- AnonymousJuly 23, 2014 at 9:16 PM"In fact, the biggest problem we have with models are things that can't be predicted, like ENSO and volcanic eruptions."Delete
That's a little bit funny, isn't it? In order to have better climate models what we really need are better geophysical models of the Earth's mantle that can predict where, when, and how big a volcanic eruption is going to be.
But given that large strongly interconnected systems tend to be chaotic; meaning, the final solution to your model is highly sensitive to the set of constants on the different forcing terms and can be radically different depending on the order in which these constants change.
How can you be sure that the final outcome that is reflected in your model reflects the outcome that the real system is simulating is going to really take?
Anonymous #2 -
When we put the real world events in, the results come out quite well. Again, do a little checking and you will find the models do much better than is claimed by deniers. What that also means is that we can do long-term forecasts. The effects of short-term events like ENSO and volcanoes goes away over time and things return to the baseline.Delete
-
I'm behind on responding to comments and am trying to catch up. You asked about the fresh water effects on ocean circulation. Remember, the salt water doesn't have to become fresh water, it only needs to become less dense and that doesn't take all that much fresh water. Greenland is shedding gigatons of fresh water every year, but that still isn't enough. However, if the trend continues there is a chance it could reach that point in the coming decades.Delete
- AnonymousJuly 23, 2014 at 11:38 PMIt was a really interesting sounding dynamic. I thought that it sounded kind of cool.Delete
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 24, 2014 at 4:12 AMDr. Keating,
I can hardly believe this. But I just found something brilliant!
Check this out:
http://troyca.wordpress.com/
"Data and Code" is available, and his model is written in R. Troy Masters is one of the people handling one of the climate simulations.
My guess is that there are several different classes of models. There may be a few that are based on GCMs; these would be fantastically complicated, then there might be more averaged models. These might be more accurate... and less susceptible to numerical error; which you tend to get over lots of little integration times.
Oh I'm so happy right now; so, uh... I just need to figure out how to read "R". It doesn't look like a complicated language, so this shouldn't take long.
And just looking at the data used to calibrate his model; it looks like a bunch of temperature data in Kelvin associated with a date. This looks like a *very* simple linear model. Are they all like this?
Anonymous #2
Anonymous, you said: "Oh, yeah... "how can this heat the ocean? … G: This can also be the ocean, it can absorb and reflect light. Sometimes when the ocean absorbs the IR, it will just heat up. It's just the way that stuff works when it interacts with light."ReplyDelete
You spent a long time describing radiative effects but did not show how our emissions might warm the ocean. It's hard to accept that their tiny radiative effect on the 'skin' of the ocean could halt the huge amount of solar-derived thermal energy rising from the water, not only because the sheer lack of thermal mass in those few gigatonnes of greenhouse gases makes it seem incredible, but also because there's no known mechanism whereby it can happen.
- AnonymousJuly 27, 2014 at 6:51 PM"It's hard to accept that their tiny radiative effect on the 'skin' of the ocean could halt the huge amount of solar-derived thermal energy rising from the water, not only because the sheer lack of thermal mass in those few gigatonnes of greenhouse gases makes it seem incredible"Delete
You are right about your understanding of the thermal physics here. The thermal effect of the air physically moving heat into the Ocean because of it's direct boundary in contact with the air should be pretty puny. It might have some *little* effect on the Ocean temperatures, but not much.
"but also because there's no known mechanism whereby it can happen."
This is where you are mistaken. Because it is the radiative effects that provide the most powerful mechanism for heating the Ocean.
As more CO2 accumulates from our emissions into the atmosphere the radiation balance changes; and you have more infrared radiation that gets trapped between the atmospheric layers. This infrared radiation can either be reflected, or absorbed by the ocean. But remember that there is a lot of the infrared radiation; so much that some percentage of it is going to be absorbed by the water. When the infrared is absorbed by the water the water can either release the infrared radiation, or it could simply keep it and increase it's temperature.
But it is not just the infrared radiation that the Ocean can absorb. It can also absorb the shorter wavelength sunlight as well. This is the same deal; the ocean can either re-radiate what it absorbs or simply increase it's temperature. - AnonymousJuly 27, 2014 at 6:51 PMDelete
"It's hard to accept that their tiny radiative effect on the 'skin' of the ocean"
The surface area of the Ocean is pretty big. Check this out:
Solar power density by the time it reaches Earth:
1321-1413 W/m^2
Solar power density by the time it reaches the Ocean:
Os
Radius of the Earth:
6.378e6 m
Formula for Surface Area:
A = 4*pi*r^2
Total Surface Area of the Earth:
Ae = 4*pi*r^2 = 511.18e12 m^2
Surface Area of the Earth that it being illuminated by the Sun:
Ai = Ae/2 = 255.59e12 m^2
We know that the ocean roughly takes up some 70% of the Earth's Surface...
Surface area that is ocean that is illuminated (averaged over a whole day -- a full earth rotation):
Ao = 0.7*Ai = 178.91e12 m^2
Now we calculate how much power is being absorbed by the ocean; on average:
Po = b*Os*Ao
Po = Total solar power absorbed by ocean
b = Some constant that dictates what percentage of power that is absorbed by the ocean (Should be some number between 0 and 1)
Os = Solar Power density by the time it reaches the Ocean (Should be less than 1321 W/m^2, but greater than 0 W/m^2) = k*1e3
k = A constant dictating the solar energy density by the time it reaches the Ocean. (Should be between 0 and 1)
Ao = Illuminated surface Area of the Ocean.
Po = b*Os*Ao = b*k*1e3*178.91e12 = b*k*178.91e15 W
Just look at how big number is! The order of magnitude is realistically somewhere between 1e13 and 1e15. If you concentrated that much power into one place, you could incinerate a whole forest with that much power. And that is just what is being absorbed into the Ocean! Granted, there is a lot of Ocean there. So the amount by which the ocean temperature changes will be slight.
Some of it will be converted to higher ocean temperatures, some of it will be converted into infrared radiation that will linger at night (this infrared radiation that lingers is the reason why the Earth doesn't get to be as cold as space at night). The amount infrared radiation that lingers partially because of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are making more CO2, so the amount of infrared radiation that lingers at night should be greater, and it *is* from burning fossil fuels.
See, this is how much it has effected the temperature anomaly of the ocean surface:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html
Notice how it has been getting bigger. Higher temperature sea water on the surface can be carried into the deeper ocean by currents. The heating of the sea surface coupled with ocean currents carrying that heat to the deeper ocean leads to higher temperatures in the Ocean over time.
The radiative effects are a powerful mechanism for heating the ocean.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 27, 2014 at 7:01 PMHmm... my estimation for the order of magnitude might be off. I still need to find a table where I can get a good idea of what the constant "b" should be.Delete
Give me a second, I will see if I can find that.
That is: Po = b*k*1.7891e17
I am not sure if "b" should be 0.01 or 0.0001. I honestly don't know what it is. I need to look it up, if I can find it. An accurate representation of the number exists. The scientific community has an accurate representation floating around in their data tables somewhere.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 27, 2014 at 7:18 PMHah! This is a good graph:Delete
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_02.php
Actually this is fantastic! It doesn't quite answer the question I had about what "b" should be but it tells us some other interesting things.
Look at the table for flux vs wavenumber. What this tells us is that there are at least 8 different wavelengths in the infrared that are being absorbed by water.
So yes, in theory -- but this is very solid theory, this is theory that we can build good lasers with, the CO2 in the atmosphere increases the amount of infrared radiation that get's trapped between the ocean and the atmosphere. And the Ocean will absorb the IR radiation... in 8 different wavelengths!!
I think I am interpreting that correctly, I never actually did anything with spectrometry, so I have to be very careful about how I interpret these graphs; because my interpretation might be wrong.
If you see mistakes in my assumptions or calculations, please point them out. I want to give Mr. Treadgold a good explanation.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 27, 2014 at 7:35 PMYeah, it looks like my interpretation is of the electromagnetic radiation that get's absorbed by water is correct. Check this out:Delete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water
Ah, but those 8 different wavelengths are actually what gaseous hydrogen absorbs. Water vapor.
Oceanic water has a different absorption curve. I guess that makes sense. Water vapor is actually in a higher energy state of H2O than liquid water. So being in that higher energy state changes the absorption curve.
That's actually really interesting.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 27, 2014 at 7:56 PMActually check this out. This is really interesting:Delete
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
Even changing the Isotope content of H2O can cause different absorption lines. I didn't know that. This is really cool. This means that this information must be coming from an entire field of Nuclear Spectroscopy that I didn't know existed until today.
And knowing that there might be all sorts of different isotopes in Ocean water it means that the ocean water could absorb all sorts of different infrared radiation.
That is another mechanism for heating the Ocean. I have no idea if this is convincing to you at all; but it is convincing to me.
The theory tells what kinds of things can happen, and why.
The measurements tell us what is happening.
And the models (if they are good) tell us how much things are happening. We can tell if they are good if they make predictions that correctly correspond to the measurements.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 28, 2014 at 12:03 AMMaybe I can approach this from a different direction.Delete
Do you believe the statement that we can burn holes into things with light?
Do you believe the statement that lots of light is better and burning holes into things than not a lot of light?
Here is a laser:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h476ypvOY0c
Why does that work? All that laser is doing is producing light. When a cutting laser cuts through metal, what is happening? Well, the metal absorbs the light from the laser. The temperature in the metal goes up, perhaps high enough to turn the metal into a liquid, then the liquid metal diffuses away from light that has a high energy density; and this should be the mechanism that does the cutting.
The point is, the material, which could be water, it could be steel, it could be hydrogen absorbs the light. When the light is absorbed, it can either emit different electromagnetic radiation, or it could become a higher temperature. In reality, it will probably do a little bit of both.
If the Ocean water absorbs the light from the sun; it can become hotter. If the Ocean water absorbs infrared radiation that happens to be hanging around, then it can become hotter. Does this sound reasonable?
And by the way. Here is a better description of how a laser works than what I gave you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUEbMjtWc-A
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 28, 2014 at 3:46 AMHey, check this out:
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_10.htm
This is great!
Anonymous #2AnonymousJuly 26, 2014 at 10:54 AMOi, I resort to this because this is the first place where I can find some direct explanations on the model descriptions. I am not sure how far I should trust Richard Lindzen.ReplyDelete
I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I generally respect Gavin Schmidt. And this is Dr. Schmidt's assessment of Dr. Lindzen:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/
But I cannot ignore the stored up set of papers in this resource:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html
This contains some of the most straightforward set of papers that describe the models that I have seen.
Radiation Balance Model:
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/remosiclmo.pdf
Dr Keating, if you have a better resource where I can read about "Radiation balance models", let's see it. I want to read it.
I want to understand it.
I want to build a small climate model. I want to know the process. I already have an idea of how to start with a linear model as a framework and how to find the controlling constants in the equation.
It's not clear to me how you do it for a large nonlinear model, however.
What is the definition of the climate sensitivity parameter? Where did it first come from? What was the first instance of it?
Anonymous #2
- AnonymousJuly 26, 2014 at 11:13 AMFound a potentially better resource:Delete
This would be better:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cited.html
Radiative Forcing:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha01900k.html
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 26, 2014 at 11:29 AMOk, actually, here is a website devoted to this:Delete
http://climatesight.org/2013/06/18/a-simple-stochastic-climate-model-introduction/
This looks like a good resource.
I am thinking that it might be about time to admit that I might be wrong in my distrust of the IPCC.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 26, 2014 at 12:16 PMWhy are there so many different estimations of the climate sensitivity parameter!?Delete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
Idso (1998) Says it should be 0.4 C/(W/m^2)
Schlesinger and Andronova (2001) Says it should be between 1-10 C/(W/m^2)
Forest (2002) Says it should be 1.4 - 7.7 C/(W/m^2)
"ScienceDaily reported on a study by Fasullo and Trenberth (2012),[38] who tested model estimates of climate sensitivity based on their ability to reproduce observed relative humidity in the tropics and subtropics. The best performing models tended to project relatively high climate sensitivities, of around 4 °C.[38]"
What makes this so difficult?
How do you actually calculate the Radiative Forcing?
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 26, 2014 at 12:20 PMThis is why:
http://storm.colorado.edu/~seand/headinacloud/?p=204
Anonymous #2- I am having a difficult time keeping up with all of these posts you make, but I will make a couple of comments on two of your sources.Delete
The entire Idzo family is supported by the Heartland Institute and paid with the direction to undermine climate science. This goes right to my claim that anyone connected to Heartland in anyway is not a credible source of information. Do a little research on them and you will see what I mean.
Lindzen use to be a chaired professor at MIT before leaving. There is all sorts of rumors on why he left, but nothing is confirmed. One thing, you don't just give up a chaired professorship, especially not at a place like MIT. He has been caught faking his data and has been caught lying about taking funding from the fossil fuel industry. Every one of his scientific claims concerning climate change have been debunked. - AnonymousJuly 26, 2014 at 6:14 PMSorry, I didn't sleep last night. I was feverishly reading through code and articles, trying to wrap my head around it all. I became a little bit carried away with my comments.
"The entire Idzo family is supported by the Heartland Institute and paid with the direction to undermine climate science"
Yeah, there is a whole list of the different climate sensitivity parameters on that wikipedia page. I don't generally know where any of them come from.
It is not yet clear to me how the models are created. The simple one's that I think I derived above, earlier were probably a class EBMs (Energy Balance Models). But I have no idea how my model equations compare to the models that are used in the IPCC reports.
I know a lot about numerical methods and general modeling techniques. I know far less about climate modeling specifically.
Anonymous #2AnonymousJuly 26, 2014 at 1:34 AMIt looks like R and fortran 90 are the main languages used in GISS modelE. The time integration technique is a 'leapfrog' time integration technique.ReplyDelete
This appears to be a global circulation model; this is not a statistical energy balance model in the strictest sense of the word.
Fortran 90 is nice. It is a lot nicer to use than the older species of fortran.
The vegetation; which was the main piece that I was wondering how you account for seems well... hard to judge.
Terms floating around in the code:
"Canopy conductance"
"Canopy photosynthesis"
"Canopy photosynthesis integration using Simpson's rule" -- that integration technique is about as simple as you can get. Much simpler even than Gaussian quadrature.
It is all 'leaves' and 'canopy'. But forests are not the only thing that is consuming CO2.
It is a well commented code. I wonder how they physically model the vegetation, though? Their code doesn't physically model each tree and every leaf on the tree, does it? I can see the dynamics are probably ok as long as you are sticking to a forested region with a nice canopy. It is not clear, to me, if the behavior of algae in river systems would be taken into account with this code. It looks like this isn't taken into account, in this model.
But here is the interesting thing... if algae blooms ended up consuming more carbon dioxide than all the deciduous forests on the planet by a huge margin; then it would mean that the carbon dioxide concentration estimates over the long integration time would be too high. If the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is the main thing that is influencing the heating from the radiation balance equation; then it would mean that you would, theoretically, over-estimate the temperature anomaly in the extended integration times. You might not be able to trust the temperature projection for later dates like 2100.
And we know that clouds are a 'wild-card' as Dr. Keating likes to call them. Very difficult thing to model.
I wonder how long this code can stand to be run for before it begins to produce poor results? I ask this question, not because there is anything wrong with the code, necessarily. Any computer model that is run for too long of an integration time will begin to experience issues.
Very intuitive, though. This is a modular and very well designed piece of code. The authors have my respect.
Anonymous #2
- AnonymousJuly 26, 2014 at 2:27 AMHmm, RADIATION.f is about 13,000 lines of code. It is the biggest fortran script in the bunch.Delete
The whole code has about 101,072 lines to it. This gives you a taste of how big these things can get.
I would have expected this to require a supercomputer to run properly. But it doesn't look like there are any calls to MPI. I might be able to get this to run on my computer here from home, I would just need to get a fortran 90 compiler. gfortran or something...
It takes into account dust (this surprises me, actually, this should be tough). Uses 'Mie Scattering'.
Oi, there are so many *magic* numbers in the constant parametrizations. Don't mind me, I'm just complaining.
"CR(C) Read: Elaine Mathews 10 Fractional Vegetation Distributions
C 10 global maps (72x46) depict fractional vegetation/soil types
C Map-1 (bright sand) + Map-10 (black dirt) define desert albedo
C (sum of Maps 1-10 over land-area (ILON,JLAT) grid boxes = 1.0)"
!!! --> I recognize this! This is fantastic!! If I understand correctly, this is a "game-of-life" style set of grid cell definitions. This is how the vegetation is taken into account. This is brilliant! I had thought that you could do this... but to actually *see* it applied... in a GCM of all things! So... can the grid cell definitions evolve into something else over time?
If they are using "game-of-life" evolution style mechanics for the cell topography; then I might know of a way to generate the cloud cover and simulate their evolution and dissipation.
One would need access to the cloud data collected from satellites in order to get the numbers to resemble what physically happens in real world. And it would not necessarily mimic the same path that you see in the real world. It would be statistical, in some sense.
This is more complex than what I would think to try, there seems to be lot's of classifications for land cells:
"C Each LASTVC digit(6) specifies a model configuration
C e.g.: LASTVC= 123456
C L=0,1,..9 Layers NL= Any,GCM12,GCM23,Pset,Hset,etc
C A=0,1,..6 Atmosphere Any,Trop,MLS,MLW,SAS,SAW,Std
C S=0,1,..9 Surf Types POCEAN=1,PEARTH=1,POICE=1,etc
C T=0,1,..9 Tracer Aer Tau=0, Tau=0.1 Aer Comp(1-9)
C V=0,1,..9 Vegetation Sand,Tundra,Grass,Shrubs, etc
C C=0,1,..9 Cloud,R=10 Clim Cloud Tau in Layer(1,-9)"
Really, look at all of these cell classifications! Words are not adequate. This is brilliant!
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 26, 2014 at 2:45 AMRADIATION.f looks like it was written in the days of Fortran 77. Very old style of coding.Delete
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 26, 2014 at 4:13 AMUnderstand that my comments are just from a cursory glance from looking at the code. Others who are more knowledgeable than I am have offered comments on the process.Delete
Here is a statement from Gavin Schmidt:
http://edge.org/conversation/the-physics-that-we-know
Actually, this is a very good article. I highly recommend it.
Dr. Schmidt makes an interesting statement:
"The problem with climate prediction and projections going out to 2030 and 2050 is that we don't anticipate that they can be tested in the way you can test a weather forecast. It takes about 20 years to evaluate because there is so much unforced variability in the system — the chaotic component of the climate system — that is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically. This is something we can't really get a handle on. We can only look at the climate problem once we have had a long enough time for that chaotic noise to be washed out, so that we can see that there is a full signal that is significantly larger than the inter-annual or the inter-decadal variability. This is a real problem because society wants answers from us and won't wait 20 years."
If the IPCC wasn't dead-set on hitting the 'panic' button, most people would probably be more than happy to just let you develop your code in peace until it was up to snuff.
He continues:
"How can you improve the level of context? Can you provide people with resources that allow them to assess the argument — not whether or not a given policy is the right one, but whether there is an argument to justify such a policy? "
This sounds similar to what Henry Maldonado was saying earlier.
Dr. Schmidt continues:
"This leads to maybe the final question that I think about, which is, "how do you increase the signal-to-noise ratio in communication about complex issues?" We battle with this on a small scale in our blog's comment thread. In un-moderated forums about climate change, it just devolves immediately into name-calling. It becomes very difficult discuss science, to talk about what aerosols do to the hydrological."
Frustrating, isn't it?
"The problem is that the noise serves various people's purposes. It's not that the noise is accidental. When it comes to climate, a lot of the noise is deliberate because if there's an increase of noise you don't hear the signal, and if you don't hear the signal you can't do anything about it. Increasing the level of noise is a deliberate political tactic. It's been used by all segments of the political spectrum for different problems. With the climate issue in the US, it is used by a particular segment of the political community in ways that is personally distressing. How do you deal with that? That is a question, which I am still asking myself."
*cough* Heartland Institute.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 26, 2014 at 6:19 AMThis video outlines a skeptics viewpoint:Delete
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NZuh4_A5kw
A skeptic or perhaps not-quite-decided is probably the best definition for my perspective on this issue. I have flipped once on how I think we should solve this this issue before; assuming that a new set of carbon-neutral energy sources or a brilliant new mechanism for storing energy that makes wind and solar about as cheap coal or nuclear, I would immediately flip again.
A solution that brings the price of electricity from about 11 cents/kWh to between 35-150 cents/kWh seems foolish to me because it would immediately make *everything* more expensive. It might make electricity so expensive that it becomes a luxury good; and I do *not* want us and/or the poor among us to be forced to revert back to the society we were before Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, and Nikola Tesla introduced electricity.
So what is the horizon? An opportunity to develop new methods of generating electricity. An opportunity to replace the fuel in our vehicles with a better alternative.
Biofuel seems foolish, I cannot imagine a more stupid thing to do than to tie our energy and our transportation needs to our food supply. I can think of *so* many ways this could go wrong. Do something stupid with this and we might find ourselves stuck in the same kind of mass starvation scenario that developed in the Ukraine under Stalin's regime in 1933. This would be bad, we should avoid this.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 26, 2014 at 6:39 AMActually, biofuel from animal and human excrement wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. It would not be carbon-neutral.Delete
The foolish method of handling biofuel would be more... raising entire fields of corn, specifically for the use of refinement into ethanol.
If it were possible to operate 100% electric cars that would be great. But the ones that I see today are way outside of most people's price-range. $30,000+. The other thing that makes them expensive is the Lithium-Ion batteries that they use lose effective range at a crazy fast rate. This means that you need to replace the battery pretty often.
Then there are more systemic issues with this solution:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/524866/the-coming-problem-with-electric-cars-how-to-charge-them-all/
Hydrogen would be a possible fuel source. But the best way to get it is through cracking water. That requires a *lot* of electricity.
With Peak-Oil coming, we need some solution for our transportation problems.
On 100% wind/solar neither solution is likely work. With significant excess of cheap electricity, much is possible. With significant lack of cheap electricity, very little is possible.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 26, 2014 at 7:28 AMHmm... I should have done more research on Dr. Evans before posting that video, he is not the best poster child for my point. "Gold-for-Nerds---Really?!"
Gold is how you confuse the tin-hats into giving you money... but I digress.
Anonymous #2AnonymousJuly 25, 2014 at 4:27 AMDr. Keating,ReplyDelete
Here is an interesting discussion in the journal 'Nature':
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-forecast-for-2018-is-cloudy-with-record-heat-1.13344
Nature, by the way, is one of the more respected journals in publication today. It might cost $200/yr to have a subscription, or $18/article. If I were consistently making considerably more money, then I would declare a yearly subscription worth it for no other reason than the articles are intrinsically interesting.
This article was written by a Jeff Tollefson, who appears to be a reporter.
Read the section:
"Lost heat: why has the warming slowed?"
Actually, in thinking about the process of the radiation balance, I had an odd thought. Venus is actually pretty close to the sun. The solar flux at Venus is usually around 2647 W/m^2 as compared to Earth's 1413 W/m^2.
The surface of Venus is supposed to be pretty darn hot. 462 degrees C on average. Hot enough to melt lead. This would mean that the black body radiation that causes very hot metal to glow would be pretty strong. On average, a heck of a lot of IR would be generated between the clouds --- who would reflect much of the radiation, and the ground ground should too.
From Planck's law you would be looking at the main frequency being generated at:
v = T*(58.8e9 Hz/K)
v ~ frequency
T ~ Temperature
v = (735 K)*58.8e9 Hz/K = 43,218e9 Hz = 43.2e12 Hz
How much of it?
Let's go to Stefan-Boltzman's law to figure that out:
j = sigma*T^4
sigma ~ 5.67e-8 W/(m^2*K^4)
j = sigma*(735)^4 = 16,547 W/m^2 !!!
Holy fudge-muffin that's high! I did not expect that...
Is all of that just getting reflected back to the ground by the clouds? Some of it must be getting through... what the heck would cloud convection do to that? The fluid mechanics of Venus' clouds must be something else...
Let's compare that to Earth... what is the average temperature of Earth? 16 degrees C according to this:
http://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html
j = sigma*(273+16)^4 = 395.525 W/m^2
And just for kicks and grins:
j = sigma*(273+18)^4 = 406.6 W/m^2
j = sigma*(273+22)^4 = 429.4 W/m^2
Hmm... so what is the Irradiance of Venus? That should be pretty simple for a satellite or a probe to measure.
Someone here did a better job than what I am doing right now:
http://scholarsandrogues.com/2011/05/02/venus-climate-i-venus-surface-hot/
So... um, the solar radiation is kibbles and bits compared to Venus's black body radiation. That was not quite what I was expecting...
So... let's pretend that Venus was like Earth some unspecified many years ago. Same amount of ocean; how long would it take to generate the cloudy, bright, beautiful marble that we know and love today?
This is interesting..
Anonymous #2
- AnonymousJuly 25, 2014 at 5:12 AMDr. Keating,Delete
How can I get started with looking at the differential equations that dictate the behavior of these climate models?
I cannot make any judgements about the predictions of the models without looking at a few of them. I can see, from an extrinsic perspective, by looking at a graph, how they seem to track the measured global temperature. I would *really* like to see some of the boundary conditions, initial conditions and a full definition of the equations that are being solved.
I also want to know what the numerical methods are that are being used to solve them. Is it merely simple finite difference? If so, what kind of a time integration technique is being used?
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 25, 2014 at 5:49 AMI would imagine that the best approach would be a Galerkin-Ritz decomposition followed by a spectral approach... because this is inherently cyclical.Delete
The most simple time integration technique would lead to excess heating in your model; because fundamental quantities in your equations would not be conserved. Robust time integration techniques exist, but even they are not perfect.
Anonymous #2 -
Energy will always escape. If the amount of energy escaping is less than what is coming in, you warm up. If the amount escaping is greater than what is coming in, you cool down. But, if you are at equilibrium the amount coming in is equal to the amount leaving. Venus is at, or very near, equilibrium so the surface temperature on Venus is pretty stable (ignoring variations in solar activity).Delete
-
On the subject of the differential equations in the climate models, I have to admit that I don't know how you would go about doing that. Models are very proprietary and many modelers will not share their work. I do models (not climate science models) and I don't share my code. You would have to approach the modelers and talk to them about it.Delete
- AnonymousJuly 25, 2014 at 4:13 PMThe ability to review the models is an absolutely necessary component of the process.Delete
If this is not available, then it keeps the public ignorant and serves the case of the 'deniers' quite well.
If we cannot see the code and the differential equations that are being used, we cannot trust any of the assertions made by them, scientists or not.
For all we know, the code could be filled with 'fudge' factors.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 25, 2014 at 4:49 PMSure, much of the public is not climate scientists.
But some of them work on financial models. Some work on quantum mechanical models. They might not know some of the specifics behind the physics of the atmosphere, but they have a pretty solid understanding of the process of modeling, the mathematical techniques used, and the numerical techniques used.
And if you use the wrong numerical technique; your solution *will* blow up numerically. Or it could produce unphysical oscillations, Gibbs phenomena, or many other things could go wrong.
Some of them are mechanical engineers --- fluid mechanics is an integral part of their curriculum... these guys tend to know more about fluid mechanics than most physicists in the US.
Engineers, as a whole, would have members knowledgeable enough to be able to sort out the stupid assumptions in the model from the reasonable ones.
When an experiment is conducted; the experiment should be reproducible.
When a simulation is conducted; the simulation should be reproducible.
Why isn't the code shared?
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly 25, 2014 at 7:01 PMHmm... looks like not all the code is shared; only the most important ones.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/
GISS modelE:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
NCAR CCSM:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/
Ok, my aroused suspicions have been alleviated.
The question remains, though, why the heck are these things proprietary? If you want the members of the public to trust you; then hiding your code and your models in a dark little corner only serves to hurt your public image and your cause.
Given the policies you are trying to change, why would you risk it? Is there a greater risk from sharing your code, somehow? The only risk to sharing your code, that I can think of, would be that the different climate modeling groups are in competition. If they are competing for grant money, then it doesn't necessarily behoove them to make their code visible to the public, and the other groups.
Things like code are only made proprietary when there is money on the line; and the only money that is on the line and accessible to the climate modelers is the grant money.
If you are trying to stop global warming by changing public policy, then this is your cause.
But making the code proprietary only hurts your cause, by causing the public to be suspicious of your methods, because the public cannot see them. Why take this risk?
I can think of no reason why the climate modelers would take that risk unless acquiring the grant money over their competition is actually more important, to them, than their cause...
Maybe I just don't have much of an imagination.
Why is the code made proprietary?
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly 28, 2014 at 8:50 PMEarlier on I said this:
"I am being completely honest here. I have not seen an adequate explanation for why we should expect the averaged solution for the weather equations; these are based on the Navier-Stokes equations, the fluid equations that describe the motion of the atmosphere, which are indisputably chaotic, and nonlinear; why should we expect that the 'equations' that Nature would follow for climate to be any less chaotic?"
No sooner had I asked what I thought might be a "good" question that I found a possible "really good" answer.
Thank you, again, Gavin Schmidt!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/
And he even links to several papers. And I can even read them!
http://wind.mit.edu/~hansen/papers/LeaQJRMS.pdf
It looks like Dr. Lea applied "Adjoint Sensitivity Methods" to the Advective Vorticity Transport model. That's an interesting numerical technique, actually this looks *extremely* clever. Wow, I'm going to have to try and wrap my head around this... I think I can use this...
Here is an example description of the process of applying Adjoint Sensitivity methods to solving another problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xiObD3hczc
This gets into some of the more advanced numerical techniques. I need to wrap my head around it more before I can begin to see how it answers my question.
You need a few things to have a useful, predictive model:
(1) You need a good mathematical framework that emulates the behavior of real quantities.
(2) You need to know how your mathematical framework can break and do you best to prevent "breaking" from happening.
(3) You need a *solid* set of numerical approximation techniques to implement your mathematical framework. If you don't have this; your solution can fall apart.
(4) You need to know *exactly* how your numerical approximation techniques can break, and when they will start spitting out junk.
(5) You need to prevent both your mathematical framework and your numerical approximation framework from breaking.
-- By the way; no computer code is written by this point ---> This is all math, and some of it can get nasty.
(6) Write your code based on the numerical approximation framework that you created.
(7) Debug the code.
(8) When you are satisfied that all the previous steps are sound; *now* you start to run your predictive simulations.
(9) You test your simulation against reality. If any of the previous steps have issues; your simulation will not fare well against reality.
(10) Rinse and repeat all of the previous steps until you have a simulation that is predicatively useful.
(11) Open up the Champagne; give yourself a pat on the back, then repeat all previous steps until you have a better model.
Don't kid yourself; what the climatologists do is *hard*.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium
Comments below were moved July 30, 2014
Mike, I said: "These and others are good questions, yet all you do is call the questioner names." Now you say: "Once again you have made a plainly false statement."ReplyDelete
But I wasn't addressing the consensus, I was asking questions.
When the lack of warming is plainly evident on all the graphs I've cited, it is unreasonable to deny it. The line doesn't go up, which means there was no warming!
I didn't create the graphs, they're from NOAA and HadCRUT scientists, those who set the standards for global temperature! The UK Met Office agrees! The chairman of the IPCC agrees!
Here's another. From September 1996 to February 2014 (17 years and 6 months) the RSS dataset has a trend of -0.03°C per century. See https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image002_thumb.png and satisfy yourself that it's true.
Remember, the Remote Sensing Systems global temperature dataset, working with the satellite microwave data, was set up to refute the UAH results, which initially showed less warming than the models suggested. So it's produced by a team that generally believes in AGW, yet it still shows no warming for this period.
It is not my conclusion that there's been no warming, it is an entirely scientific trend line. Kindly stop denying it. The list of consensus items does not refute the undeniable fact that the temperature has stopped rising.
When considering whether climate science is settled, you might bear in mind that Galileo said: "Who would dare assert that we know all there is to be known?" Nice way of putting it, no?- I'm heartily sick of my comments disappearing. Unless they reappear I won't waste any more time trying to communicate with you. In the meantime, please check the graphs I cited and stop denying the lack of warming.ReplyDelete
- They didn't disappear, there just wasn't enough room for them to show up. I am moving some comments on modeling to a different page and it is freeing up space. Sorry for the inconvenience.Delete
- AnonymousJuly 28, 2014 at 8:55 PMRichard,Delete
There is a very good chance that the lack of temperature increase in this past decade might have to do with the radiant heat from the sun melting ice and permafrost.
That *is* a kind of heating going on. The average amount of ice available every year is less.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium - Christopher, I noticed that in denying the comments disappeared you said they didn't show up. I know what you mean, but a strange thing to say and strange that I accepted it, don't you think?Delete
- I look forward to reading in due course Christopher's and Mike's responses to my questions and the graphs I cited.Delete
- AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 1:02 AMUmm... Richard,Delete
You posted a graph from NOAA earlier:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2001-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2001&lasttrendyear=2013
This shows that the (1880-2013) trend shows an average warming of about (+0.06 degrees Celsius per decade -- from a linear trendline; that +0.06 degrees Celsius per decade *is* the average increase in temperature).
About your graph:
https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image002_thumb.png
I don't know. Give me some time, I don't know where that graph came from...
RSS -- Remote Sensing Systems
You know that there are different global temperature profiles for different altitudes right? Can you tell me which altitude this set of temperature measurements came from?
Anonymous #2 / Kalium - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 1:07 AMHere,Delete
Check this out:
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
Err... I think this might be a bad statement, I must be more precise:
"You know that there are different global temperature profiles for different altitudes right?"
I was thinking that if you isolate each different altitude and calculate the average temperature; they would be different at different altitudes.
Give me a second to gather my thoughts.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 1:15 AMHah!Delete
Richard, let's say that you take some kind of a measurement of the sky temperature.
Let's say that you used LIDAR for your temperature measurement.
You point a big laser at the sky; you measure whatever light comes back (and it's not going to be much)... and from this you can make a remote temperature measurements.
The thing you should know about this process is that it only measures the temperature at one latitude, and one longitude position over a range of altitude values.
You imagine the globe; this remote temperature measurement is "one" itty-bitty dot on that globe. And the measurement *only* measures what is above your LIDAR.
To give you a more definitive answer; I need to know the history of that graph; and who made the measurement. And how it was processed.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 1:37 AMThe other thing you should keep in mind, is that the temperature map at the different layers of the atmosphere is different.Delete
There are, in fact, some regions of the upper atmosphere that have been cooling.
Let's make a height chart of the sky:
o 1] 2] 3] 4]
This has broken up the atmosphere into:
o: This is ground/ocean: It has average temperature T0
1]: This is the troposphere: It has average temperature T1
2]: This is middle atmosphere #1: It has average temperature T2
3]: This is middle atmosphere #2: It has average temperature T3
4]: This is upper atmosphere: It has average temperature T4
T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4 can each have different average temperatures.
In theory, these can all be averaged to give you the global average spatial temperature measurement at some time "to".
And remember that "raw" data has a *lot* of noise. To turn that into "measurement" data, the "signal" -- what you are trying to measure, needs to be separated from the "noise".
RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
---> What the hell is this? The title says that it *is* the global mean temperature change.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 2:01 AMMSU -- Microwave Sounding UnitDelete
AMSU -- Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit
TLT -- Temperature Lower Troposphere
I get it, I think. You remember my diagram from above?
Lower Troposphere --- This would be between: o x] 1]
The label on the graph clearly states:
RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
There are probably multiple "channels". Different channels might contain different altitude measurements? I don't know much about Microwave sounding. In principle, it should be like LIDAR; you beam electromagnetic radiation into the sky; some of it is reflected by the stuff in the sky. Some "stuff" is more likely to reflect than others based on the Frequency of your electromagnetic radiation emitter...
I am sorry, I was giving you the first thoughts that surfaced in my head. I argue with myself a lot when I do this. I am sorry. I am trying to figure out *exactly what I am looking at*.
The ".txt" file gives you a hint about what the data is. The trendline... ehh... I am not sure that the person who made the graph knew what they were doing.
Did someone randomly pull the data out of the archive and misunderstand then mislabel the graph?
I need to investigate this further...
Anonymous #2 / Kalium - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 2:39 AM"There is a very good chance that the lack of temperature increase in this past decade might have to do with the radiant heat from the sun melting ice and permafrost."Delete
By the way, um... when I made this statement, I was thinking about the temperature increase according to that table from NOAA which clearly *did* show an increase (0.06 degrees C per decade). I should have said, "lack of a higher temperature increase". If the IPCC thinks that a worst case scenario is an anomalous temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius from 2000-2100; that requires (0.6 degrees C per decade).
There are a few ways that this could theoretically happen:
[Early 2000s] ---> [Lot's of feedback contingencies occur] ---> [Beginning 2100]
[+0.06 degrees C per decade] --->
[Permafrost melts,
lots of methane and co2 escape into atmosphere,
polar icecaps melt -- decreasing global albedo,
much more sunlight gets absorbed,
not enough co2 is absorbed by plants,
surface ocean temperatures get so warm the ocean releases co2,
oh, and Mt Vesuvius randomly has a *big* eruption in 2067 and sets off a dandelion chain of other volcanic eruptions (you know, something big and completely unexpected)] --->
[+x degrees C per decade] -->
[+6 degree C anomaly from human activities]
Do you see how this might work?
0.06 degrees C per decade shows you that the temperature *has* been increasing. (It shows that it has been increasing at a slower rate than I would have expected; but those positive feedback loops if they occur)
Give me a second to wrap my head around this RSS database. (Yes I have to understand how the database is structured before I can answer your question well). And figure out who the heck did this to the graph. It is probably an innocent mistake.
I think they just showed the graph for one channel, when they should have included all of them.
How the heck did they get that graph?!
Anonymous #2 / Kalium - Replying to Richard: Yes, I guess its an example of how we can communicate badly and still understand each other.Delete
As an aside, I am extremely pissed off at Blogspot. One of the things that has been taking up a bunch of my time is trying to find a solution to this problem with the comments. The technical support consists of a FAQ page and is, as far as I can tell, nonexistent beyond that. I will never use them again and will recommend to other people that they avoid them, as well.
- Kalium, you say: "To give you a more definitive answer; I need to know the history of that graph; and who made the measurement. And how it was processed."ReplyDelete
I don't know what question you're trying to answer.
You say: "This shows that the (1880-2013) trend shows an average warming of about (+0.06 degrees Celsius per decade -- from a linear trendline; that +0.06 degrees Celsius per decade *is* the average increase in temperature)."
Yes, I know. The point is that it's so small it's no different from zero—no warming.
Another graph I cited, https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image002_thumb.png, shows a linear trend of -0.03°C per century but one wouldn't claim cooling as it's the same as zero.
I'm very interested in Christopher's response to these data because he alleges I'm making false statements, which I consider bizarre. I wish we could post image here because I can't guarantee Christopher or Mike actually click the links to see the graphs. They could just roll their eyes in frustration and ignore the facts.- AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 3:27 AM"Yes, I know. The point is that it's so small it's no different from zero—no warming."Delete
Richard, if most of the radiant heat from the sun is being "applied" to melt the polar Ice-caps, and the permafrost, the global average temperature won't increase very much while that is happening.
We start from year xxxx and end at year yyyy and we figure out how much ice exists in the north pole, for the sake of example let's say there is 100 units of Polar Ice (just pulled this number out of a hat -- this is for the purpose of demonstration):
Let's imagine that we have a scenario like this (All of these numbers are for the purpose of demonstration):
There are a lot of different mechanisms for reflecting radiation... clouds, ice coverage, etc...
xxxx :: 100 units ice :: ---
+10 years later :: 80 units ice left :: +0.06 degrees C decade change
+20 years later :: 72 units ice left :: +0.09 degrees C decade change
+30 years later :: 42 units ice left :: -0.12 degrees C decade change
+40 years later :: 10 units ice left :: -0.12 degrees C decade change
+50 years later :: 0 units ice left :: +0.06 degrees C decade change
+60 years later :: 0 units ice left :: +0.40 degrees C decade change
+70 years later :: 3 units ice left :: +0.54 degrees C decade change
+80 years later :: 3 units ice left :: +0.50 degrees C decade change
+90 years later :: 3 units ice left :: +0.50 degrees C decade change
The point is there is heat coming from the sun. Depending on where that heat goes; you might have something like 50 s_units of solar power per decade that go to changing the temperature of the globe, or they could be spent on melting the ice. (Presumably you have *lots* of other things that can change the way the solar power is distributed).
When all 50 s_units of power are spent on melting the ice, instead of heating the planet; the ocean temperatures can actually decrease because they are constantly radiating energy like a black body, and this cools the ocean off.
It's like when you set a budget with your bank account. You have $50 budget for snacks. If you have the option of cotton candy which costs $1, or you have the option of fudge, which costs $10.
If you spend $50 on 5 units of fudge, then you can get no cotton candy.
Or, you could spend $40 on 4 units of fudge, then you can have $10 for 10 units of cotton candy.
In this case, you have 50 s_units; which you can either spend this on melting ice, or you can spend it on increasing the Ocean temperatures.
Does this make sense? If you increase the temperature, it is getting warmer; if you melt a lot of ice, it is also getting warmer, *even* when the temperature of the ocean is decreasing!
If you understand how the differential equations work, then it makes sense. Instead of a financial budget, you have a kind of energy budget.
Anonymous #2 / Kalium - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 3:31 AM"Does this make sense? If you increase the temperature, it is getting warmer; if you melt a lot of ice, it is also getting warmer, *even* when the temperature of the ocean is decreasing!"Delete
Well, "warmer" is not the best word, rather, the total Heat contained in our world is getting higher!
Anonymous #2 / Kalium - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 4:52 AM"I'm very interested in Christopher's response to these data because he alleges I'm making false statements, which I consider bizarre. I wish we could post image here because I can't guarantee Christopher or Mike actually click the links to see the graphs."Delete
Yeah, you are frustrated because you are afraid that Mike Smith, and Christopher Keating aren't even looking at your graph.
https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image002_thumb.png
They are frustrated because they are fairly certain that there is something wrong with the graph. Sometimes it is hard to tell just by looking at the data what is wrong with it. It is really stupid easy to download some data, create a graph and give it the wrong label, and tell people that it proves one asinine thing or another. It is harder to *understand* what the graph is.
This kind of tactic really pisses off the physicists who understand how this data is collected, and how it is analyzed, where it comes from and why, because it is way too easy to pull a fast one on someone who doesn't understand the theories behind climate change (or sometimes not even basic physics), and who doesn't understand why we *know* what we know about the theory of climate change.
They know some people misrepresent the data, on purpose, and this pisses them off. You gave them the graph. So they dismiss the graph instead of cussing at the graph. They are physicists, they are also people, with emotions. So... it's a very human response.
And actually; sometimes some of the details in the graphs are really hard to interpret where they came from. Even for physicists.
Richard, you said:
"They could just roll their eyes in frustration and ignore the facts."
Facts are meaningless without understanding the context of where they came from.
Here is what I suspect with that graph that shows (-0.03 degrees C per century):
(1) The "RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt" gives us the clue about what that graph *really* is.
Read this (it has a definition for the different acronyms):
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
The acronyms in the ".txt" graph probably tell you what the data *really* is.
RSS - Remote Sensing Systems
TLT - Temperature Lower Troposphere
MSU - Microwave Sounding Unit (This is a de-facto thermometer)
AMSU - Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (This is an advanced de-facto thermometer)
The ".txt" file probably combines both AMSU, and MSU measurements
Ah, there we go:
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
Look at Figure 1: There are 10 different channels here. And *if* the graph came from only one channel; well, first of all, that one channel is for only one layer of the atmosphere; and the whole dataset at RSS contains 10 channels for 10 different layers all at different altitudes.
The bottom most hump in figure 1 shows the weighting function for the Temperature of the Lower Thermosphere measurement. The weighting function tells you the region of the atmosphere where most of the microwave radiation that is being broadcast into the atmosphere is being reflected... which looks like about 3-4 km above the Earth.
This means that your graph is only showing the temperature map of the layer of the atmosphere 3-4 km above the surface earth (above sea level, actually).
You know that equation that they have above figure 1 on the RSS website? That shows you basically the calculation that they use to figure out the temperature at the TLT altitude from their raw data.
Phagh! Looking at their data products; I cannot find any of them labeled as:
"RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt" - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 4:53 AMDelete
Hey! Check this out. This is straight from the RSS website:
http://www.remss.com/research/climate
Look at Figure 3 on that link! That shows you what the folks *who created the data* say about the Mean TLT Anomaly between 55N and 80N these are measurements around the Northern latitude bands. It looks like this means that the atmosphere above there has been developing a higher temperature over time.
The black line of figure 3 should be the observations. The yellow blobby stuff shows the aggregated predictions of the climate models.
Hey... it looks like that means the models are actually doing pretty good in predicting what should happen in the TLT regions of the atmosphere. Their predictions might be a *little* high in late 2010; but they are actually pretty close to the observations...
Huh... I guess it means these model ranges are predictive. They are doing a lot better here than what I was expecting, to be honest. It means the theory is actually probably pretty good.
So um... my guess is; the "climatism" graph was probably mislabeled. I am not going to say whether or not it is intentional; I don't know.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 4:57 AMActually check this out (same link):Delete
http://www.remss.com/research/climate
In figure 1; it looks like they are showing that the temperature observations are consistently lower than the observations. Wait a minute... this website is called 'remss'! What the heck is this? Who are these guys?
Are these figures valid!?
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 5:22 AMOi,Delete
I do not know the field of Microwave sounding. I don't know if this group is valid or not.
"In figure 1; it looks like they are showing that the temperature observations are consistently lower than the observations."
Oi, I'm getting tired; I made a mistake with this statement.
In figure 1; it looks like they are showing that the model predictions are consistently higher than the observations. In fact, for the TLT region between 80S and 80N; it looks like the model predictions are diverging from the observations.
This leads me to two possible conclusions:
(1) Either this 'remss' group is fudging their data (I doubt it)
(2) The model predictions for the TLT region are driving the positive forcings a little too high for the time periods between 1998 or 2010.
If "remss.com" data is good:
---------------------------------------
If the data from 'remss.com' is good; then the models need to be fixed. Again... this could be due to the fact that they have something wrong with how they are taking into account the amount of heat from the sun that is going into melting ice and permafrost.
Another possible explanation (assuming that there is something wrong with the model's predictions in the TLT region). Maybe there is too much CO2 predicted by the models in the TLT region. Something is keeping that region at a lower temperature than what the models are saying. What could that be?
If the data is bad... I will let the scientific community deal with it. (The data is probably good) Like I said, I don't know Microwave Sounding measurements the way that I know modeling and numerical methods.
When building a model; you usually assume that the observations are good, and when there are discrepancies between the data and the models; you are supposed to assume that there is a problem with your model somewhere.
The TLT region is just *one* part of the atmosphere. It might be possible that the models are doing better with other predictions.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 5:31 AMI should preface this:Delete
Figure [1]: The global average temperature anomaly for the TLT region is diverging from the observations.
Figure [3]: The local average temperature anomaly for the TLT region for that latitude band is pretty good.
Conclusion:
Maybe not all of the latitude bands are taken into account by the models as well as they could be.
I will reiterated that building a *good* model is hard. And just from this data alone; I would conclude that the modelers need to figure out what is happening in this region and include what is *really* happening into the models.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 7:47 AMThe RSS data is valid:Delete
http://images.remss.com/papers/msu/MSU_AMSU_C-ATBD.pdf
If anyone in the "remss" group is reading this; I am sorry if I offended you, it was not the intent.
The data is valid.
Anonymous #2 - I don't always follow your links. I admit it. You are posting faster than I can respond. However, I did look at the one link of the temperature graph and I'll tell you three reasons why I call it a false argument:Delete
1) Do your plot starting with 1999 and you get a very different result. Why did you start with 1998 and not 1999?
2) Do your plot starting with 1997 and you get a very different result. Why did you start with 1998 and not 1997?
3) Why have you omitted the 93% of heating that is going on in the oceans? Global warming means the whole globe, not just one part of it. The surface temperature represents only 7% of global warming.
I don't always respond as quickly as I would like because this challenge is keeping me very busy. Do not mistake my lack of response to a lack of interest. I am very interested in your comments and hope you continue. In fact, this discussion has gotten me thinking about modeling again. I did a lot of modeling in my early career, but have not done any for a few years. However, I am now in a position where I can spend my time doing what I want to do. Being a professor is an extremely time consuming profession and you seldom have time to do the things you want to devote yourself to. I no longer have that problem and live in a very quiet, peaceful community conducive to writing and research. As a result, I am giving serious consideration to applying myself to a climate model attempt.
In my concept, I would begin with solar activity then add different aspects of the planet in a modular manner. In my thoughts, I have identified quite a large number of modules that would be needed. Obviously, this is a project that would take many years, but that is something I can do. It would be necessary to familiarize myself with all of the different models and see what they have learned about what works and what doesn't work, but my goal would be to develop a model that would be independent of any existing model. Even if I fail, I think it would be a worthwhile endeavor.
So, please continue with your comments, even if I am not immediately responding. BTW, after I finish with the challenge, I will have more time to catch up on responses to comments and questions. - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 3:27 PM"I don't always follow your links. I admit it. You are posting faster than I can respond. However, I did look at the one link of the temperature graph and I'll tell you three reasons why I call it a false argument"Delete
Are you referring to Richard, right?
Anonymous #2 / Kalium - Yes, he stated at least twice that I don't approve of that graph. I'm not sure I called it a lie, because the data is correct. It is a lie to draw the trend line that way and claim it shows there has been not warming, but normally I refer to it as a false argument.
- Kalium,ReplyDelete
It's interesting stuff, all right.
Wikipedia: The Advanced microwave sounding unit (AMSU) is a multi-channel microwave radiometer installed on meteorological satellites. A radiometer is a device for measuring the radiant flux (power) of electromagnetic radiation (so it's a receiver, not a transmitter). The instrument examines several bands of microwave radiation from the atmosphere to perform atmospheric sounding (detection) of temperature and moisture levels.
The MSU instruments detect microwave radiation from oxygen atoms at various levels in the atmosphere, convert the readings into their temperature and hence into atmospheric temperature.
The altitude we're interested in is two metres (where we live :-) ) although the satellites cannot scan with such vertical resolution, so you get readings from quite a "thick" layer. The early MSU instruments sampled four thick banks reaching from the surface to the lower stratosphere. The later AMSU instruments provide more channels, hence thinner layers. You can read more at http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature.
"Did someone randomly pull the data out of the archive and misunderstand then mislabel the graph?"
Hmm, fascinating. What do you mean?
- AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 5:41 AM"A radiometer is a device for measuring the radiant flux (power) of electromagnetic radiation (so it's a receiver, not a transmitter)."Delete
Oi, I didn't realize that it was a receiver. (I told you that I have never worked with Microwave Sounding Units before) Good catch. Thank you. :)
"Let's say that you used LIDAR for your temperature measurement.
You point a big laser at the sky; you measure whatever light comes back (and it's not going to be much)... and from this you can make a remote temperature measurements."
My intuition regarding Remote Sounding techniques is focused more around LIDAR. With LIDAR you *do* transmit a signal. You also have a receiver on the ground. I thought perhaps, they were broadcasting Microwave radiation into that atmosphere, oh... I guess that would be called MIDAR or something.
Sorry about that. Thank you.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 5:58 AM"The MSU instruments detect microwave radiation from oxygen atoms at various levels in the atmosphere, convert the readings into their temperature and hence into atmospheric temperature."Delete
That's interesting, actually. Because if that is correct; then does that mean that the MSUs are measuring the temperature of O2, instead of mean average temperature of all gasses in that region?
Does this mean that the temperature of CO2 is ignored in MSU sounding measurements?
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 7:02 AM""Did someone randomly pull the data out of the archive and misunderstand then mislabel the graph?"Delete
Hmm, fascinating. What do you mean?"
Hmm. I will have to read more. Is it possible to get a hold of the person who made that graph and ask them how they analyzed it? Is there a description of what they did anywhere?
Anonymous #2
- "Do you see how this might work?" No. 0.06°C/decade is the same as zero. Won't melt anything. Sorry. You're chasing shadows.ReplyDelete
"They are frustrated because they are fairly certain that there is something wrong with the graph." You're probably right, and that's even before they take a look at it. Why aren't they answering for themselves? You're doing a good job of guessing their motives, but it doesn't help them much, does it?
"Richard, if most of the radiant heat from the sun is being "applied" to melt the polar Ice-caps, and the permafrost, the global average temperature won't increase very much while that is happening."
Um, I hate to be the one to point it out, but we're not discussing global warming here, we're discussing the cause of global warming. AGW does not melt ice or permafrost, because our CO2 (a colourless gas) doesn't influence insolation. In any case, the anthropogenic portion of the warming over that short period is minuscule. At the same time our CO2 is not causing the air temperature to rise (since it's not rising). Unless you can explain how our CO2 switches its attention from the lower atmosphere to the ice caps, and why, I cannot accept it's not the sun, as you suggest.
So, according to this scenario, there's been no AGW problem during this period of 17.5 years. That's a big chunk of time running our SUVs. So we had a bit of global warming in the sense of (theoretical) melting ice, although you should quantify the amount of kilojoules or BTUs expended on that to be sure.
"It is really stupid[ly] easy to download some data, create a graph and give it the wrong label, and tell people that it proves one asinine thing or another."
You're right. I'm perhaps a bit more comfortable trusting these teams because I've been reading about them for a while now and I see the graphs constantly. Their products aren't too far from each other, with the exception of GISS, who always seem to produce higher temperatures than the others. You can get the RSS data here for yourself:
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt
I just did and replicated the horizontal trend for 1996-2014.
You can get the data for any of these global temperature records, just as you can download the climate models if you understand them (I don't).
- AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 5:52 AM""Do you see how this might work?" No. 0.06°C/decade is the same as zero. Won't melt anything. Sorry. You're chasing shadows."Delete
Ah, *shakes head* do you understand Beer's law?
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 6:25 AMHere is Beer's Law:Delete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law
Here is the mechanism for melting sea ice:
(1) The ocean is heating because it is absorbing the suns rays. When we burn more fossil fuel; the co2 adds to the amount of total co2 in the atmosphere. We can agree that people do this, I think, I spilled a lot of ink trying to prove that idea to you by describing the theory, earlier. And here is the data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature#mediaviewer/File:Global_Sea_Surface_Temperature.jpg
More co2 in the atmosphere means more infrared radiation hangs around in the day, and at night. Liquid water absorbs infrared radiation, so does gaseous water. So if there is more IR hanging about; then there is a higher chance that it will be absorbed by the water.
If the water is at a higher temperature; and if the warmer water is carried by the jet streams up towards the area where the polar ice is; that should melt the ice.
[Solar rays heat ocean water] ---> [Ocean water heats polar ice].
If the temperature of the Ocean water is higher on average year after year; then you have more ice melting year after year.
That should be the mechanism for melting sea ice.
The mechanism for the permafrost is the same thing. It is the electromagnetic radiation... the IR that effects water the most.
Look:
Cyclical Global Warming - GHGs heat the Earth.
AGW - People produce a lot of one main GHG, and this heats the Earth a little bit more. Do you want me to take you through the math behind this directly?
"Unless you can explain how our CO2 switches its attention from the lower atmosphere to the ice caps, and why, I cannot accept it's not the sun, as you suggest."
Well, the sun *does* provide a mechanism for melting the ice directly. It's just; there is more than just the sun. The IR is doing most of the heavy lifting here. And there is more IR when there is a higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 6:37 AMActually; I don't know what the temperature difference between the water and the ice would be. If it is significant; then it would be a strong driver. If it's not; then it would primarily be the amount of IR that is produced and hangs around in more copious quantities because of the CO2 in the atmosphere.Delete
The extra amount that people add, from what I understand, is high enough to make this a pretty significant driver for melting the sea ice.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 7:28 AM"You're right. I'm perhaps a bit more comfortable trusting these teams because I've been reading about them for a while now and I see the graphs constantly. Their products aren't too far from each other,"Delete
If I can find a reasonable explanation for the graph on the climatists website, my suspicions should be alleviated, by and large.
"with the exception of GISS, who always seem to produce higher temperatures than the others."
Depending on the data that you fit your model constants to; your model would do a better job fitting to one form of data over another. This is an important aspect of creating a useful computational framework for your model.
If, for instance, GISS was using primarily NASA's Satellite data to handle the fitting; then it would probably match that data set pretty well. But would it match what is being read on the ground from an MSU? I am not sure.
Anonymous #2
- "Do you see how this might work?"ReplyDelete
Sorry, Kalium, I gave the wrong answer. I should have said: No. It depends on unvalidated feedback from water vapour which has not occurred in previous warmings. Though it's been a couple of degrees higher before, we've not seen this mega-feedback. Nobody has explained why it should occur now for the first time. Indeed, the recent history of atmospheric water vapour gives no reason to expect it.
This is why: Last year (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/) NASA figures of atmospheric water vapour from 1948 were released: "A graph of the global average annual relative humidity (RH) from 300 mb to 700 mb is shown in Figure 5. The specific humidity in g/kg of moist air at 400 mb (8 km) is shown in Figure 6. It shows that specific humidity has declined by 14% since 1948 using the best fit line. In contrast, climate models all show RH staying constant, implying that specific humidity is forecast to increase with warming. So climate models show positive feedback and rising specific humidity with warming in the upper troposphere, but the data shows falling specific humidity and negative feedback."
Then you say: "In figure 1; it looks like they are showing that the temperature observations are consistently lower than the observations."
Yes, this has been well known for several years. The models are poor at both hindcasting and forecasting. I've posted upthread a link to Spencer's graph comparing model output with observations. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
It's brilliantly simple; even I get it. The models are heading for the stratosphere and leaving observations plodding along in the dust. Bad news for climate modellers.
- AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 6:51 AM" In contrast, climate models all show RH staying constant, implying that specific humidity is forecast to increase with warming. So climate models show positive feedback and rising specific humidity with warming in the upper troposphere, but the data shows falling specific humidity and negative feedback.""Delete
Hmm. So are you implying that at some altitudes in the atmosphere that Water vapour may be a significant GHG on climatological timescales? That's an interesting idea.
Dr. Keating would know better than I. The reason why water vapour is precluded as a significant driver in most of the climate models is because it is supposed to be pretty short lived in the atmosphere. Is it possible that this assumption is actually flawed? I don't know.
"Yes, this has been well known for several years. The models are poor at both hindcasting and forecasting. I've posted upthread a link to Spencer's graph comparing model output with observations."
Well, they are not perfect; but they do appear to be getting better over time.
"It's brilliantly simple; even I get it. The models are heading for the stratosphere and leaving observations plodding along in the dust. Bad news for climate modellers."
Well, not really. They may not be taking into account the temperature anomaly in the TLT region very well; but that doesn't mean that they aren't doing well globally on average.
"Bad news" -- not really, it just means that they need to figure out what is causing the discrepancy and then fix it. That's what modelers are supposed to be doing anyways.
Remember the TLT region is just that "thin" little piece between about 3-4 km.
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 7:00 AMDr. Spencer's graph looks like it is saying that the climate model temperature predictions for the latitude band around the equator at the mid-troposphere isn't quite correct. Hmm.Delete
You *do* know that is not a global temperature prediction, right? If the graph is right, then that is just for the band around the equator... the equator produces the most radiant heat.
Well, I know that Dr. Keating doesn't have a very high opinion of Dr. Spencer, but...
Water vapor is "supposed" to be short-lived... is that actually wrong?
Anonymous #2 - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 7:09 AMWell if the models are not treating the the local temperatures in the Troposphere correctly, then the modelers need to figure out what the problem is and fix them.Delete
Anonymous #2 - Wow!! Now here is Anthony Watts. Science liar extraordinaire. Let’s not forget that he is not a scientist or even a college graduate. What he is, is a paid liar for the Heartland Institute and other big oil / big coal interests. There are several sites that are devoted to exposing and debunking his lies on a daily basis.Delete
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts
QUOTE:
Compulsive liar Anthony Watts continues his crusade against real scientist Michael Mann
Moronic science wannabes like Anthony Watts have long had a wild hair to tear down the accomplishments of Michael Mann, whose hockey stick research proved conclusively that the end of the 20th century was warmer than any time in the last millenium. Dr. Mann, one of the world's foremost climatologists, has beaten back ludicrous attacks on his research and his integrity, with the support of the National Academy of Sciences and multiple independent reviews of his (unimpeachable) conduct.
But the denialist echo chamber, like a cultural ruminant, feeds off its own wastes, and safe within the walls of its grand delusion, attacks on Mann are big applause lines for the braying bumpkins. Today WUWT is back with one of their favorite weapons, a study they are too stupid to understand:
END QUOTE
http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/2010/05/compulsive-liar-anthony-watts-continues.html
QUOTE
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]
END QUOTE
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 3:35 PM"Wow!! Now here is Anthony Watts. Science liar extraordinaire. Let’s not forget that he is not a scientist or even a college graduate. What he is, is a paid liar for the Heartland Institute and other big oil / big coal interests."Delete
My comments, above, were regarding Roy Spencer's graphs.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Anonymous #2
- "You *do* know that is not a global temperature prediction, right?"ReplyDelete
No, my mistake, sorry. I overlooked that factor. Here's a global comparison:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png
"Water vapor is "supposed" to be short-lived... is that actually wrong?"
I don't see why. There's no reason for its lifetime to be significant. Its warming effect is instantaneous. Only the quantity from moment to moment determines the warming at that moment. Actually, the same applies to any atmospheric molecule of greenhouse gas. None can effect warming when it's absent.
"So are you implying that at some altitudes in the atmosphere water vapour may be a significant GHG on climatological timescales?"
Not me, scientists have been saying that for years. It's a powerful warming agent, far stronger than CO2. Some figures I've seen show it provides up to 26 times more warming than CO2, though it's disputed (the science is not settled). Water vapour has a huge warming effect and by its absence has an equally large cooling effect. There's far more of it in the atmosphere than CO2, by up to two orders of magnitude. CO2 is about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and H2O (vapour) varies from nothing (think desert and Antarctica) to about 4%. That's just the vapour - it exists in the atmosphere as liquid and solid water, too, with varying effects such as clouds, which the models do not handle with any understanding because we don't understand all its effects on temperature. Or at least we can't quantify them regionally or globally.
Fascinating subject. - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 8:08 AM"I don't see why. There's no reason for its lifetime to be significant. Its warming effect is instantaneous."ReplyDelete
I know, that what my intuition would normally say. But sometimes my intuition is wrong. This might be one of those times.
"Fascinating subject."
This is why I like so much. I need to read more about spectroscopy, actually. That stuff is interesting.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png
You notice how the models do a lot better in this comparison? If the graph is right, then it means that they *are* capturing a lot of the dynamics. They just aren't perfect.
And for the MSUs; do those actually measure the average temperature of the air, or do they measure the average temperature of the dominant species of gas in the air at that altitude?
I will be very interested to see what Dr. Keating thinks of all of this.
Anonymous #2
- Anonymous #2:Delete
Roy Spencer?? Really? One of the biggest science liars / science deniers out there. This clown also denies evolution and supports creationism. Anyone that uses Roy Spencer as a reference has dived, head first, into the vat of science liars / science deniers. - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 4:46 PM"This clown also denies evolution and supports creationism."Delete
Does he, now? I have a very low opinion of the concept of creationism. Evolution is one of the more useful concepts for explaining the process of how life has developed.
"Anyone that uses Roy Spencer as a reference has dived, head first, into the vat of science liars / science deniers."
Look, Mike, he was asking me to interpret the graph from Roy Spencer. So I tried to provide a primae facie interpretation of Roy Spencer's graph. I don't believe that Richard Treadgold would have accepted anything else.
I know Dr. Keating's perspective on Roy Spencer:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-roy-spencer.html
"His credentials are real. What he is also known for a series of papers he published in the early 1990s with another scientist, John Christy. In these papers they claimed their analysis of satellite temperature measurements showed no warming in the atmosphere. They became the heroes of the global warming denier crowd as a result." -- Christopher Keating
This is what Richard Treadgold would have paid attention to. Had I referenced him to that; it would have looked like "mud-flinging" to him.
Which I have absolutely no intention to engage in, by the way!
This was Roy Spencer's graph:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png
Mike Smith:
Is Roy Spencer's graph misrepresenting the hadCRUT4 and the UAH Troposphere data? If so, then how?
I don't know the history of the refutation of Roy Spencer's work. Are you suggesting that he fabricated it? Has it been proven in the scientific community?
Primae facie, I trust Gavin Schmidt more than Roy Spencer. But that is just my opinion.
Anonymous #2 - I cannot speak for the entire community, but the people I have spoken to all believe he and Christy fabricated their work. They are admitted experts at the analysis of satellite data and they claimed that the satellite data showed no global warming. However, over the years, independent researchers found four separate errors in the work that invalidated their findings. They even admitted themselves that the work was invalid. But, you have two experts, they made four significant errors, those errors had to be found by others, and all of them worked against climate change and in favor of their stated position. That is enough to convince most people, it is certainly enough to convince me and I firmly believe it would convince a jury if it was ever presented to them. Did they falsify their research? Only they know for sure, the rest of us can just look at the evidence.Delete
And, yes, he is a creationist and supporter of intelligent design. He is signer of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which is a intelligent design response to evolution. - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 7:30 PM"They are admitted experts at the analysis of satellite data and they claimed that the satellite data showed no global warming. However, over the years, independent researchers found four separate errors in the work that invalidated their findings. They even admitted themselves that the work was invalid."Delete
If the graphs that they produced from the work that they did on the satellite analysis process was proven to be invalid; then Christy and Spencer have two options, in my mind:
(1) Retract the graphs that contain the analysis error. They should remove the graphs from their website, if it contains an analysis error.
(2) Redo the analysis, post the results on their website.
If that graph that I am looking at contains an analysis error for both the hadCrut4, and the UAH Troposphere data; then it *needs* to be retracted.
If as, primae facie comparison between the data and the models would indicate from reading his graph; the computer models are overshooting their temperature predictions. Then the error also needs to be resolved.
"But, you have two experts, they made four significant errors, those errors had to be found by others, and all of them worked against climate change and in favor of their stated position."
Christopher Keating... are you familiar with the kind of analysis that has to go into Passive Instrument data analysis? It *is* complicated. It is one great big-tangled Spectroscopic emission problem!
Earlier, I said that what modelers do is hard. Passive data measurement analysis is *bad* complicated. What the Experimentalists do is also very difficult. Passive data measuring devices; like what people put on satellites; like what people put on ground instruments is also *very* difficult.
Christy and Spencer appear to be Experimentalists.
To be honest, from the hill where I stand; it appears to be possible that this issue with the MSU and AMSU measurements and the climate modelers could merely turn out to be be a dispute between the Experimentalists and the Computer Modelers. I cannot prove that, at the moment. To do that I would need to figure out how satellite and MSU analysis process works
Very easy to make a mistake; particularly if you are deriving the model scratch. I don't know if this is what Christy and Spencer were doing. But the truth is, nobody is perfect.
If Spencer has an error in that graph; and if it has been proven at a much earlier date and he is still keeping it around to confuse people with... that really *would* imply dishonesty motivated by his own personal political agenda.
Why can't one simply build a little analysis tool; source code written in c, IDL, or fortran90 that contains the satellite measurement analysis technique that is known to be correct; then add a little ftp-mass download feature ("Curl") for the purpose of comparing a *standard AMSU analysis technique* with an *ad-hoc AMSU analysis technique*?
"That is enough to convince most people, it is certainly enough to convince me and I firmly believe it would convince a jury if it was ever presented to them."
Some jury's are more biased than others. There is court in Eastern Texas that is notorious for this when it comes to patent disputes.
"And, yes, he is a creationist and supporter of intelligent design. He is signer of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which is a intelligent design response to evolution."
To this, I have a reply:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19777_5-great-scientists-who-believed-wildly-unscientific-things.html
The Isaac Newton, "father" of physics spent a great deal of time in the pursuit of alchemy.
-- People are entitled to their faith, and their 'goofy' opinions as long as it doesn't bias their work.
If Roy Spencer doesn't like the idea of evolution... that's his business as far as I am concerned; he might have some trouble if he were a biologist. But he is not. He is a physicist, and an experimentalist; and an expert in Microwave Sounding Units. - AnonymousJuly 29, 2014 at 7:31 PMDelete
Wikipedia says this about Roy Spencer:
"In 2001, he designed an algorithm to detect tropical cyclones and estimate their maximum sustained wind speed using the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU)."
This gives him a small degree of instant respect, from me. If you want to show him up; then build a provably better analysis algorithm for AMSUs.
I am not defending Roy Spencer, by the way.
The dynamics of physical systems do not have political bias. As long as the experimentalists and the modelers are honest about what they do; our knowledge of the dynamics should improve.
I will not engage in mud-flinging... not unless I think there is a damn compelling reason to do so.
Anonymous #2 - It is my understanding they retracted the erroneous paper. I am not familiar with the graphs on their website so I cannot comment on them.Delete
No one will deny that the work they do is very difficult. In fact, that makes it even more suspicious because there are very few people with the expertise to catch their errors. And, it is not at all unusual for someone to make a mistake and have to come back with a correction. It happens. But, if someone, who is an expert in the field (and they are) make four critical mistakes, I would think, by the law of averages, that at least one of them worked counter to the conclusion they supported. Four out of four mistakes ended up working in favor of the conclusion they support. This is the most egregious example of why I don't trust Spencer, but he actually has a long list of misdeeds to confirm my distrust. It isn't a question that he supports a view counter to what I support. Its a question of being able to trust his integrity. To go any further would brook on libel, so I will make one last comment, I will never trust his work nor accept it until such a time he comes out and admits responsibility for his actions and gives proof that he is reforming. - AnonymousJuly 30, 2014 at 1:13 AMYour intuition is noted.Delete
On a lighter note, the issue of Spectroscopy! It looks like absorption behavior might be easier to model than emission behavior. Stimulated emission would would be in a class of it's own (the math behind the wavefunction analysis for different molecules seems like it would be horrible).
Here is some of the theory behind AMSUs:
http://images.remss.com/papers/msu/MSU_AMSU_C-ATBD.pdf
And... actually, the theory behind their analysis doesn't look too bad.
You have good ol' blackbody emissions from the different things in the atmosphere. If you know what kinds of gas species are hanging around up at the different regions; and in what concentrations; then you can use this information to know what will be absorbing the emitted blackbody radiation. As it penetrates the atmosphere; it should be attenuated by whatever species of gas it is passing through.
Some of the radiation will be coming from straight above you; and some of it will be coming through at an oblique angle. All of the radiation will be mixed.
So the idea that it is only the temperature of O2 that is measured like what I mentioned earlier is probably wrong.
But, actually you can separate what is oblique vs what in a direct line, probably by designing your sensors in a certain shape; like an inverted geodome, maybe. Set the angles on the geodome so that there is enough overlap between the different sensors that you can compare what they are reading to all of the other sensors; but still have a shallow enough angle to get a big sample range. This should probably make detangling the radiation measurements mathematically less of a pain in the rear than it would be for just one.
Also; understand that this idea is mostly speculation... I am thinking out loud.
How does it work electronically?
Every physicist should take a solid course in applied measuring instrument design. Ideally making people who: if they can dream it, they can build it. ;)
How do the model predictions look when you compare them to the measurements from the different instruments?
Anonymous #2
- Richard Treadgold:ReplyDelete
What you have done is use a very common science denier / science liar trick. You have cherry picked the data.
[QUOTE]
Some have asked if the 'pause' is real or a result of cherry picking. The answer is that there is a 'pause' if the data are cherry picked. First we have to cherry pick the 2 percent of global warming represented by surface temperatures and ignore the other 98 percent. Then we have to cherry pick a sufficiently short time frame to find a flat trend……………………………………………………….
Some have asked if the 'pause' is real or a result of cherry picking. The answer is that there is a 'pause' if the data are cherry picked. First we have to cherry pick the 2 percent of global warming represented by surface temperatures and ignore the other 98 percent. Then we have to cherry pick a sufficiently short time frame to find a flat trend. [/END QUOTE]
[URL] http://skepticalscience.com/does-global-warming-pause-mean-what-you-think.html [/URL END]
Full Paper:
[URL] http://skepticalscience.net/pdf/rebuttal/ipcc-global-warming-pause-intermediate.pdf [/URL END]
IMG: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_1024.gif /IMG END
Finally, the absurd lie that Dr. Pachauri stated that global warming had ceased is just that. A lie by the Rupert Murdoch controlled Australian (lying is very common for Murdoch controlled entities).
[QUOTE]
1. In the fall of 2012 the Met office released a report that stated global warming had staled for the last 16 years.”
No, it did not. The MET also stated the claim above is a lie.
“…from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.”
No scientists are aware of this astonishing “fact” of yours. They state the opposite, in fact. Since 1997 the increase in global average temperature is R^2 = +0.2142 In fact, since year 1997, 15 out of 16 years set record high temperatures.
“…Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises….”
No. Dr. Pachauri did not make that absurd claim, nor did he say anything like it. “The Australian” lied— they made up the claim, as they have done in the past. The actual interview is available in audio format and transcript, and Dr. Pachauri did not make any such claim. More to the point, Dr. Pachauri would no more make that claim than he would say Earth is hollow.
Your cult masters lied to you. Why doesn’t that upset you?
[/END QUOTE]
[URL] http://canadianawareness.org/2013/02/ipcc-head-rajendra-pachauri-acknowledges-17-year-stall-in-global-warming/ [/END URL]
BREAKING INTO TWO PARTS: - Richard Treadgold -- Part Two:
[QUOTE] Ultimately the only statement the Australian article attributes to Pachauri on this subject is that "global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming."
Again note that the story is paraphrasing Pachauri rather than quoting him directly. Had he said that global surface air temperatures have plateaued and that this doesn't disprove global warming, he would be 100% correct. Though it's also worth noting that over the past 17 years, the global surface temperature trend is approximately 0.10 ± 0.13°C per decade, which is most likely positive (warming).
More importantly, over the past 17 years the planet has accumulated the equivalent energy to detonating 3.7 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second, every second. It takes a fundamental misundertanding of the global climate to deny that immense amount of global warming.
[/END QUOTE]
[URL] http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1889[/URL]
[IMG] https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/20580/width668/gvzj8y37-1361767576.jpg [/END IMG]
[QUOTE] To summarise, claims that warming has paused over the last 16 years (1997-2012) take no account of ocean heating.
At the root of the issue is the non-acceptance by some of the reality of the greenhouse effect, known since the 19th century and consistent with the basic laws of greenhouse gas radiative forcing and black body radiation. [/END QUOTE]
[URL] http://theconversation.com/fact-check-has-global-warming-paused-12439 [/END URL]
Richard,
To summarize, you have engaged in the very common, science liar / science denier tactics of repeating several zombie lies. These are lies that have been debunked over and over again. However, no matter how much the lies are exposed and debunked, they keep springing back to life.
-
AnonymousJuly 28, 2014 at 4:33 PM
I
see. Most of the heating could have been occurring as latent heating.
That could account for the rate of deceleration of the temperature.
Umm... that's a not a good conclusion. That *could* lead to a strong positive feedback loop! With the melting of the permafrost.
That's really kind of interesting, though, isn't it? It basically means that ice is a high albedo battery for heat!
...
Which means that it is *not* good if we actually lose the ice.
Anonymous #2
Umm... that's a not a good conclusion. That *could* lead to a strong positive feedback loop! With the melting of the permafrost.
That's really kind of interesting, though, isn't it? It basically means that ice is a high albedo battery for heat!
...
Which means that it is *not* good if we actually lose the ice.
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly 28, 2014 at 4:33 PM
I
see. Most of the heating could have been occurring as latent heating.
That could account for the rate of deceleration of the temperature.
Umm... that's a not a good conclusion. That *could* lead to a strong positive feedback loop! With the melting of the permafrost.
That's really kind of interesting, though, isn't it? It basically means that ice is a high albedo battery for heat!
...
Which means that it is *not* good if we actually lose the ice.
Anonymous #2
Umm... that's a not a good conclusion. That *could* lead to a strong positive feedback loop! With the melting of the permafrost.
That's really kind of interesting, though, isn't it? It basically means that ice is a high albedo battery for heat!
...
Which means that it is *not* good if we actually lose the ice.
Anonymous #2
AnonymousJuly 16, 2014 at 7:58 PM
Dr. Keating,
Did Roy Spencer fabricate that graph in the post that Iceman provided?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
To be honest, I doubt it.
However, I *do* notice that it says that he provides Balloon data for the temperatures that he uses to compare with the model temperature.
A few observations... balloon data is an In-Situ measurement of temperature, it is local. It could potentially be pretty high up in the atmosphere... and unless he is taking an average over all balloon data taken from all over the world... it does not constitute a global temperature measurement.
The satellite data is tricky. Because it is not clear, to me, if the average temperature from the satellite data that he is putting on that graph is coming from IR emissions from the air/ocean/etc.
Trying to de-tangle satellite radiation measurements, in the first place, is a pretty difficult task. I know someone who does this, he has described to me the process, in it's full gory glory; it is not a task for the faint of heart.
How in the heck do you quantify 'average global temperature' in the first place? Do you take the temperature of everything; the ocean, the clouds, the upper atmosphere, the lower atmosphere, the birds and the bees; and call that average global temperature!?
Anonymous #2
ReplyDeleteDid Roy Spencer fabricate that graph in the post that Iceman provided?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
To be honest, I doubt it.
However, I *do* notice that it says that he provides Balloon data for the temperatures that he uses to compare with the model temperature.
A few observations... balloon data is an In-Situ measurement of temperature, it is local. It could potentially be pretty high up in the atmosphere... and unless he is taking an average over all balloon data taken from all over the world... it does not constitute a global temperature measurement.
The satellite data is tricky. Because it is not clear, to me, if the average temperature from the satellite data that he is putting on that graph is coming from IR emissions from the air/ocean/etc.
Trying to de-tangle satellite radiation measurements, in the first place, is a pretty difficult task. I know someone who does this, he has described to me the process, in it's full gory glory; it is not a task for the faint of heart.
How in the heck do you quantify 'average global temperature' in the first place? Do you take the temperature of everything; the ocean, the clouds, the upper atmosphere, the lower atmosphere, the birds and the bees; and call that average global temperature!?
Anonymous #2
Why did the surface temperatures rate of increase decelerate after 1998?
If I understand the theory correctly, we have:
dT = g*ln(C/Co)
C ~ Current Concentration of Greenhouse gas
Co ~ Concentration of Greenhouse gas in the past
g ~ Some constant dictating the rate of increase in temperature
Question... is "g" actually constant?
Anonymous #2